Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

Firstly, I want to note that the Aboriginals Benefit Account has had a range of different administrative oversight arrangements in recent times, which I would suggest probably do not help with ensuring that it is administered and the money is used as effectively as possible. The Aboriginals Benefit Account was established under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. It is worth noting the uniqueness and the importance of the arrangements. Basically, it is money which is generated out of general appropriations. But the amount that is brought out of general appropriations is equivalent to the amount that would be available through royalties for mining on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory.

This money is meant to be used for the benefit of Aboriginal Australians. It is a significant amount of money. The total of what are called royalty equivalents in the year 2006 was $62,648,000. That includes non-uranium royalty equivalents. Non-uranium equivalents of over $52 million were transferred into the ABA in the year 2005-06. It is a significant amount of money: royalties generated from mining on Aboriginal land. One of the problems is that it is still perceived—and this perception is directly acted upon now that the account is administered by the federal government Department of Family and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—as government money that can be spent and is spent for the benefit of Aboriginal Australians as determined by the government.

It was administered by ATSIC prior to its abolition. From 1 July 2003, it was administered by ATSIS on behalf of ATSIC. From 1 July 2004, it was administered by the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination under the former Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. It was then switched across to FaCSIA from January 2006. In the time that it was administered by ATSIC, there was at least some reasonable argument to be made that it was Aboriginal money, generated through the royalties from mining on Aboriginal land, to be spent for the benefit of Aboriginal people under the oversight of ATSIC, which was directly elected by and represented the views of Aboriginal Australians. Now it is administered by the Australian government through FaCSIA, an Australian government department, and the government determines where the money goes and sees it as government money rather than Aboriginal money.

A perfect example of this relates to the new arrangements in the Northern Territory, where recent changes to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act enable 99-year leases to occur more easily under the act. Leaving aside whether you think those changes are positive or negative—and for the Democrats the big concern is not so much whether the changes in themselves are a good idea in theory but the fact that they were made without consultation in any meaningful sense with the people directly affected, the traditional owners of those lands, in what I think was a very poor process—the concern I have is that, even if the leases might be a good idea and be taken up by governments for 99 years, the rental payments for those leases will come out of the Aboriginals Benefit Account. So in effect you have money that should be spent for the benefit of Aboriginal people that the government is going to use to pay the rent back to Aboriginal people. They will use Aboriginal people’s own money to pay them rent on their own land.

It is a perfect example of how money that would otherwise be spent for the benefit of Aboriginal people is being used so that governments do not actually have to spend a single extra cent to pay for leases on Aboriginal land. That shows a key flaw at the heart of this policy. I hope it is the only flaw, but certainly it is one that needs to be watched closely. I would suggest that, even if the 99-year leases are likely to turn out to be positive in some circumstances, the money should be paid by the government. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.