Kerrynne Liddle (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Child Protection and the Prevention of Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, and also on behalf of Senator Nampijinpa Price, move:

That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2024:

(a) the role, governance and accountability requirements of Aboriginal Land Councils and/or similar governing bodies across Australia, their respective members and how these are maintained;

(b) the scope of services funded by the Australian Government and delivered by Aboriginal Land Councils or similar governing bodies and Aboriginal organisations, and how they are impacting the communities they act on behalf of;

(c) how services are delivered, their effectiveness and whether other opportunities exist to provide greater community-led benefit to Traditional Owners;

(d) how Traditional Owners are consulted in making decisions that impact on the entire community;

(e) how Aboriginal Land Councils and/or similar governing bodies and Aboriginal Organisations assess applications for funding and development and any reasons for delays;

(f) how the future of Aboriginal Benefit Account funding will benefit communities; and

(g) any other related matters.

Transparency, accountability and outcomes: these three words should underpin everything, and they should be the words that underpin the way taxpayers' dollars are spent by the many organisations for the purposes of which they are intended. But, unfortunately, we know this is not always the case. For too long we have turned a blind eye to their lack of reporting, their lack of accountability and, without a shadow of doubt, their lack of outcomes. If there are exceptions, then let's hear about them, but the people for whom these organisations exist to benefit should also know that they are not perpetually destined for much of the same. I'm not talking about all organisations, but I am talking about exploring how all organisations can do better and to understand their commitment to working towards doing better. Some of these organisations I expect should appear are in charge of millions of dollars meant to be directed to the most vulnerable in our communities. Others are small, but their responsibility to deliver positive outcomes for those most vulnerable is not less important but more necessary.

I've heard many stories and seen it for myself—organisations must be under greater scrutiny. They need their leadership under greater scrutiny if there is any hope of ending this self-interested power play, corruption and collusion. Organisations that are doing the right thing have nothing to fear from this. Today, Senator Nampijinpa Price and I are calling for better outcomes for individuals and communities. It is time to take a serious look into these organisations and find out what's really going on—the good, the bad, the ugly, the very ugly.

No referendum, no voice can fix the problems that are plaguing Indigenous Australia. The solution starts with looking at self, not at others. Two reports have increased my frustration and concerns. Indigenous Australians—in fact, all Australians—have an interest in these reports. The ANAO independent performance audit of the National Indigenous Australians Agency, known as NIAA, and the Productivity Commission's draft report of the review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap are the two reports, if you need more evidence. In fact, if you are objecting to this then you are simply ignoring the facts and protecting the status quo, and that is far from good enough. Stop this absurdly racist double standard. The highest expectations for the most vulnerable in Aboriginal communities are a minimum. We're hearing about accountability in a major consulting firm—we just heard about that—so what is different here?

The two reviews cast a very dark cloud over how the rivers of money are being managed. The alarm bells have been ringing loudly for a very long time. It is not a short list. The audit found the NIAA, the organisation that the minister is responsible for, is not meeting legislative requirements for risk and fraud management. Raising the biggest red flag is the NIAA's failure to commence even a single fraud investigation in 2020-21. The NIAA has handed out more than $1 billion in funding to more than 1,000 external providers but has failed to properly detect or manage any fraud. Its management of provider fraud and noncompliance risk is partly effective, although it is not consistently or sufficiently considered as part of grant design and establishment processes, so frameworks for managing provider fraud and noncompliance are not fully fit for purpose. That's a lot, isn't it? But wait, there is still more.

The NIAA's arrangements for the prevention, protection and referral of potential provider fraud and noncompliance were only partly effective. The NIAA's triage, management and resolution of referred matters related to potential provider fraud and noncompliance were also partly effective. Of the eight new revised or extended grant opportunities at February this year, just one had a finalised risk assessment that considered fraud risks. The NIAA's program compliance and fraud branch has not provided adequate monitoring, review or reporting on forward risk assessments. Relevant, mandatory and nonmandatory training is offered; however, it is out of date. And there was no corruption control testing between July 2020 and December 2022. Let's stop and think for a second about what I have just outlined. Not a single fraud investigation, practices that are out of date, not consistent or sufficient, only partly effective.

This behaviour is occurring within an executive agency that operates under the Public Service Act, and it is the lead agency for Commonwealth policy development, program design, implementation and service delivery for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. How is that even close to leading practice? How is that anywhere close to demonstrating operating standards in action? High expectations, and who is responsible? Well, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Minister Burney, the assistant minister Senator McCarthy and, ultimately, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. The NIAA's partly effective practices, out of date training, failure to investigate and other shortcomings are just simply not acceptable. They're not acceptable to me and should not be acceptable to anyone in this chamber, this parliament and certainly not to Indigenous Australians or Australian taxpayers.

But listen, do you hear the Albanese government demanding for a fit-for-purpose risk framework and for the enterprise group fraud and program risk assessments to be aligned, even though this is not occurring at present? No, you don't. Wake up, Australia! This type of accountability is becoming standard, and the Albanese government prefers instead to talk about other things. Despite being directly responsible for the NIAA, the minister chooses to prioritise other stuff. Add to that the many examples of outstanding annual reports and other governance compliance not being met by government funded Indigenous bodies and service providers, and it is easy to see why we have a glaring problem. Millions and millions of dollars are flowing down the river without question—no checks, no balances, just partially effective. We don't even really understand the extent of it, because nobody has the frameworks in place to properly assess risk, to properly manage issues, to even properly manage complaints, let alone the response time it takes to consider, to look at and to investigate when there are questions raised. I actually agree with Senator Hanson, who said in an interview in July:

How can we have confidence our taxes are going where they should if the NIAA is not following the rules to guard against frauds?

