House debates

Wednesday, 1 September 2021

Bills

Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021; Second Reading

5:32 pm

Photo of Linda BurneyLinda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | | Hansard source

[by video link] I rise to speak to the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021. This bill will introduce significant changes to the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 following a recent review carried out by the National Indigenous Australians Agency. The CATSI Act, as it's known, establishes a special form of incorporation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations. It is designed to make it easier for First Nations people to form and manage corporations that reflect their unique needs and practices.

As a special measure under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 the CATSI Act is intended to promote First Nations rights, particularly the right to self-determination. Critically, the act is intended to provide the flexibility for First Nations people to run organisations in accordance with their cultural practice and traditions. It also functions to ensure strong governance. Many of the most valued and recognised organisations are registered under the CATSI Act. They are part of the backbone of our communities, carrying out essential tasks and advocacy on behalf of First Nations people across the country.

Nowhere has this been more plain than in recent times with Aboriginal community controlled health organisations, ACCHOs, which have played such an important role in the pandemic response. There are 143 ACCHOs across Australia employing over 700 workers, half of whom are First Nations people. The majority of ACCHOs are registered under the CATSI Act. Over the course of the pandemic they have been the front line of the response in First Nations communities. Where they have been listened to and adequately resourced we have seen their capacity to provide flexible and effective services to First Nations communities.

Labor strongly supports the continued operation and improvement of the CATSI Act. It is a special measure to promote First Nations economic advancement and self-determination. We welcome the parts of this bill that will make it easier for First Nations organisations to do business and to strengthen transparency. However, if we have learned anything from the pandemic, it's that we must listen to and support First Nations organisations. At a minimum, we owe it to them to ensure that the adjustments we're making to the CATSI Act strike the right balance. We owe it to them to make sure they're supported, not impeded, by the changes to this critical act.

While many First Nations organisations support aspects of this bill, they have also raised significant concerns, including about the consultation process in the development of this bill. Labor notes that the exposure draft bill was available for consultation for just a month, from 8 July to 9 August this year. This was a time when many First Nations organisations, including ACCHOs, were dealing with the growing COVID-19 outbreaks in First Nations communities. This made it difficult for organisations to respond, especially given the complexity of the proposed reforms.

NACCHO, the peak body representing Aboriginal community controlled health organisations has criticised this lack of engagement. In their submission on the draft exposure bill they said:

NACCHO has been disappointed in the cursory approach to engagement undertaken in the review. It is NACCHOs view that the National Indigenous Australian Agency (NIAA) has lost a valuable opportunity to not only demonstrate its commitment to the new process of partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership as set out in the priority reform areas of the new National Agreement on Closing the Gap.

They went on to say:

The main criticism we have of the process with the review of the CATSI Act is that all we have had is consultation and there has been no clear and systematic engagement with senior Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership in the process of the review and in the decision making in relation to the drafting and the preparation of the exposure draft.

They called on the government to delay the progress of the bill to rectify these failures. They also proposed the establishment of a joint governance review group, with key leaders of the community controlled sector. This would provide a vehicle for partnership and shared decision-making in the reforms of the CATSI Act. As far as we can tell, neither of these requests have been fulfilled. These are requests from the Aboriginal health services who, as we speak, are battling to protect the most vulnerable communities.

Other concerns have been raised in relation to the impact on registered native title bodies. These are the organisations established to manage and protect native title on behalf of the traditional owners. Native title bodies are required to and must comply with the onerous regulatory obligations under both the CATSI Act and the Native Title Act. Many native title bodies operate with very limited resources. They also have the challenge of bridging traditional and mainstream law to manage the rights and interests of native title holders.

The Native Title Council raised concerns that the bill ignores the recommendations from the review to create a separate chapter, or division, of the act specifically concerning native title bodies. The Native Title Council supports parts of the bill, but it also identifies a number of impractical and overly onerous changes. They're concerned that the framework could see many organisations, including native title bodies, breach the act because they're too poorly resourced to comply. Others are concerned that changes could increase the risk of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people being manipulated by parties seeking to profit from organisations with Aboriginal status. I am glad to note that the bill has been referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee for inquiry. Labor supports the changes in this bill that make it easier for First Nation organisations to do business. We also support improved transparency and accountability of First Nation organisations. It is essential that representative corporations operate for the benefit of their members and do so in a way that is consistent with strong governance principles, but we must be sure that the right balance is struck and ensure that the self-determination of First Nation organisations is not undermined.

In closing, while we will not oppose the passage of this bill through this chamber, it is important that the broader impacts of the bill are examined. This process will enable the parliament to hear directly from First Nation organisations and interest groups that are most closely affected, including ACCHOs and registered native title bodies corporate. Labor will reserve its final position on the measures in this bill until we've had an opportunity to consider the inquiry's report, which is due to be completed by 14 October 2021. In the meantime, we urge the government to support and adequately resource all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, particularly those community controlled health services that are on the front line of the COVID 19 crisis currently unfolding in western New South Wales.

