Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Acting Deputy President. We know that this system is not perfect. Do you know how we know the system is not perfect? It is because I raised these questions during the last Senate estimates. Senator Colbeck, in fact, was in that Senate estimates. He came and spoke to me after about me raising the issue of the complaint dispute resolution mechanism that is in place for ORIC. Those organisations are under the regulator for the fact that they haven't complied with some of the changes under the Native Title Act. This was the issue I raised. It is particular for our Aboriginal corporations, our PBCs. It is like an empty box—it is sitting there, waiting to be used. We come into this place and listen to this motion with people saying 'we've got all these complaints'. Well, what have you done with them? Where have you taken them to? Where have you directed people? And what makes you think that people who don't use a complaints mechanism are then going to come to your inquiry? What makes you think that they are capable of doing that? Are you going to hold all in camera sessions to protect everybody? No, because you are talking about public transparency. Now, Senate estimates is a great time for you all to get your grabs for socials, or even come in here have some of those great moments where you can tell people you're doing things about transparency and accountability. Let me tell you that that's the job of the regulator. It is not the job of the Senate to look at that governance, those processes and those policies.

It will be two years next month that I've been in this place, and I've attended Senate estimates and cross-portfolio in the Finance and Public Administration Committee. Not one senator from that side has talked about AICD governance training or Indigenous governance training to any land council or PBC in that forum. Not one of them has raised these issues directly with them. They've brought their personal issues and their letters that haven't been tabled before they go into conversation. And they come into this place with this motion. It is ridiculous. It's a heated-up version of the one that we saw last time. This chamber is the chamber of scrutiny, yes. But I don't believe that we should be running around, putting in another level of bureaucracy—as Senator Stewart already said—and getting down into the weeds. That's what we are doing. It is a witch-hunt.

I am really grateful that Senator Liddle, in the briefing of this motion, talked to me about the Australian National Audit Office. Senator Colbeck and others have quoted some of those reports. The independent reports quote the governance and acts that they're already governed under. There's the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. Senator Pratt mentioned these too. There's the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 for Northern Territory organisations and there's the Native Title Act 1993. Senator Pratt, Senator Stewart and others have also talked about those independent mechanisms. It's not just ORIC; the NIAA also have a feedback and complaints mechanism to cover the fraud aspects. There's also the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Let's go first to that particular report from the Australian National Audit Office into the governance of the Central Land Council. This report has 11 recommendations, and some of them are specific to governance. One recommendation is aimed at documenting governance arrangements relating to accountable authority. Four of them are aimed at improving governance arrangements under the ALRA. Six are aimed at improving governance arrangements such as the PGPA Act. This report talks about the wording—and Senator Liddle did mention this—around being 'largely effective'. 'Largely effective' means that it is effective. It's working. There is always room for quality improvement, and that is something that the CLC has agreed to. They agreed to 10 of those 11 recommendations, and they partly agreed to one of those recommendations. Is it that they failed to mention that or is it that they selectively excluded the fact that these land councils and organisations have accepted the fact that things are not perfect? It's not 10 out of 10, right?—or 10 out of 11, in this instance—and they are willing to work on the recommendations. They are willing to listen. They are willing to put in the effort.

As Senator Pratt has already said, as the chair of that committee, they travel down here and they sit and listen, or, when people decide to turn up and be in the room, they endure some of the absolute nonsense that is dished up in their direction. The fact is that the Australian National Audit Office is and has been auditing all of the Northern Territory land councils and has done four reports—someone mentioned that there were three; there are actually four, so I want to correct that. It has audited the NIAA. We'll hear many, many issues around the NIAA. I think Senator Farrell said today during question time that it's been 15 months that we've had a new government. Well, then, I would look across to the other side of the chamber and say: what did you do in your decade in power to help our Aboriginal organisations? What did you do to make sure that you were scrutinising the governance of those organisations? You did nothing. You looked the other way.

This will double up the work that is already being done by the independent authority. I can't see how it's going to provide any recommendations or uncover any information that's not already covered under these audits with timeliness. Timeliness is what they talked about on that side during their contributions. I'm not denying that this is not perfect. We're not saying it is perfect. There is a change of guard in some of these organisations regularly, on their boards, so I don't know how much attention people are paying. There has to be an investment in training for those people, in mentoring, in making sure that we are doing our job properly at this end to encourage and support. But I don't see that happening with this motion. If senators from the opposition want to bring any amendments to the acts that govern some of the issues that have been raised in those reports, I'd be more than happy to carefully consider them.

I remind this chamber of recommendation 7 of the A way forward report into the Juukan Gorge incident. This recommendation has been accepted by this government. I think this is a golden opportunity to allow the government to do what they're going to do in relation to it. This recommendation states:

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish an independent fund to administer funding for prescribed body corporates (PBCs) under the Native Title Act 1999.

Recommendation 4 of the same report pertains to reviewing of the Native Title Act, and it reads:

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government review the Native Title Act 1993 with the aim of addressing inequalities in the negotiating position of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the context of the future act regime.

The recommendation also sets out that there should be particular focus on the right to negotiate; replacement of the applicant; operation of the National Native Title Tribunal; free, prior and informed consent; gag clauses; and the setting out of the authority and responsibilities of those PBCs. Both of those recommendations are very clear and have already been accepted by this government. The government have already accepted that they will put them in train. And then we get a motion in this place trying to unhinge that, not allowing the government to do their job.

Lastly, instead of pursuing personal witch-hunts—as I have seen in this debate and in my time here in the Senate and, in particular, in the cross-portfolio Senate estimates, the very tactic that Senator Stewart talked about is the 'no' campaign. This motion comes with little good faith, as far as I'm concerned. This motion comes wrapped up with people being against our PBCs.