It's hard to disagree with that. As I said, transparency, accountability and outcomes—that's what changes the dial. If we applied those principles to every one of the billion dollars spent by the NIAA in funding to the more than 1,000 external providers, I can guarantee that life for those marginalised Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people among the 800,000 Indigenous Australians being targeted by the funding would be much better. It doesn't need further bureaucracy to tell you that.

There's no reason to expect anything less. The NIAA has a large national footprint, with more than 1,200 employees, including over 40 earning in excess of $220,000 a year, spread across offices in remote, regional and urban locations. That workforce should ensure the basics of management and good governance are carried out. As stated in one of the NIAA audit report's key messages:

Where programs involve payments going to providers, there should be organisational commitment to the prevention and detection of fraud and the identification and remediation of provider non-compliance.

Are you serious? That's what they say, and yet they're not doing it themselves. We must remember that every dollar spent by the government is a dollar earned by someone else. It's a dollar every Australian should be expecting should be spent wisely. Taxpayers deserve to have the government hold every dollar to account and make existing frameworks accountable. Even on its website, the NIAA states:

… our decisions must be transparent, our policies justifiable and our practices beyond reproach.

So why isn't it occurring? I didn't make this up; you can't make this up. It's there in a written report of one of our own agencies that looks at auditing. There's a frighteningly similar picture painted in the Productivity Commission's draft report of its review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. The draft report finds governments have made little progress towards the agreement and its four priority reforms, which is limiting improvements in life outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It states:

Progress in implementing the Agreement's Priority Reforms has, for the most part, been weak and reflects a business-as-usual approach to implementing policies and programs that affect the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

That doesn't give me much hope. That's right—a business-as-usual approach. There's no accountability, no demanding of outcomes for every single dollar spent. For every night we go home and we sleep in a comfortable bed, when these programs aren't delivered to maximum effect, there is a victim. Sometimes they're invisible, but there is a victim. They're depending on us to do a better job, not absolve responsibility to someone else. That report goes on to say:

Current implementation raises questions about whether governments have fully grasped the scale of change required to their systems, operations and ways of working to deliver the unprecedented shift they have committed to.

Senators Nampijinpa Price, Thorpe and Hanson and I have been among the growing loud chorus asking why only four of the 19 Closing the Gap targets are improving. Who is being held to account and where are the outcomes? Start looking at those 1,000 organisations. No constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament is going to fix the multitiered system costing billions of dollars yet failing to deliver those outcomes.

If you want an example of how service providers are letting making progress on improving the lives of Indigenous Australians fall through what is a chasm, look no further than your own town and community. These organisations exist to improve the lives of people who they deliver service to. This request is to give voice to those who know, who say, who can give examples of how it can be done better. What we need is to fix what is broken, and, to fix it, first we need to find out just what's going on. That's why this inquiry is so important.

We have an obligation to fix what's already in place. We have an obligation to consider common sense and commitment to ethical practice and to expect that the organisations themselves and those that fund them have checks and balances in place for the better. I've had constituents from South Australia talk regularly about what they view as maladministration, mismanagement, corruption and fraud—this from courageous people who speak up but who see nothing is really done in terms of change and reform. Indeed, when the Commonwealth does investigate, it can be two years before an investigation is completed, so, if there's an issue, nothing is done for the entire time while the organisation gets their act together. That's a lot of damage. That's a lot of lives impacted in that time frame, and not for the better, either. A quick read of the annual reports of these organisations will tell you something is wrong. It's an indication of issues of transparency, accountability and compliance, and yet some of these organisations haven't even publicly released their annual reports. It's a joke. It's simply ridiculous. It is taxpayers' money, and it's not an endless bucket. Consider the native title system. There were huge expectations then, too, for those lucky enough to be on land where there is development and resources. You don't hear much about that anymore. In some cases, the so-called intergenerational benefit is being sucked up by a single generation of greedy, aggressive individuals.

Now let's turn to land councils. You look at the ANAO report into just one of the land councils and the words used to describe what it has been doing: only 'largely effective'; 'could be improved'; and 'largely effective'. It says:

The CLC's—

in this case, the Central Land Council—

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

Are you serious? This is not new. Managing conflicts of interests and fraud—there's a recurring theme here. We need to demand better from these organisations. The next generations deserve better.

Prime Minister Albanese is in no way fulfilling his regular mantra of getting better outcomes and closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by listening. Why isn't he listening now? Without that action, Australians are being provided a front-row seat to a hazard that lies ahead. We need to stop talking, stop dancing around what is occurring under the government's nose and start doing what's right. We should begin doing the work that makes the change for the better. When you have many Indigenous organisations such as land councils failing to comply, you're not setting a very good example. We deserve better. Transparency and accountability right now.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I oppose this motion, as does the Labor government. As the Chair of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee of the Senate, where we already have a role in oversight of these agencies, including through the estimates process, I know the Senate and the committee have worked hard to support the very organisations that you seek to bring into your purview to attack in a references inquiry. We have supported them in their education and training to be accountable to the Senate and therefore to the broader community, and we have asked questions. I have to say I have seen some of these small native title organisations having to travel, at great expense, from remote places in Australia to attend estimates—and rightly they should—to only have a few short, very politically motivated questions directed at them and, indeed, to be dismissed by other senators without further questioning. I also think the timing of this inquiry is highly politically motivated in the context of work that's happening in the broader community to support a 'yes' vote in the upcoming referendum.

