Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the contributions that have been made by colleagues around the chamber in respect of this motion, and I have to say I find it disheartening that so many of the speeches, including the last one by Senator Stewart, try to attribute a motive to this motion. Nobody in this place can attribute a motive to me, which is why I am standing here. Senator Stewart quite rightly asked what else can be achieved by this process, and I think it is a very important question. She mentioned all the regulatory frameworks that exist in the oversight of Indigenous organisations, and I think she gave a pretty complete list. But it is because of the reporting of the oversight of those Indigenous corporations that I am standing here today. It is because of the performance of some of those Indigenous incorporations in estimates, which Senator Stewart also mentioned, that I started being concerned about this.

In fact, it was discussed in the Senate committee that the performance of a couple of the organisations was so bad that we offered them training on attending and providing evidence to us at estimates. It was that bad, and then in estimates earlier in the year, when ORIC provided its report to us on the status of reporting by Indigenous corporations, that report said that 28 per cent of Indigenous organisations had failed to submit their financial reports for two years. When ORIC said nearly a third had failed to report for two years, I became very concerned, and that is when I drafted the first motion that was considered in this place about this matter. And why did I do that? Because clearly we weren't get the answers at estimates, one of the forums at which Senator Stewart said it should be satisfactory for us to ask questions. But clearly we weren't getting satisfactory answers. To be frank, estimates has a limited time frame. We are trying to cram the entirety of Indigenous affairs into one day, and it's not enough, which is something this chamber should consider, to be honest.

But I am not going to have a motive attributed to me by anyone in this chamber as to why I want to support this motion. It is a reflection on a senator to do that, and it is disorderly. I didn't say anything during the debate, but we ought to be able to have these debates in a respectful way and not attribute a motive, so I say that I'm not here to wreck these organisations.

I want them to work properly, that's why I'm standing here. That's why I'm saying what I'm saying, because I want them to work properly. These organisations, as has been mentioned on a couple of other occasions already in this discussion, are the front line of delivery. When I read these four reports from the Auditor-General on top of the advice that I've received from ORIC that 28 per cent of them haven't submitted their financials for two years or more, that they've deregistered hundreds of these organisations because they're not functioning properly, there is something clearly going wrong. I don't think there's anyone in this chamber that doesn't want to improve the circumstances for Indigenous Australians and do things like that which has been eloquently stated by those all around the chamber to improve their lives and close the gap. In government we had measures. We might have disagreed with others politically about what those measures might be, but we had measures supporting Closing the Gap. We continued the process that was set up by the Rudd government when it started the Closing the Gap process. The new government has continued that and is modifying its processes again, as appropriate.

I think Senator Stewart actually belled the cat when she went on to talk about the Voice. This is all about not wanting anything to disrupt the process of the Voice. Effectively what the government's saying to us in that sense is, 'We can't do anything in this place to improve the lot of Indigenous Australians until we get the Voice referendum sorted out.' That's the bottom line. But when you read what's in these reports from the Auditor-General, there are four so far, with another one to come. There's one for the Northern Land Council that hasn't been published yet. That's during the next couple of weeks.

The audit report from the Central Land Council is probably the best of them, I have to say, and I'll give them credit for that. In the snapshot it says the Central Land Council's governance arrangements under the various acts are largely effective. That's a pleasing thing to hear. There are some issues around instruments of delegation, but that's not actually a matter for the land councils. That's a matter for government to fix, and government should get on to do that. We would support that, I'm sure. But where I do become concerned is where it says:

… arrangements to promote the proper use and management of resources under the PGPA Act are largely appropriate, except for arrangements to manage risk of fraud and conflicts of interest.

As has been said, these organisations handle a lot of money. This organisation handles over $100 million. If I go to the Tiwi Land Council and the audit report there—in response to the Auditor-General's report, the Central Land Council has agreed to all recommendations except for a part of one. Quite frankly I think they should reconsider their consideration of that last one. If I go to the Tiwi Land Council, the governance arrangements are only partly effective. The Tiwi Land Council's arrangements to promote proper use and management of resources under the PGPA Act are largely inappropriate. That's what rings alarm bells for me.

