DEPARTMENT OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET, $149,901,000

ADMINISTERED ITEMS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET, $18,780,000

Witness:

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill, Minister for Families and Communities, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability, Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms J. Mazel, Executive Director, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Ms N. Saunders, Director, Aboriginal Culture and Heritage, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Ms L. Forrest, Director, Community Development, Policy and Strategic Intervention Projects, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr R. Starkie, Manager, Strategic Services, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr J. Loulas, Principal Financial Controller, Corporate Affairs, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The CHAIR: The estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. The committee will determine an approximate time for consideration of proposed payments to facilitate the changeover of departmental advisers. Has the timetable been agreed?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, madam.

The CHAIR: If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the committee secretary by no later than Friday 18 July. I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes each. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions based on about three questions per member, alternating each side. Supplementary questions will be the exception rather than the rule. A member who is not part of the committee may, at the discretion of the chair, ask a question. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced. Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the House of Assembly Notice Paper.

There is no formal facility for the tabling of documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the chair for distribution to the committee. The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house—that is, that it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. All questions are to be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers. The minister may refer questions to advisers for a response. I also advise that for the purposes of the committee, television coverage will be allowed for filming from both the northern and southern galleries.

I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Budget Statement, in particular, pages 2.7 to 2.9 and Appendix C, and Portfolio Statement, Volume 1, part 1. Minister, do you have an opening statement?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do. Last year was a momentous time in Aboriginal affairs in South Australia, and indeed nationally. It commenced with a renewed focus on Aboriginal people due to a number of significant anniversaries in 2007: the 40^th year since the 1967 referendum, the 50^th year since NAIDOC Week, and the 10^th anniversary of the Bringing Them Home report. In addition to this, the previous federal government's push on abuse in remote communities created a renewed focus for South Australia and provided welcome opportunities to tackle an issue which we have been working on for a number of years.

Last year also saw the first full year with a number of Aboriginal-specific South Australian Strategic Plan targets expanded from two to nine, including a target in each of the key areas of the plan. In the middle of the financial year, a new federal government was elected that embarked on a radical reform plan through COAG that is still a work in progress but proposes to reshape the nature of federal/state relations in relation to Aboriginal affairs. The new commonwealth government heralded in a new era of relationships with the Aboriginal community with one of its first acts—that is, a national apology to the Stolen Generations. Here in South Australia, we had a legal first with compensation being paid to the Ngarrindjeri man removed from his parents as a child.

The South Australian government has also heralded a new era in relations with the South Australian Aboriginal community by the creation of an Australian first consultative structure to ensure that Aboriginal views are heard in the highest levels of government. We created the position of the South Australian Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement to advocate for the needs of Aboriginal people to government and the community. We also appointed a permanent Aboriginal advisory council to ensure that Aboriginal views were heard at the highest levels of government. The South Australian government has advocated strongly for engagement with Aboriginal people and a focus on positive outcomes in all policy areas.

That has included strong representations to the federal government on changes to CDEP, municipal services funding, land tenure, the permit system and Aboriginal housing. We successfully renegotiated land tenure demands as they related to vital housing funding. We are pleased that changes earmarked by the Howard government in relation to CDEP are now being reviewed.

We have also continued to fight for a logical transition from the community housing and assistance program, which includes municipal services funding, to the Australian Remote Indigenous Accommodation (ARIA) program. This will be an important further work between us and the incoming federal government. These major policy debates have moved into the COAG sphere, and the South Australian government continues to work hard for positive reforms in that area—in particular, Aboriginal early childhood development, which is a critical part of this whole equation.

We have had the commissioning of the 'To Break the Cycle' report from Monsignor Cappo, which has received substantial funding in this budget to the order of $11 million. Similarly, Commissioner Mullighan's inquiry into child sexual abuse on the APY lands (the report on which was handed down in May) has been met with immediate government action, and more will follow. As a stated earlier, the renewed focus of the federal government on community safety has been welcomed by this government. We were the first state to agree to attend the national summit and we took a range of proposals to that summit, including one for the expansion of the Mullighan inquiry. The reason we were so quick to embrace the new focus was because we had already begun the process ourselves.