Those opposite will laugh and snicker, but it proves my point in the context of this debate, that this is a diversion by those opposite that I think, frankly, diverts the resources of community organisations who want to serve their communities and, indeed, raise the voices of people they represent inside those organisations. Whether they be land councils, prescribed body corporates or other registered organisations under the registry of Aboriginal controlled organisations there's a great diversity of work going on in all of these Aboriginal led organisations. They need to have clear air and space to do that work, and also to participate in the referendum, to get their message to wider Australia about why Indigenous led and controlled organisations—and those organisations having clear rights and powers and autonomy of their own—is important to our nation and to the wellbeing and empowerment of First Nations people right around Australia.

In that context, I want to highlight that in addition to this parliament these organisations are scrutinised by the Australian National Audit Office, which has finalised and released performance audits into three of the Northern Territory land councils this year. They are robust and rigorous audits. You can look at those reports anytime you like.

The ANAO looked at the Central Land Council over a whole year. They interviewed staff, observed records, looked at their council. The audit found the arrangements were largely appropriate and that the land council is working on each of the ANAO's recommendations. It was not an expectation that these organisations would be perfect, but a clear audit and support that enables them to engage with their members, lift their standards and get on with the work that they are mandated by law to do, rather than your politically motivated attacks, is how our democracy and oversight is supposed to work. The Central Land Council is, for example, publishing six-monthly updates on progress and the implementation of the report.

We have a National Anti-Corruption Commission, a Commonwealth Ombudsman. The organisations are also subject to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. Many of these organisations are also governed by state legislation. And I have to say some of the difficulty that organisations can find—look, you could create terms of reference that look at how we can better support and empower organisations by getting red tape out of their way, but that is not what you propose to do in this diversionary reference that you have got before us.

Really importantly, organisations registered under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act, the C(ATSI) Act, are regulated by the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations. And you can see from the robust work that that organisation does with organisations, and there are many thousands of them, that they play a key capability and auditing role. We heard from the regulator about how they move unregistered organisations that might not have met their registration requirements out and deregister them. We heard how they really look to make sure that people meet their accountability and appropriateness for registration. Essentially this means that in order to be registered you need to have met the management and corporations and democratic or underlying principles within the governance documents of each organisation.

We know ORIC to be an effective organisation in registering Indigenous groups that want to incorporate or transfer their registration to operate under the C(ATSI) Act. I've seen the work that they do in supporting organisations to run properly according to their own rules and culture while maintaining consistency with both state and Commonwealth laws. It's not an easy thing to do, I imagine, in terms of how you incorporate cultural law and practice from a particular mob into the tenets of an organisation as well as operating within state and Commonwealth law, not to mention, of course, the Corporations Act, which in turn would see all of these organisations regulated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

So if those opposite have specific concerns about these organisations, I call on them to bring them to the attention of the relevant authority immediately. Take it to ORIC. Take it to the ANAO. Take it to the crime and corruption commission.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: we on this side listened respectfully when Senator Liddle made her contribution. I ask you to ask them to do the same for our speakers.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask all senators to be courteous to one another as they are listening to the contribution of other speakers.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion before us is nothing more than another distraction from the 'no' campaign on the referendum. If you have concerns about these organisations then I want to know what you've done to bring them to the attention of the relevant authority. If you have seen a breach in the rules of an organisation then I should expect that you reported them and that we should see from ORIC and the ANAO oversight and improvement to organisations.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators, it is late in the afternoon. These are sensitive debates. I have asked senators to display courtesy to one another. It is true government senators listened to the contributions of other senators in silence. If we can proceed on that basis, the chair would be much appreciative.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my view, land councils and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations are already subject to high levels of scrutiny and accountability. But I would also contend that, if you want to see that oversight of organisations by government and government controlled agencies improved, a good way of doing that is to support a voice to parliament so that Indigenous people right around Australia can critique organisations and have their own input through these institutions and through a voice, telling the government what they expect in terms of our oversight function. Frankly, I don't want to get in the middle of some of the family debates inside Indigenous organisations that are really highly local. You might want to bring in personal family and other issues. I've seen attempts to do that.

No, sorry. I'll withdraw if you took that as a personal imputation. I did not mean it that way.

What I'm trying to say is we do need robust governance. We need scrutiny from First Nations people who are able to bring their voice to this place, to our parliamentary committees, and tell us what kind of oversight they want for these organisations. For example, we are yet to debate, should the Voice be successful, what kinds of powers a Voice to Parliament might have. We may well decide to give it powers so that it has some direct scrutiny over these organisation.

Well, you won't get to decide if you don't participate, Senator Thorpe. We might, in consultation with First Nations people, decide—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You'll decide.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I mean—through you, Acting Deputy President—that, collectively, the parliament might decide how it might grant powers to the Voice in order to present its concerns to the parliament and to government. We've got to work out what kinds of audit or other powers we might give it in order that it might be able to collect evidence to present to this place.