I'm not here because I want to have a go or get at anybody, I just want to see these organisations operating effectively. Again, the Tiwi Land Council has accepted the recommendations—tick, well done. This process is a part of the process to improve their governance. That's what we're for. That's what we want to do, too. But the other thing a Senate inquiry will bring that estimates doesn't bring or that ORIC doesn't bring, is the opportunity for other people outside, parts of the Indigenous community, to make representations to the Senate inquiry and have their voice heard. That's what's missing from Senator Stewart's presentation—that this committee can receive evidence from the land councils, and we welcome that and we will talk to them at estimates again, but we can hear representations from outside. And I find it really hard to understand why we can't start fixing things that need fixing now—we have to put it off—unless it's about the Voice.

I go to the Anindilyakwa Land Council. The audit report found:

The ALC's governance arrangements under the ALRA and PGPA Act are partly effective.

There's a similar issue with respect to delegation functions. Again, that's not a fault of the Indigenous corporation. This is an issue of differences between state and Commonwealth acts, which need to be cleaned up, and I'm sure the government will be on that. The report states:

The ALC's governance arrangements under the ALRA are partly effective.

The ALC's arrangements to promote the proper use and management of resources under the PGPA Act are partly appropriate.

It goes on to make a number of recommendations, largely agreed to by the Anindilyakwa Land Council. But recommendation 10 triggers concern for me, because this is an area where we hear levels of concern. Recommendation 10 reads:

The Anindilyakwa Land Council strengthen the royalty equivalents distribution process …

And the council disagrees with that. They may have very good reasons for that. I'm very happy to hear from them and they will probably get asked about that at estimates, too. That's a concerning matter for me. That's why I'm standing here.

I've got four audit reports from the ANAO saying there are issues with governance of these organisations. I've got ORIC saying to me that 28 per cent of them haven't submitted documents for two years. What would happen if ASIC submitted a report to the government saying that 28 per cent of corporations hadn't submitted their financial documents for two years? Why is it that Indigenous communities don't have the same level of oversight?

I made the same point yesterday in respect of an aged care bill, where the government took out the governance requirements for aged-care providers for Indigenous aged-care providers. Why do Indigenous Australians deserve to have fewer governance requirements in their aged-care facilities than everybody else? I simply do not understand this. That's my motive. I want people in residential aged care to get high-quality aged care, whether they're Indigenous, migrant, Australian or whatever. And I want communities around this country to have organisations servicing them that work properly. It's not that complicated. There's no other motive—not for me. That's why I'm standing here.

I've got four audit reports with another one coming, and I'm expecting it to say similar things. And ORIC, the organisation that does the assessments, is providing concerning results with respect to its oversight. So the oversight process is raising flags. What tools do I have in my role in this place to look at it deeper? I can continue to ask questions at estimates—Senator Stewart is right—but there are other people who are also seeking a voice in this. Their voices are being represented by Senator Liddle, Senator Nampijinpa Price and others in this debate, and their voices won't be heard unless we have this inquiry. Their voices won't be heard. That's the thing that's missing from Senator Stewart's discussion.

I go to the NIAA. This is an organisation that's handing out hundreds of millions of dollars. The concerning thing here for me is that the NIAA undertakes few proactive detection activities with relation to potential fraud. Effectively, what they have is a set-and-forget—hand the money out, expect that it will be done properly. That would be fine if everything was working well. But it is a set-and-forget process, unless somebody complains. That is the only reason they will have a look at something.

I mean, the point for me in this whole process is for the Senate to have a genuine inquiry into the governance and operation of these organisations, to make recommendations to support these organisations to serve their communities. This is where the rubber hits the road. This is where we can start making improvements right now. I don't understand why people wouldn't support that process, because it is about improving things for Indigenous Australians right away. There is a mounting pile of evidence to say things aren't right as they are, so let's improve them. Let's go about a proper process, talk to people, give them the opportunity to say their piece. Let members of all of these communities give their evidence, have their voice heard by the Senate and undertake a sensible inquiry process. That is why I'm standing here; that is why I am on my feet today. I don't want anything else. I want Indigenous Australians to get the best, I want to improve things for them and I want to play my part in doing that.