5:42 pm

Photo of Rowan RamseyRowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021. The electorate of Grey covers over 92 per cent of South Australia. It has an Indigenous population of around eight per cent and includes all of the remote Indigenous communities that sit within South Australia, so I have a deep interest in the outcomes and fortunes of those people. I often say there's quite a category of difference between those who live in remote communities and those who live in urbanised communities, on a lot of different levels. Sometimes it's as simple as language, but there are a lot of other things at work as well. We need respect and to have the ability to deal with them as different organisations with different needs and wants and give them the room to make the decisions that affect their future. That is what this government endeavours to do.

It would be fair to say that over a period of time—I've been the member for 13 years—I have been shocked and disappointed at the income streams that some of these bodies receive, from mining royalties in particular, and yet seem to be doing almost no good at all on the ground. There are a number of them that have been under administration or investigation by ORIC in recent times, but I think it's a far wider and broader issue than just this. This bill recognises the important role that the corporations play in the current management of Indigenous communities.

When we seek, as we do with this legislation, to improve the transparency and accountability of corporations by requiring them to lay any reports they're required to prepare for the registrar before their annual general meetings, including the new remuneration report which will give members an insight into what the key management personnel in their corporation are being paid and how the corporation funds are being spent, I think that's a very important point, because I'm well aware of organisations that don't always have annual general meetings when they should and they do not provide that information. In fact, a complex web of companies can be set up around these organisations—all with the help of highly skilled lawyers who are very expensive—making it very difficult to chase the money trail. I'm appalled at some of the services provided to these organisations by their appointed lawyers. It's not easy for governments to legislate for smart appointments or to come down in this area, because, of course, these organisations are autonomous. They need to operate within the rules that are set and policed by ORIC. But it's difficult and hard work, and there are some things going on with corporations within my electorate at the moment—with payments and lawyers and whatever—that are in dispute.

I think these are very important recommendations. There have been a number of times when I've had people come to me and say: 'We haven't had our meeting. We haven't had our meeting notice. They don't tell us anything. We don't know anything about the finances of our organisation.' You can reach nothing more than the conclusion that people within their own community are taking for their own benefit and that of their friends and families at the expense of others. If there are these significant streams of income coming to these corporations, why don't we see investments in really useful things like low-cost housing projects? We know there is an ongoing issue with finding housing for Indigenous people in Australia. There is overcrowding. We are looking at Wilcannia at the moment, where 12 people in a house is not uncommon. I know some Indigenous people choose to live in bigger groups, but we also know that we could do with more housing. On one hand we have corporations taking millions and millions—tens of millions—of dollars, yet, on the other hand, we don't see them investing in things that would actually be really important to their people.

Anything we can do to improve that process and sharpen up that focus is good. I think reporting on the remuneration of directors and employees is excellent as well. But, at the same time, we need to be able to provide them with the flexibility to make those decisions. I'm very hopeful this legislation will do that. At the other end of the scale, you have corporations that aren't in receipt of the rivers of gold—with income of less than $1,000 per year, for instance. This will allow them to apply not to hold an AGM, because they may not be doing anything of great significance, and that's a perfectly viable case to make.

There's a point to be made here about the application for membership of a corporation and how that needs to be decided within a specific amount of time. These organisations can become a closed shop. Who they accept as contributing members or franchise members can be up to the organisation itself. Once again, it is very difficult for governments to implant themselves in this process, because we want to these communities to make these decisions for themselves. But I'm aware of organisations where this has become a corrupt practice—organisations where only certain people are admitted or where a bit of muscle is exerted on those who might be jumping out of line. So, while we need those corporations to run themselves, manage themselves and make their own decisions, they also need a framework to operate within which, just as it would a district council or any other corporation, compels them to hold the normal meetings and processes which allow for the unbiased and uninfluenced appointment of those people who might become their directors or employees.

We've got to work with the corporations; we've got to try and help them. I know the minister is more than aware of all these situations. I've had long and deep conversations with him. This legislation we see in front of us is an effort by a very committed minister to try and bring about structural change that will actually change the way these communities operate. It will change the way that the committees that control these communities' assets operate and the way they reinvest in their communities' futures, and ensure that individuals do not take the lion's share and leave the rest of the community to scrabble over the crumbs and crusts that fall off the table.

There is provision within the bill to allow for the adoption of modern technology. Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, you're probably just about as sick of Zoom meetings as I am, but it seems that it is the way we are going to have to deal with things through the COVID crisis. I suspect it's one of those changes in society that, in a lot of ways, is here to stay. In the federal parliament, for instance, we do allow contribution online, but we don't allow people to vote online yet. I don't know if we're ever going to get there or not. I'm not arguing for change in this particular place, but I think it makes sense that an organisation meeting in an electronic fashion should be able to carry out a vote, certainly at committee level. It is a little harder at a general meeting, as such, so provision is allowed for in that.

Of course, in general we need these organisations to be fit for purpose and we need them to have a purpose which is more than just being in receipt of moneys and doing what they feel like at the moment. We need them to have a real vision, a plan and an idea of where they want their community to be in five years, for instance. A five-year plan would be a wonderful thing, particularly when you're in receipt of an income stream, and then set parameters that draw the board of the day to make those decisions to achieve those outcomes, and not just focus on the short term every step of the way.