I truly believe that those opposite and Senator Thorpe are more interested in playing politics than in finding solutions. I see nothing but political attacks being mounted, rather than the creativity, support or community engagement that would see us build up organisations, support their accountability, support their connection with community and support outcomes for First Nations people through self-determination through Indigenous controlled organisations.

Aboriginal organisations are already subjected to high levels of scrutiny and accountability. In April this year the Central Land Council's elected deputy chair, Warren Williams, said the CLC was tired of politicians:

… playing politics with the grass roots organisations our old people have built to advocate for our rights and interests.

We have seen calls from these organisations, who are tired, frankly, of being attacked by members of this place in order to serve a political agenda. I understand there are legitimate or illegitimate grievances and debates that get into the accountability within organisations, but the way that you put forward as a path to resolution and engagement is nothing but a pathway to disaster and grief for organisations already under attack from the opposition. I personally support these remarks of Warren Williams:

We have many good men and women who are trying hard to make our communities better places, who are desperate to be heard …

He went on to say:

… Senator Price's divisive approach isn't helping.

For me, on this side, I want to see a priority on addressing these issues in community engagement through constitutional recognition through a voice. I want to see recognition so that we can see better outcomes in housing, in listening and in better results. I want to see the Uluru Statement from the Heart implemented.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I encourage the chamber to listen to the contributions of all senators in silence.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand this is a sensitive debate and I'm not about bringing down land councils and Aboriginal organisations. I was part of the Aboriginal health service in Victoria as a first baby in that service when it was established by my grandmother. In those days, Aboriginal services were set up in the name of self-determination. In those days, organisations weren't subjected to oppressive government regimes, as they are today.

Our organisations have to report to the government and adhere to the government's agenda; otherwise, they simply don't get the funding that they need to be able to run a service. I understand the importance of our services—don't get me wrong—and as a Gunnai Djab Wurrung Gunditjmara woman, I've been brought up into Aboriginal organisations and corporations. But what I have seen in the last 30 years is an industry—the black industry—and the only people who benefit from that are the government, the lawyers, the anthropologists and the mining companies. For 30 years I've been watching this.

My first native title meeting in Gippsland was when I was 17, and what was happening then? The white lawyers were sitting up the front telling the elders what to say, what to do. And what did the elders do at the end of the day? They sold off our land. They negotiated a settlement agreement which allows logging. We had a white CEO who came from Parks Victoria and what did he do? He allowed all his mates in to tell our people how great logging is and they approved logging in the Central Highlands. Who benefited from that? He and his mates. What benefit did that give to the Gunnai people? Zero. In fact, it killed our totems.

Corporations these days are creating a middle-class black environment that has forgotten about their poor cousins that are incarcerated, that are hungry, that are struggling to survive. We have a middle-class of blackfellas now that drive the deadly cars and have all the resources. They give a hundred bucks here and a hundred bucks there. But traditional owners on the ground, who you are hearing the statistics about, get nothing. They don't even hear about a meeting to decide on logging and gas. Traditional owners don't hear about it until a year later. Djab Wurrung trees—a million bucks for those trees, a million dollars to knock that tree down. Who benefited? One board member of a native title corporation. All the trees that got taken down along Djab Wurrung country are sitting in a garage on his property still today—still today! No-one questions that. There is no accountability, no transparency.

These corporations need to be looked into. I have had board member after board member plead with me to have some kind of investigation or forensic audit on these corporations that don't care about the people that they purport to represent. People in the Latrobe Valley are so poor that we have young people stealing food from our old people and we have a deadly native title corporation up the road that is raking in millions. You want to talk about CLC? CLC didn't even allow a lawman, Ned Hargraves, who lost his nephew through a shooting at Yuendumu, through the door of a meeting, and he is a member. What do you say about that, Senator Pratt?

This is ongoing and will continue to be ongoing unless we hold these corporations accountable. They must be transparent and they must tend to the needs of the people they say they represent. We have corporations that are going into deals with mining companies and with construction companies and are making an absolute fortune, which is great. But only the board members benefit or the family of the board members. Senator Stewart knows what that's all about. Her husband ran a traditional owner corporation in Victoria, and now he is on the Voice committee. It is also quite valuable to get into the perks so that you can get picked up by Labor. Most of the 'yes' people are heads of corporations and organisations that Labor pay to tell them what to say and do—disgusting behaviour. It's disgusting, Labor, and you know it. You know that your mates in the corporations and the organisations are the ones you need to sign off on the gas projects. Beetaloo basin, Greens! You want to stand up and be all deadly about saving the planet, yet you won't support a motion that stops the dirty deals from happening. Shame!

Gas projects like the Beetaloo happen because Labor need them to happen, so Labor pick their black fella, who is probably hungry, and they say: 'We'll look after you. The mining company's coming, and we'll give you a car and we'll give you a couple of jobs. Just sign this. Sign this so we can frack your country.' And you benefit from that, Senator Pratt. You benefit from that, not the traditional owners at the Beetaloo and not Ned Hargraves, a lawman, a Warlpiri man, who can't even go to his own native title meetings because the CLC won't let him in the door.