When this government came to power Aboriginal communities in general—and in the APY lands, in particular—had suffered neglect by previous governments, of all persuasions; when this government came to power there was not one child protection worker in the APY lands; when this government came to power there was not one police officer stationed on the lands; when this government came to power the TAFE system had been dismantled and there were few youth programs and little basic infrastructure. It was this government that put police onto the lands and child protection workers back on the lands, and that rebuilt basic infrastructure such as power and water. All of this before the Northern Territory intervention and before the Mullighan inquiry report. The most recent Nganampa Health independent study of petrol sniffing indicated a 46 per cent drop in petrol sniffing. This was on top of the 60 per cent drop of the previous survey and a 20 per cent drop the survey before.

There is much more to be done; we know that we cannot undo decades of neglect quickly, but the commitment is to maintain our focus and keep working. In this regard I think it is appropriate to recognise the opposition parties. While we do have our disagreements, our fundamental position in relation to Aboriginal affairs remains a constructive one. There is no glory in Aboriginal affairs, there are no quick solutions, and the complexity of Aboriginal affairs provides fertile ground for political posturing. However, what we do not need is more posturing: what we need is action, and the bipartisanship of the opposition parties is a critical part of that whole exercise.

With regard to the Mullighan report, the parliament has given the government three months to provide our initial response. However, some of the matters raised were too pressing to wait and this is why we acted very quickly on securing community safety as the first, and essential, step in dealing with the problems. On the day we tabled the report—within a week of receiving it ourselves—we announced immediate acceptance of a number of the commission's recommendations that addressed community safety. I would like to recognise the support we are receiving from the federal government in this area; its initial contribution of $15 million for a third police station and associated police housing is invaluable.

For its part, the South Australian government announced it would post an extra eight police officers to the region, which takes the total number of permanent officers to 19. We also announced we would place an additional five child protection workers on the lands, bringing the total to eight. These are significant and important first response measures. A full response to all 46 recommendations—which cover areas such as governance, child protection, health and mental health, education, and justice—will be announced well within the timeframe given to us by parliament. In these difficult areas, as in broad matters relating to policy and service delivery, the South Australian government continues to work collaboratively with Aboriginal people. That is why we established a permanent South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council and created the position of Commissioner of Aboriginal Engagement.

However, as much as we have done there is much more to do. We will provide our remaining responses to the Mullighan report soon; we have secured in-principle agreement to leasing of the $25 million housing package in the APY lands, and this year we will secure the leases and start the building program. We have built the substance misuse facility on the APY lands, and the outreach program has been operating for some time. The COAG reform process is to be finished this year.

You will note that the budget provides an additional $300,000 for each of the next two financial years to support the review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act—ensuring protection of Aboriginal heritage is another priority area for the state government—and the review will commence in the coming months. Preparatory work on the review of the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act has already begun and a full consultation process will also commence this year.

The CHAIR: Does the member for Morphett wish to make a statement?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you, Madam Chair. As the minister said, there are many good things happening in Aboriginal communities across the state, and there are many positive outcomes. I would like to thank the minister for his openness and willingness to meet with me and discuss the issues, and we have always tried to do that in a bipartisan way. As the minister said, we do have our differences but that has never stopped us going forward and ensuring that the outcomes are positive ones for Aboriginal communities right across the state—not just the APY lands (which seem to get a lot of focus), but also those in the Riverland, across the West Coast, and down south. In many cases there are also similar issues with urban Aboriginal families. There are also many similarities with problems, such as housing shortages and poor homemaker skills. The training being rolled out across the state by the government is working but there is still a long way to go.

One of the big problems I have, as an individual and as shadow minister, as well as a member of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee, is that we have visited a number of communities where governance training needs to be improved. Along with that there have been general problems within the communities such as housing shortages and financial mismanagement by individuals, and those are some areas on which we need to focus so that they do not become overwhelming problems for both the communities and for individuals. I am looking forward to participating in the review of the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act, both as shadow minister and as a member of the parliamentary standing committee. Moving forward on the housing on APY lands is something I am very pleased to see happening; it has taken a while but we are getting there.