I have been saddened by what I've seen across my Indigenous communities over a period of time. We do a lot of good work. We've got some good people out there working very hard for good outcomes. We've also got some people who are not, and they are the blockers of the system. We need to find a way to get around them and take these people forward and get the most out of all the assets and benefits that are provided to them.

5:53 pm

Photo of Warren SnowdonWarren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for External Territories) Share this | | Hansard source

[by video link] I understand that we've only got until six o'clock and then we'll be going on to other matters—is that correct?

Photo of Sharon ClaydonSharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

That's correct. We will be adjourning for a condolence motion at 6 pm.

Photo of Warren SnowdonWarren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for External Territories) Share this | | Hansard source

I'll attempt to wind up my comments before six o'clock. Can I firstly say that I'm very pleased to be able to speak to the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021. I acknowledge the contributions of the member for Barton and the member for Grey, and I'll come back to the member for Barton's contribution in a moment. The member for Grey talked about how big his electorate is and how many Aboriginal people, First Nations people, reside in it. I don't want to one-up him, but Lingiari is 1.34 million square kilometres, and 43 per cent or thereabouts of the population are Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. So, I have had the experience, over many, many years now—over 30 years—of working directly and indirectly with Aboriginal organisations and corporations. I've seen some that are good and some that are not so good. But I recall the debate that took place around the introduction of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006, CATSI Act, when it was introduced. If my memory is correct, it was done to replace the old Commonwealth councils and associations act. It was done to give us a better body of law for recognising that, as the member for Barton said, it was a special measure. It was designed to give effect and acknowledge First Nations people's right to self-determination and to recognise and incorporate the need for cultural practices within organisations as they were developing. Of course, they vary across the country.

As the member for Barton rightly pointed out, there is some concern which is being registered about the consultation that has taken place around the development of this particular piece of legislation, which the government claims will modernise the CATSI Act and strengthen the governance of First Nations organisations. It has a number of objectives, including to make it easier and less costly for organisations to register and operate under the act; provide more flexibility in business structures that can be adopted by corporations; increase the transparency of corporation operations; streamline the process of winding up defunct corporations; increase corporations' access to modern technology, including for managing membership; and expand the powers of the registrar to respond to noncompliance. As the member for Barton pointed out, First Nations people and organisations have welcomed some of the changes in the bill but have registered their concern about the lack of consultation.

I think it's worth just contemplating for a moment the need to appreciate the range of organisations that might be caught up in this CATSI Act. We could be talking about very small community organisations in remote parts of the Northern Territory, for example, or we could be talking about complex business enterprises and community enterprises in Western Sydney or in South-East Queensland or, indeed, in Darwin. So there is a diverse range of interests. And, of course, what we know is that in remote communities there is an absolute need to provide the assistance that people require to understand the governance obligations they sign up to when they form these organisations. They need to be assisted in managing the governance of those organisations, there needs to be flexibility in the way in which they are administered and the oversight of them needs to be flexible.

I note, as the member for Barton said, that there are 143 Aboriginal community controlled health organisations around this country all doing magnificent work. By and large, they are employers of a large body of people with professional staff. They have good administrative structures, good compliance—their books and their administration are very transparent—and that's to be applauded. But, as NACCHO has pointed out, there's a great deal of concern about the cursory nature of the engagement undertaken by this review for First Nations communities and organisations. It reminds us of the national reform of the Closing the Gap agenda—shared decision-making, building the community controlled sector, improving mainstream institutions and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander lead data. It's very clear from the process which NIAA has undertaken on behalf of the government for the review of this legislation that they seem to have lost sight of those obligations and those undertakings as priority reform areas, because we really do need shared decision-making. So, who are the shared decision-makers with the government around these particular proposals, who have they discussed it with and whose approval have they sought? They say they want to build the community controlled sector. Well, the only way to build a community controlled sector appropriately is to engage properly and not from afar. I'm concerned about the lack of engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations in the development of this legislation, and there have been many critics who have similarly raised their concerns. The shadow minister has made it clear that our intention is to support this legislation but refer it to a committee and reserve our final position until that committee has undertaken its work.

I understand it's now close to six o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker. If it is close to six o'clock and you would like me to sign off, could you just raise a hand? If I've got more time, raise your other hand!

Photo of Sharon ClaydonSharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

You can continue if you have a few more brief remarks to make.

Photo of Warren SnowdonWarren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for External Territories) Share this | | Hansard source

The member for Fenner is very keen to shut me up.

Photo of Sharon ClaydonSharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Sorry, Member for Lingiari; you will be able to continue your speech, but just at another time.

Photo of Warren SnowdonWarren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for External Territories) Share this | | Hansard source

I appreciate that. I'm just giving him prod. I'm quite happy to complete my remarks right now. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

6:01 pm

Photo of Andrew LeighAndrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury) Share this | | Hansard source

I move:

That debate be adjourned, and resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.

Question agreed to.

Debate adjourned.