Before I became a politician, I did a petition for more transparency and accountability in Aboriginal organisations. There were 250 signatories to that, and a lot of them were CEOs of organisations. This has been going on for far too long, and it is the corporatisation that have killed our communities. It's also the government control and oppressive regime to pick your hand-picks, like you did with your Voice. 'Yep, there's a 'yes' man and another 'yes' man, a 'yes' woman, and we've got them in the corner because they're the CEO of the corporation or the chairperson, so we know we've got them on board. We've got this.' What was the whole Uluru dialogue business full of? Organisations and corporations.

They are leaving the people behind. Do you think we would have half the troubles we have today if we could just have a piece of the pie, a piece of what these corporations are raking in on our behalf? We just want them to share, but we can't even get in the door. We have seismic testing going on on Eastern Maar country—Greens, hello—because some dodgy person signed off on a deal on behalf of the corporation and did a deal with the government and the mining company. I attended the National Native Title conference. Guess where that was? At the MCG. They had all the fandangle—I reckon it would have cost them a million bucks to put on that conference. And who turns up? The land councils, the corporations and the mining companies. The mining companies were at the National Native Title conference with their show bags, conning our people.

Those corporations and organisations, they were set up for self-determining reasons, not to be controlled by government like they are. And Labor need dodgy corporations to get things over the line. Labor have demonstrated that through the dodgy Voice process. They've already demonstrated they'll leave all grassroots mobs behind and anyone who questions what they're doing. 'Just get all the "yes" people and captains picks, and we'll be right.' Well thousands and thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across this land have asked me to inquire into the land councils and the corporations. They've asked me to hold them accountable for representing them in their truest form.

I went to the Macarthur River, and I met TOs there. Do you know they told me? 'We just have to do what the Northern Land Council tells us. We've got five clans here, but we've got to listen to the Northern Land Council. They're our representative, even though we don't agree with what they're saying. We hear about the meetings after they've happened. They don't send a bus for us. We don't get a notice.' And so the dodgy deal just goes ahead anyway. So don't talk to me, Labor, with your whitesplaining speeches on what you think is best for us and what your experience has been. I come from community control and I live for community control, and what is happening in land councils and corporations these days is not community control. It is not. It is so far from it that it makes me sick, let alone the thousands of blackfellas who are missing out, and watching these deadly blackfellas with their million-dollar homes while we've got homeless people living next door or sleeping next door.

I'm not asking for this for the wrong reasons. And it's not what the previous Labor senator said or what the next Labor senator will say, or the Greens senators who are all opposing this, because they are 'yes' people. They are the 'yes' people. They are the ones dealing with the corporations and the organisations to get the deals done. They're not putting the people first. They don't care about self-determination or sovereignty. We need justice in all areas of our lives, and we need less government interference. We need to self-determine our own destiny, but it has got to be transparent and accountable. If we don't stop these land councils from making the wrong decisions, having whitefellas running these organisations and land councils and telling elders what to do and what to say—it's disgusting.

You talk about the National Audit Office. The Audit Office itself said that there were problems in the land councils, so I don't know which page you read. We want accountability and transparency and for corruption to end so that our people get what these organisations are meant to be giving. I seek leave to move some amendments together.

Leave granted.

I move:

After paragraph (a), insert:

(aa) the interactions between corporate governance of these organisations and cultural governance protocols, and challenges arising from these interactions;

Omit paragraph (d), substitute:

(d) the effectiveness of service delivery and ensuring community-led benefit to Traditional Owners;

Paragraph (e), after "impact on the entire community", insert ", including adherence to the principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent".

Paragraph (f), omit "and any reasons for delays".

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Wow! I don't think Senator Thorpe will be upset with me for saying this, but I do think that Satan might be skiing to work today because I'm not quite sure anyone thought Senator Thorpe and I would ever be on a unity ticket. Yet here we are. Unbelievable.

The contribution we heard from the ALP reinforced that—I caught up with someone not long ago who is a Voice supporter. The point they made to me in complete exasperation was that every time a 'yes' supporter opens their mouth, they actually push more people to the 'no' vote. I certainly think—and Senator Thorpe used the term, so I hope she doesn't mind me adopting it—that we heard 'whitesplaining' in condemnation of this motion and amendment put up by three Indigenous women: their motives were impugned; their reasons for doing this were somehow ill-conceived and perhaps, if they took the time to think about it and present it differently, the ALP may grant these Indigenous women the grace of supporting their motion. We know that that will never happen, because we know that Senator Liddle and Senator Nampijinpa Price are not only the wrong kind of women because they're conservative women; they're the wrong kind of Indigenous women. We know that they're the wrong kind of voice. They've been joined today by Thorpe, being brought together in a group as the wrong kind of Indigenous voice, trying to push for integrity and transparency.

Does anyone else remember the federal election campaign, when this was a government that was promising integrity and transparency? That was one of their bases: 'We are going to be full of integrity when we make our decisions, and how we make those decisions is going to be transparent.' It's like the $275 we were going to get off our energy bill. It was clearly just a slogan and rhetoric. It had no meaning for them, because, from the second this government came to be, they have done nothing but show a complete lack of integrity and have done everything they can to absolutely hide the basis of their decisions and dirty deals. They demonstrate a complete lack of transparency.