Obviously, the Mullighan report has received a lot of media coverage in terms of Aboriginal affairs and it has highlighted some very serious issues, including 141 cases of sexual abuse. However, when that is looked at as a percentage it in fact seems to be slightly lower than that of the general population. That is not to say it is something that can be tolerated in any shape or form, but Aboriginal people being held out as being of particular interest to police needs to be put in context. It is a community-wide issue that needs to be focused on.

Both Mullighan reports have done a very good job in highlighting that, but the people in the APY Lands are conscious of their issues and are certainly more than happy to progress all 46 of the Mullighan recommendations. We look forward to the government's response by 30 July 2008. I will finish by thanking the minister for his bipartisan support. We do have our differences, but we can move forward and I look forward to getting on with questions.

My first question relates to Budget Paper 4, page 1.47: the response to the Mullighan Commission. The state government made an immediate response to five of the recommendations: school-based social workers, restricting access to pornography, child protection workers, fully operational police stations, and community-based sworn police officers. The issue I have is with the police stations and police officers. Minister, when will those police stations be built, will they be built as Commissioner Mullighan intended, in the communities?

I realise the logistical problems with having police officers in each community because it is a 24/7, 365 days a year job for those police officers. They need to be given some special consideration, but as Commissioner Mullighan has said, they need to be in the communities. Unfortunately, the Premier in tabling the report did not distinguish between having policing on the lands compared with having policing in the APY communities.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The question of when is affected by the Mullighan report. We negotiated a package of measures with the previous federal government, which involved the building of two police stations. Those police stations were to be based in Amata and Pukatja and that process has commenced, it commenced before the handing down of the Mullighan inquiry report. That process and the time lines set by the previous Howard federal government were on track.

The Mullighan report suggested a further police station. We accepted that recommendation. That police station has been identified to be placed at Mimili and, once again, each of those police stations (at Amata, Pukatja and Mimili) will be located within the community. I think it was an important part of the recommendation that they were, indeed, placed in the community.

There is a possibility that the addition of the further police station could press the time lines out for all of the police stations a little, although my present advice is that it is still within the time lines that were set for the original two police stations. That has been quite good work done by the agency to try to keep within those times. I am always a little hesitant, though, to be very firm about time lines about building anything in remote communities because of the complexities involved, but at the moment they appear to be within the original specified time lines.

Consistent with your observations, they will be built within the communities, notwithstanding the difficulties that that can sometimes create. We acknowledge that while that can be difficult for the police officers, provided the appropriate safeguards and security are provided, which has been built into the process, it is a much more effective way of policing than having to drive a considerable distance when, often, the circumstances have altered considerably. That has been a key demand of community members, to have the police stations in the communities and we are very pleased to be able to deliver that.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to the same reference: how much funding has the state government allocated in 2008-09 to the Anangu Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara, the Maralinga Tjarutja and the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act to enable those three bodies to fulfil their statutory responsibilities? Has the APY budget been approved now or not? If you could also tell us how the funding in 2008-09 compares with 2007-08, that would be useful, too.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, I have the answer to that question. This is the administration grants for the purposes of administering the land rights legislation in respect to that. It is not the total of the funding we give to each of those bodies; it is solely for the purpose of administering land rights legislation. The grants to the various bodies in 2008-09 are: APY, $1,100,004; Maralinga Tjarutja, $468,054; and Aboriginal Lands Trust, $521,110. Those grants have increased from 2007-08 to those 2008-09 figures in accordance with CPI increases.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Has the budget for the APY, which is for the overall running of the APY, been approved now or not?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The APY say that they submitted a budget. In fact, a document that was entitled as a draft budget was handed to a finance officer. It is not clear that it has been through the APY executive, which is a requirement. We wrote to the APY executive saying, 'Look, we're happy to treat that document as the budget. We don't want to be awkward, but you just need to satisfy us that it has been approved by the APY executive.' We are yet to receive a response about that. We have also offered to give them interim funding to tide them over until they can achieve that. The budget is in order. There is no issue with the budget.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to the same reference, minister. How much funding has the state government allocated in 2008-09 for governance training in the APY lands, the Maralinga Tjarutja lands and the Aboriginal Lands Trust communities and to the Aboriginal Lands Trust Board? Once again, how does that compare with 2007-08?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think that this is a very important question. Governance is a critical issue we have identified as lying at the heart of many of the difficulties we are finding in remote communities. A basic question is the level of capacity of those people who hold positions within various Aboriginal organisations to discharge the functions effectively.

In October 2007, AARD, together with the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, started a pilot program for corporate governance training, and 17 participants completed the first three-day workshop, including the chair of a community council. The second workshop was held in December 2007, when 28 participants completed the course. Again, there was an excellent representation of young people, with four of the participants aged under 25. The third workshop was held in Port Augusta in April 2008, and 26 participants completed the course, three of whom were under the age of 25.

The course has been extremely well received, which is demonstrated by the participants' high level of interest in enrolling in a Certificate IV in Business (Governance), with funding provided from ORATSIC. The first Certificate IV in Business (Governance) commenced 2 June 2008, when 17 students enrolled.

In relation to the funding we have provided, participants for each workshop are brought from regional, remote and urban areas to a central location. Participants' travel, accommodation and meals are fully covered. Each of the three-day workshops costs around $30,000, with ORATSIC estimating the cost of the Certificate IV at around $200,000. ORATSIC is covering the full cost of the program that began in June 2008.

Ongoing funding for the program is still being negotiated with the commonwealth. We are making contributions, as is the commonwealth. The plan is to deliver training over a period of 12 to 18 months to ensure that more of the people who participate in these community councils receive the appropriate training.

In addition to developing the program of governance training, AARD is looking at ways in which it can best support Aboriginal organisations once they have completed the training. This will complement the work currently being done by AARD's community development team. To bring the work of the community development team and the governance training project together, AARD is piloting a community planning process with the Raukkan council.

The community development plan will include a snapshot of the council and the region it is within, a list of priorities for council and community and an analysis of the skills and training needs of the council. This has been a big push, and it will continue to be an important part of our activities.

Membership:

Ms Breuer substituted for Mr Piccolo.

Ms FOX: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 1.47, Program 14: Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. Can the minister outline what strategies the government has in place to protect and preserve Aboriginal heritage which ensure active involvement from local Aboriginal heritage groups and which build their capacities to record, monitor and protect local heritage sites?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: One of the big challenges facing the protection of Aboriginal heritage items is the absence of information about these sites. This situation impedes negotiations about land use and development and threatens the protection of Aboriginal heritage.

We have invested heavily in Aboriginal heritage management with some impressive results. The recording of sites has increased sixfold in the past three years, from an average of 75 per annum from 2002 to 2005 to an average of 350 per annum since 2006. However, many more sites still need to be recorded.

In January 2007, I endorsed a new approach to record the existence of Aboriginal sites. The foundations are being laid for a rapid increase in site recordings in a transparent and quality controlled manner that will be both acceptable to industry and carried out by Aboriginal people, who would be trained and supported in partnership with government.

These include agreements being negotiated with Aboriginal groups to develop partnerships in managing heritage information. A state level working relationship agreement was reached between the state Aboriginal Heritage Committee and the Congress of Native Title Bodies in 2007, and this is the model for local level agreements.

Aboriginal people are being trained to record and conserve Aboriginal sites. This training builds their capacities to record, monitor and protect local heritage sites. Eight site recording and conservation field schools have been conducted across the state in conjunction with Flinders University. Discussions are continuing with industry as part of the indigenous land use agreement negotiations to solicit further support. This has been a very important part of the new approach, that is, to try to bring together the native title process and the heritage process which, to this point, have been separate processes.

Pilot projects in partnership with Aboriginal traditional owners about recording and verifying sites are being conducted. This partnership arrangement will ensure the reliability and validity of existing and new recordings so that all stakeholders can participate with competence and certainty. Agreements about access to and sharing Aboriginal heritage information are being negotiated with heritage groups to streamline procedures.

To support Aboriginal cultural development, and to have sites recorded in a cost-effective way, investigations are continuing about the way best to support Aboriginal people to record, protect and preserve sites. We think that this will provide a much better way of recording sites and encouraging agreements, and it will lead to much better relationships between the Aboriginal community and those who seek to develop land.