To Senator Liddle's point, it is absolutely time that Minister Burney stood up and took responsibility. If I hear Minister Burney, standing up, almost in floods of tears, saying once more that we need the Voice because we've got to close the gap and that all these things are so terrible—what are you doing today, Minister Burney? What have you been doing in the 16 months since you got in? You've done absolutely nothing to improve the lives of Indigenous people. You've done absolutely nothing to actually oversee any of these organisations and make sure they're delivering outcomes. Minister Burney, this is absolutely criminally culpable. If you know that there are things that need to be reformed and things that need to be done but you're sitting on your hands saying you can't do anything unless the Voice vote passes, that is absolutely criminal. If you know that there are things to be done, Minister Burney, do them today. Start getting on with the work, because we know that there are Indigenous organisations, such as land councils, that are failing to comply with what would be basic governance standards.

Again, by pushing 'yes' voters into the 'no' camp, how can anyone have any trust in this Voice proposal? How can there be any basis of truth that this is a modest change, as we've heard—which we know is a fallacy? How can there be any trust among the Australian people that the Voice in our Constitution will not be just a repeat of ATSIC? We don't know.

We've now heard that those opposite, buddying up with the Greens, are going to oppose any examination of the thousands of Indigenous groups that we know are failing when it comes to governance. It is absolutely extraordinary. I also just heard Senator Thorpe mention the Central Land Council and the audit report. I've got a quick snapshot of it here. What was interesting was that, when the audit council came back with what they found regarding instruments of delegation and how authorisations occurred, they said these could be improved. There's a lack of clarity as to whether the accountable authority can even delegate. We need a bit of improvement there. What we do know, which I think is even more damning, is about the CLC's arrangements in regard to the proper use and management of resources. Keep in mind that, when we talk about their resources, we're talking about $80.2 million. We're not talking about a couple of hundred grand. We're not talking about a small drop of change. We're talking about $80.2 million in 2021-22. I'm pretty sure we can assume that's got up a bit. This was distributed to traditional landholders, but who was it distributed to? How do we know who received that money?

The Auditor-General's report found that their arrangements were 'largely appropriate, except for arrangements to manage the risk of fraud and conflicts of interest'. What was alluded to by Senator Pratt when she referred to 'family members' and then withdrew that because an inference was clearly being made towards another senator? When she made that inference, was she making the inference because she knows what those conflicts of interest are? She is aware that $80.2 million is not necessarily being distributed to who it should be distributed to but who it deems it might like to distribute it to. However, we don't know because we can't get to the bottom of this, even though the Auditor-General's report has come back saying that it's not up to spec.

Remember those opposite talking about 'integrity and transparency'. Those things went out the window with the $275 off our electricity bills. Those things absolutely went out the window because they don't want transparency and integrity when it comes to how the Central Land Council gets to distribute $80.2 million. I can promise you it's not going to the Indigenous people it should be going to. Everybody knows that. In fact, it's absolutely insincere for anyone in this place to say that they think, hand on heart, that money is being distributed in the way it should be a hundred per cent of the time. I'd say even maybe 90 per cent of the time or maybe 60 per cent of the time. Senator Liddle, what do you reckon—through you, Chair?—maybe 10 per cent of the time?

Kerrynne Liddle (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Child Protection and the Prevention of Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who would know?

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Who would know?' And this from an Indigenous Australian who doesn't know. But don't worry, we've got Senator Pratt, who can whitesplain to us that Senator Liddle and Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Thorpe are incorrect in putting forward any sort of reference to look at these organisations.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You weren't whitesplained to. The whitesplaining was done over this side.

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Aren't you now?

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm explaining to you what your colleague said, Senator Stewart. I've got to say, I've been mansplained a whole lot of times.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But you are now, right.

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

Stop whitesplaining to us.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm supporting my colleagues and Indigenous Australians—

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's ridiculous!

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are Indigenous Australian women that are absolutely denigrated. Do you remember question time the other day? I think it was you, Senator Liddle—or was it Senator Price?—who asked a question. It was followed very quickly by a question from Senator Ciccone, to which Senator Wong responded: 'Isn't it nice to see someone who's got a genuine interest in Indigenous affairs?' What an insult! We have Senator Wong suggesting that a white man has more interest in Indigenous affairs than an Indigenous senator. What a disgrace. That just shows the absolute contempt that those opposite have.

We see the 'no' voting increasing and we see the 'yes' voting going down—

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Pratt!

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank you all for the contribution you make to the way those polls are going. Every time you dismiss Senator Nampijinpa Price or Senator Liddle and you diminish the roles of the Indigenous voices that you don't like, it actually just helps boost those in the 'no' camp. It also brings people across to the 'no' camp because they know that this will just be an absolute stitch-up by the Labor Party. Senator Thorpe was right. The people that agree with it will make sure that the rorts and the handouts and the scams continue. They don't want transparency, they don't want good governance. Imagine if we had good governance in the unions. Imagine how that'd go. Jeez, Louise! That'd be fun. Everybody would be busy for years on that.

Senator Liddle and Senator Nampijinpa Price, I commend you for bringing this motion. I would urge all members who claim that it's important that we have Indigenous voices, that we hear the Indigenous voices and that we hear from Indigenous voices in the community who understand what's happening at the coalface who need to tell us what they want, that you should support this motion.