Ms FOX: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 1.47, Program 14: Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, which relates to the implementation of plans to achieve target T6.24: Aboriginal employees. The South Australian Strategic Plan, target T6.24, Aboriginal employees, seeks to increase the number of Aboriginal people employed within the state public sector. Can the minister provide more information on what is being done to address this target?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division is responsible for the coordination of across-government activity about the number of Aboriginal employees spread across all agencies and classification levels within the public sector. That is a new target. The employment target is 2 per cent by 2010 to maintain or better those levels to 2014. This expands the existing target, which was less specific, to about 2 per cent. Therefore, it now speaks to all the positions and classifications, including leadership roles, which is an important matter, rather than just having a group of Aboriginal people concentrated in some of the lower classifications.

Aboriginal employment in the public sector has increased from 784 employees—0.9 per cent of the state public sector workforce in 2003—to 1,391 Aboriginal employees, or 1.5 per cent, as of June 2007. That is an increase of 600 new Aboriginal people with jobs in the state public sector. That, of course, has its own specific benefit for those people, but it also changes our state public sector in a fundamental way, just as does diversity in any organisation.

A range of initiatives have been developed to assist the public sector to reach the target successfully. These include: supporting agencies to develop their own internal Aboriginal employment strategies based on workforce development, recruitment, retention, support mechanisms and career development; targeted marketing of the public sector across the state throughout Aboriginal communities, secondary schools, tertiary and training organisations, with the aim of attracting job-ready Aboriginal people into the public sector; improved promotion and access to graduate programs, traineeships and scholarships across government, including school-based apprenticeships for young Aboriginal people; and the development of a single induction program for all new Aboriginal employees which takes into consideration a particular set of needs in terms of their cultural and family obligations as employees.

It is also important to have an enhanced culturally inclusive public sector environment to strengthen the retention of people, and our cultural inclusion framework, which will assist agencies to deliver culturally inclusive programs, will help in that regard. In strengthening the retention of Aboriginal employees through formalised career paths, it is critical that people can see a future for themselves. This year we will continue to develop and promote strategies to train, recruit, retain and promote Aboriginal people within the public sector. Agencies are currently in the process of self-assessing against the cultural inclusion framework and will be required to report their findings at the end of this year, at which time a whole of government report will be prepared.

An Aboriginal leadership program has been developed, targeting Aboriginal public sector employees in the mid senior level and above, with the aim of having 50 participants undertaking a program within 12 to 24 months. Training for participants will focus on a number of areas and will be sorted through mentoring, work sharing and secondment opportunities. Linked to the Aboriginal leadership in the South Australian Strategic Plan target, an Aboriginal leadership register is currently being developed, which will assist in increasing the number of Aboriginal employees in leadership positions across the public sector. Agencies will be able to consult the register in seeking to fill vacant board and committee positions as they arise.

An HR directors/senior managers group is being developed, which will allow an opportunity for executive and senior HR practitioners from each department to come together to start to discuss the question of Aboriginal employment. AARD has established a strong partnership with the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology to assist with the development of the number of initiatives under this target.

Ms FOX: I again refer to Budget Paper, Volume 1, page 1.47, Program 14: Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. My question is in relation to South Australia's Aboriginal Advisory Council. Can the minister provide information on the recent establishment of South Australia's Aboriginal Advisory Council as well as the initiative to appoint a Commissioner of Aboriginal Engagement?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Solutions to many of the problems that face the Aboriginal community need strong Aboriginal leadership if they are to be sustainable. I think that it is true to say that the big answers for Aboriginal people will come from Aboriginal people themselves. There are things that we can do to help or hinder but, ultimately, that will be the solution. The government has prioritised Aboriginal leadership as one of the foundation stones for sustaining a long-term approach to Aboriginal disadvantage.

In November 2005, the state government established an interim Aboriginal Advisory Council to recommend a suitable structure for us to engage with Aboriginal people in the context of the abolition of ATSIC. In May 2007, the council completed a report recommending an engagement mechanism between South Australian Aboriginal people, the state government and the broader community. In essence, it saw the question in three types of engagement.

First, there is the democratic representative body, for which there is still an ambition, which we believe should not be replicated on a state level; it should happen at a national level if it is to happen. That matter was essentially left for the Labor government, which has a commitment to move for such a body. The second is a high-level advisory body, which provides a confidential sounding board for government for the decisions about which the government needs or wants input, but does not necessarily want to read it in the front page of the paper the next day—that is, the Aboriginal Advisory Council.

The third idea is an advocacy body to whom Aboriginal people can come within government to express a point of view which might be critical of the government, and which that person may be able to take up either internally or, if they believe appropriate, to make public representations about it. They were the three roles, and they found their expression in the state government's response to that report.

The new Aboriginal Advisory Council was established in April 2008, and is chaired by Ms Kerry Colbung. Its first meeting was held in May. The role of the council is to provide the government with advice on existing programs and policies as they affect Aboriginal people; to identify and inform government of emerging issues that affect Aboriginal people across the state; to provide the government with advice on the development and implementation of future policies; to provide advice to government agencies about appropriate consultation processes with Aboriginal communities; and to maintain links with other relevant bodies.

Six of the previous interim advisory councils were reappointed to the new council with an additional four appointed by me after advice from the department. The Aboriginal Advisory Council is currently addressing issues such as South Australia's Strategic Plan, emerging future issues, advice to government, and their work plan and directions for this year and beyond. The advisory council meets at least quarterly, and more regularly if required.

The second institution, the appointment of the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, Mr Klynton Wanganeen, was made in February 2008 by His Excellency the Governor and was the other major initiative. While the advisory council provides high level confidential advice, the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement was to provide a more public advocacy role, for the interests of the South Australian Aboriginal community to government, the private sector and the broad community.

The commissioner has met with a number of key stakeholders, including: Mr Tom Calma, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner; Ms Leena Sudano, the Health and Community Services Complaint Commissioner; the Aboriginal Lands Trust; and the Government's Senior Management Council. He has already made speeches at the forum such as the statewide Substance Abuse Conference, with the Australian Drug and Alcohol Council, Grannies Group, and the Aboriginal Education Unit Conference, and has appeared in The Advertiser promoting issues of importance to Aboriginal people. The commissioner meets with me bi-monthly to ensure that I am kept up to date with emerging issues, and has indicated to me that Aboriginal employment will be one of his key topics of focus.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 1.47—'monitoring and reporting on initiatives to improve the wellbeing of Aboriginal people in South Australia'. Minister, I do not know whether the families that have been in the paper just recently were of Aboriginal descent, but last year we talked about Homemaker programs versus facilities for domestic violence, and I have seen your explanations and the progress that has been made in relation to the domestic violence areas, particularly over on the West Coast.

But the Homemaker programs have really come to the fore now, both over on the West Coast, where I think they seem to have fallen by the wayside, and more in the metropolitan area. Are these Homemaker programs being made available to Aboriginal families in the metropolitan area? I do not know whether these families were of Aboriginal descent or not, but it seems that, if they are not, they need Homemaker programs, from what I am hearing. But if we do have Aboriginal families, in particular, that are living in overcrowded houses in the metropolitan area, do we know how many families are in that position, and are those families receiving assistance to help cope with the running of the home?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: They are matters specific to the families and communities portfolio, and I do not have the advisers with me about that matter. I am happy to address those matters if your colleagues want to raise them within that particular area. But can I say that, in general—and it is really a matter for the Minister for Health—we have in the metropolitan area a universal home visiting program, so every child that is born in South Australia is offered this, and there is an extraordinarily high take-up rate of visits to those families where there is a newborn child. Each of those families gets a nurse coming to them.

For those families where there is deemed to be some difficulty, and there could be a range of reasons why there are difficulties within those families, there is what is called a sustained home visiting program, where there can be follow-up for an extended period of time to assist the family with precisely the matters that are the subject of the Homemaker programs in some remote communities. So this involves questions of hygiene and parenting, all of the things that really are necessary to ensure that children are safe and properly developed. So that has been very important.

Indeed, the member for Little Para was the minister who introduced that scheme, and it is, I think, probably one of the finest public policy initiatives that we have made in government, and it does not distinguish between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal South Australians. It is there irrespective of ethnicity. So, that is what occurs within the metropolitan area. And, of course, it has its resonance in remote communities, with our Homemaker programs, which have been rolled out extensively in remote areas. Indeed, we have recently increased the number of Homemaker programs in relation to the APY lands and other remote communities. So, that will be a continuing focus for us.