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am so glad that Senator Hughes wants to hear from Indigenous voices because she's about to get a couple of minutes of the best. I want to be really clear about what this is about. This motion proposed by Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Liddle is nothing but a witch-hunt. It is an absolute witch-hunt into our community organisations. That is what this is.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What are they afraid of?

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would question to what ends, actually? To what ends?

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Stewart, my apologies, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes, cease your interjections.

Honourable senators interjecting—

If everyone could please cease their interjections. You have a point of order, Senator O'Sullivan?

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe that was an imputation because she was inferring a motive. I think she should withdraw that last comment.

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to withdraw.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Please cease the interjections across the chamber. Senator Stewart has the call.

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know about other First Nations senators in this place, but if I was to be mentioned in the same sentence as Senator Hanson I'm not sure I'd be bragging about that. But somehow it's a sense of pride on that side. Shame on them!

There is already ample opportunity to scrutinise the governance and administration of key Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative organisations. If those opposite have specific concerns they want to raise about the things they've been told are happening in these organisations, then they should immediately raise it with the appropriate authority instead of going on this witch-hunt and using the parliament to hunt down our Aboriginal organisations. It is an absolutely shameful use of this place. We just heard Senator Thorpe say, 'We need less government interference,' but she is supporting a motion which will draw Aboriginal organisations to an inquiry. What a contradiction!

As my colleague Senator Pratt has already outlined, there has been an exhaustive process through estimates already. Since we came into government there have been six budget estimates hearings into Indigenous affairs. Let me set out what they are; some people might have missed it. On 11 November last year there was six hours. There was a spillover meeting on 24 November last year for three hours. There was a second spillover hearing on 12 December for 2½ hours. On Friday 17 February 2023 there was a hearing for eight hours. There was a spillover hearing on 21 March this year for almost three hours. There was a hearing on 24 May for 12½ hours. That's over 35 hours of budget estimates hearings in just 12 months—sounds like scrutiny and accountability to me. It's generated 1,080 questions on notice—sounds like scrutiny and accountability to me. And members will have the opportunity again in October, at the next estimates hearing, to ask questions—another opportunity for scrutiny and accountability. Absolutely, you should take that up.

In addition to this parliament, these organisations are subject to scrutiny from other oversight bodies including: the Australian National Audit Office, with their regular review schedule; the Australian National Anti-Corruption Commission, a key election commitment by the Albanese Labor government that we have delivered on because we believe in transparency and accountability; and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. These portfolio organisations are also subject to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. Across Australia, many of our orgs are governed by state legislation too. They are oversighted by their own parliaments and similar bodies such as state ombudsmen and state anticorruption bodies. Organisations registered under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006, the C(ATSI) Act, are also regulated by ORIC.

I would like to see senators explain what they'd like to see with another layer of bureaucracy. Please explain what more you would like to see with another layer of bureaucracy that doesn't already exist for Aboriginal organisations. This is entirely a political stunt, an absolutely shameful one. If we want Aboriginal land councils, governing bodies and organisations to be the strongest they can be, we need to support them to strengthen their service delivery models in a way that best suits and serve their communities—not this stunt. If we want our nation to move forward, we will need to stand up together. We will need to stand strong together, not go on a hunt after our orgs.

As the Federation of Victorian Traditional Owner Corporations and I have discussed, traditional owner corporations are already some of the most oversighted organisations in Australia. In my home state of Victoria, there are 11 formally recognised groups under various legislations—whether it be the Native Title Act, the Traditional Owner settlement act, the Aboriginal Heritage Act—covering around 75 per cent of the lands now known as Victoria. These 11 organisations are held accountable by their members, primarily, but they are also scrutinised through their annual reporting to ORIC, through elders councils and youth councils, through government funding bodies and through government funding acquittals reporting, often to multiple agencies. And that is not to mention the high level of scrutiny and questioning at native title full group meetings, at annual general meetings and the ongoing community consultation and project meetings. There are so many opportunities for accountability and transparency in their own communities—and to whatever body you want to point to. The corporations are community led. The governance boards come from the community.

But these mobs want to go after them. I will say it again: this is entirely political. Why don't those opposite trust Indigenous Australians to manage our own affairs? It's a great question. I've heard, time and time again, accusations towards our organisations and towards our people that tell me that you don't trust First Nations people to manage our own affairs, including the fact that you don't want us to have a voice. We are part of cultures that are more than 65,000 years old. We've been doing it for a while; we've been governing our own communities for a while now. We are strong and we are resilient. But, whilst we are the First Peoples of this land, we are not recognised as such. You're trying to get in the way of it. And it is time that changed.

We have an opportunity to do this together this year. We have an opportunity, through the referendum on a voice to parliament. I'm proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that is committed to the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. The first part of that asks for a voice. It's a generous invitation from First Nations people, directly to the Australian people, asking you to see us and asking you to hear us. It's an invitation those opposite can't even take up.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart is the product of one of the most historically significant consultation processes in this country's history. The referendum later this year is asking for a voice to be enshrined in our Constitution, followed by a makarrata commission to oversee processes for agreement-making and truth-telling. First Nations communities across Australia have been working towards the establishment of a voice for decades. Whether it be through marching on the streets, rallies or meeting at Uluru and penning the Uluru Statement from the Heart and issuing that invitation to the Australian people, we have been calling for this for decades. It is an indictment on those opposite that they can't even accept that invitation.