Mr HANNA: I refer to the same page, 1.47, where there is a reference to supporting the Aboriginal Advisory Council and the state's three statutory landholding authorities. My question is: what is the increase in state government funding, in real terms, to the following bodies: the Anangu Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara, the Maralinga Tjarutja and the Aboriginal Lands Trust?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, whoever is supplying the questions has already managed to supply that to the member for Morphett. That was asked and answered earlier.

Dr McFETRIDGE: There are a lot of issues that we all share in common—it is tripartisan, perhaps, not bipartisan. Minister, under the same budget paper and the same reference, in relation to the welfare of Aboriginal communities and maintaining facilities there, the MUNS funding is obviously a federal issue, but, with the MUNS funding, can you give us an indication of what is the state of play with the negotiations between the federal government and the state government to provide communities with MUNS funding?

I understand that the Umuwa community at Coober Pedy has received some continuing MUNS funding, but I have read recent media reports of the Davenport Aboriginal community complaining that they feel they are being left—as Malcolm McKenzie is quoted in the media here as saying, 'We have had money ripped away. Things will fall down by the wayside.' It seems a pretty ordinary outcome for them.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This is a very important question, and, as you would be aware, there was a very strong bipartisan position against the previous Howard government to get them to reconsider the municipal services funding. Can I say that the incoming federal government has shifted its position somewhat. They have provided some funding to Davenport and to the Umoona communities, but it is not at the same level as was being provided before. So there remains an area of disagreement between us. We are continuing to have those discussions. But they have certainly received substantial funding now that had previously been withheld, although it is not as much as it was previously. I will be meeting with Ms Macklin soon to discuss those issues with her.

The basic point is that the commonwealth has been attempting to transfer responsibility for the administration of the MUNS program to the states since November 2006. There was previously an intention to mainstream MUNS services to those communities encapsulated in local government areas. I think we all share the same concern about significant cost-shifting to local government that, if local government is not prepared to accept that, it will press it back onto us. As you have noted, the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee penned a powerful report that went back to the previous government.

We want the federal government to articulate a coherent policy framework for these changes. The new federal government is currently establishing a framework. I think all the communities say that they are prepared to work with the federal government on change, but they want the change to be managed and consultative; they do not want it just to be imposed. There is an interim funding arrangement in place until we can resolve some of these issues. It has improved somewhat, they have some funding, although not as much as they were getting before, and there are commitments to discuss what will happen in the future. So, it still remains an unresolved question.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Regarding the same reference, the Maralinga Tjarutja are keen to get section 400 handed back. Can you provide some information on that?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This is an important issue. Section 400 covers an area of about 3,000 square kilometres. Nuclear weapons testing in that area occurred between 1953 and 1963. It was granted to the Australian government in 1967. Nuclear weapons testing resulted in two types of radioactive contamination: surface soils and material that was buried in pits. The British conducted several clean-ups, the last being Operation Brumby in 1967. These were found to be ineffective, and the Australian government conducted a major clean-up between 1995 and 2000. This lowered the amount of radioactive material to safe levels.

The Maralinga Consultative Group was established in 2000 to coordinate the handback of the land to Maralinga Tjarutja. The Australian government has agreed to provide unqualified indemnity to claims relating to radiological and other contamination of section 400. The Australian government can seek recompense for contributory negligence claims not related to contamination. The process for doing this and how the proportion of contributory negligence will be assessed is still being worked out through the Australian government.

So, it is that tiny technical legal point that remains between us at the moment, but I have met with the previous federal minister and the incoming minister and there seems to be a commitment to move on that to get that sorted out. Agreement has been reached on sharing mediation and arbitration costs for the Maralinga land and the environment management committee. Discussions are occurring about funding the ongoing radiological monitoring of section 400.

Handback negotiations are being finalised. A draft handback deed is being developed, the majority of which has been agreed by everyone: state, federal, local and Maralinga Tjarutja. It has been agreed that there will be no mining on the section 400 site for five years after the handback, and following the handback Maralinga Tjarutja intends to develop a land management and heritage resource centre at Maralinga Village which will be funded by the Australian government. So we are on the verge of being able to conclude that arrangement. I think this will be very beneficial for the Maralinga Tjarutja community when it is finalised.