It's about giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a say on matters that affect us, across health, education, housing, jobs. I think it's pretty reasonable to expect that we might want to have a say on those things. It's about creating practical and lasting change so that our next generation doesn't inherit what I have inherited and what Senator Cox and her kids have inherited. But you don't want to do that. You don't want to accept that invitation. You are very happy for us to run on the spot and do the same thing over and over again, because you think that is acceptable. That's what First Nations people here every time you say no to the Voice—every time.

A successful referendum will see us take our rightful place in our country's Constitution. It will start the process for progress in our country. That's something that should have happened a long time ago, but for multiple reasons it has not. This is the best opportunity that we have got, and you are saying no. The Voice is about recognition. It's about listening and about better results. Our communities are strong and resilient. They will withstand the political attacks of those opposite, including the one that is before the Senate today, just as they have withstood other political stunts from those opposite. Our communities are being used in wedge politics—shameful, shameful. This is another example of how they don't care about the lives of Aboriginal people, even though they pretend to by saying otherwise.

In stating the obvious, this is absolutely unnecessary. I have stepped out the reasons why to the Senate today. We need to be lifting our people up, instead of tearing them down. Shame on these senators for going after our organisations who have been on the front line for our communities for decades. We on this side are on a unity ticket for progress, actually, progress for First Nations people. That is what Senator Cox and I are standing up for, and it is a shame that those opposite can't do the same. Our communities deserve better.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

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

The Australian Greens will not be supporting the circulated amendment of Senator Thorpe. I don't think there is enough time in my 15 minutes for me to run through how disappointing this debate has been, to have laid bare on the floor of the chamber tonight some of the grandstanding that has happened in this place. The personal attacks on individuals should have stayed outside the door—on all sides. This is about an issue.

Thank you, Senator Hanson, I'll take that interjection because, respectfully, we have all been heard in silence, so I would appreciate you doing the same.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Hanson. Senator Cox, resume your seat. I listened carefully while Senator Colbeck was speaking. He was able to be heard in silence for the full 15 minutes. I ask everyone to show the same courtesy to Senator Cox. Senator Cox, you have the call.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cox, resume your seat. Senator O'Sullivan, do you have a point of order?

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do. I believe that that statement just then was impugning the motives of the movers of this motion.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cox, you made reference to the motivations of people moving the motion.

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

I am happy to withdraw, because clearly some people are sensitive about it.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cox, you chose to withdraw, which the Senate appreciates, but, given that you chose to withdraw, please do so without qualification. You have the call, Senator Cox.

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

I believe Senator O'Sullivan has another contribution. Is that why he has stood? I'm just clarifying.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, please resume your seat. Senator Cox, you did choose to withdraw, but you didn't do so without qualification. I just ask you to do that. You have the call.

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

Great. Thank you. There is a witch-hunt that is currently wrapped up in this motion about PBCs that has come before the Senate. We should be turning our minds much more to supporting our PBCs and our Aboriginal organisations, helping them to understand what corporate governance looks like and their responsibilities and their duties. But it is not our job in this place to create a system that only fits one size. What has been a conversation piece over and over in this place and is actually worded in this motion is cultural governance protocols and their intersection with corporate governance. This is a system that has been created by the mainstream. It hasn't been created by us. Corporate governance is not our language. There is not a translation for that in my language in the two clan groups that I'm part of, in the Noongar and Yamatji areas. It's not a thing. Cultural protocols and governance are.

It's about respect. It's about understanding who our old people are, who we consult with, what we're there to protect and when we work collectively in the best interests of our people. The compliance driven system wasn't created by us. We have one of the oldest systems in the world. In my part of Noongar country—I proudly live on the lands of the Wajuk people, but I'm connected to two groups, which are the Yuat people north-east of Perth and the Kaniyang people in the great southern area of Western Australia—our traditional systems have been proven to have been there for 30,000 years. It is the High Court determination that allowed that to be proven.

Corporate governance has to be taught to our people. I spent my time in the gnalla kaartdijin position in the leadership centre, when the native title determination for the Noongar claim was determined. My job was to look at how I could bring some of that AICD training into its translation, into succession planning by having our old people doing the business and our young people sitting behind being educated—our lawyers, our accountants, our people who had interest, our young people that were going to come up and take over. That was my job, to make sure that they were fully trained. I did that because I understood what the Western system required for accountability. But we should be asking the NIAA and government departments how they are walking beside some of our PBCs when they make the transition from land councils to prescribed body corporates in this country to help them manage their own affairs under self-determination and be able to do that work. We should not be wanting to bring them into another Senate inquiry that is driven from a different perspective and that has an already sketchy relationship determined through this committee.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question in front of the chamber is that the question be now put on Senator Thorpe's amendments. A division having been called, the division will be held on the Senate's resumption tomorrow. Senator Whish-Wilson, you're seeking the call?

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order: Senator Cox had the good grace to withdraw her comment, but can I ask that you check with the Clerk of the Senate as to whether she did impugn the motives of the Senate? We're politicians and we talk about political motives. I don't believe that should have been something that was withdrawn. I just ask if perhaps you can review that. It's a very clear political motivation. It wasn't a personal imputation; it was a political imputation.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. You've made your point. If the record needs to be corrected in any way, it can be. Thank you.