The Hon. L. STEVENS: My question relates to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 1.47, 2008-09 target: providing leadership and negotiating and consulting on a proposed new major housing program on the APY lands. Will the minister provide an update on the negotiation process with the commonwealth government, the APY executive and the Aboriginal communities concerned to deliver this significant housing program on the APY lands?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This is a critical question. I think everybody acknowledges the dangers of overcrowding for any community but, in particular, for the remote Aboriginal communities on the APY lands. The commonwealth government has offered to the state $25 million for public housing on the APY lands. The acceptance of this funding is reliant on certain conditions being met, such as the provision of 50-year leases to the state by the APY executive and state management of the housing (in accordance with the usual principles of public housing) along with training and employment of Anangu in construction, repair and maintenance and housing management. It is worth pointing out that those conditions were previously agreed by the APY executive; indeed, they were my instructions when I was negotiating with the previous federal government.

In conjunction with the commonwealth, extensive consultation with the APY executive and Aboriginal communities is continuing to gain agreement on the conditions applying to the proposed housing program. The executive director, AARD and the director of community development met with the Amata and Pukatja communities on 18 June. Those consultations were very successful, with the Amata community identifying appropriate sites for the building of new houses. The Pukatja community agreed in principle to the package.

In these meetings the Amata community agreed to 11 specific sites for the location of houses based on a community structure plan that was previously approved by the Amata Community Council and the APY executive. A meeting with the APY executive also took place and there was a breakthrough agreement to revise the MOU to include 50-year leases. So, the sticking point that had been in place was overcome at that very important discussion. Following the successful discussions, on Monday 23 June,

I wrote to the APY executive board requesting 50-year leases over the identified housing blocks at Amata. I also requested the applications be considered and discussed at the next meeting on 2 July and that I be informed of its decision by Friday 10 July 2008.

It is worth pointing out the significance of these two communities. Pukatja is the largest community; Amata is one of the largest communities and now amounts to a substantial acceptance of the proposition. We also have had two further communities who have approached us—Mimili and Kalka—asking us to come to their communities and explain the package to them.

Should the executive board fail to call a meeting for consideration of the leases within a reasonable time and/or an inquorate meeting is held (because it has been suggested that some members may boycott the meeting), in the first instance, I could write to the executive asking why a meeting has not been held or why the meeting was inquorate.

The purpose of such a letter would be to assist in determining whether a direction is warranted pursuant to section 13N(1) of the act, that an inquorate meeting of the executive be held by a specified time, and that a lease application is to be determined at that meeting. In allowing a reasonable time, this could be concluded in a period after that.

If the executive board fails to comply with a ministerial direction under section 13N(1), the minister has the power under section 13O of the act to suspend the executive board and appoint an administrator who could determine the lease applications in place. Obviously, we do not want it to come to that. We think that there seems to be a much different set of attitudes, and that has been a welcome change; indeed, Ms Mazel has been granted a permit and that had previously been a source of contention. It looks as though some of the issues that were of concern have been resolved.

During this time, the South Australian government will convene intragovernment and intergovernment discussions on housing needs, designs and procurement processes. We are aiming to have the procurement documents ready for tender as soon as approval is obtained. Of course, we do not just want to have a white contractor come in and drop these houses there: we really want to make sure that we deliver on this commitment to having Anangu involved. If leases are approved by 10 July, the procurement process can be initiated, and we can secure appropriate builders. Obviously, we want to deliver this housing package as soon as we possibly can.

The Hon. L. STEVENS: My second question relates to the subject of Aboriginal heritage legislation. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, Program 14, page 1.47, the target being to conduct a review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988. Can the minister outline the purpose of the state Aboriginal heritage legislation review?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The purpose is obviously to improve the act, and the current Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 is dated legislation that was enacted prior to the enactment of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993, and indeed some other acts which have some important bearing on these questions—the River Murray Act 2003 and prior to the enactment of the Natural Resources Management Act 2004. These acts all affect the protection of Aboriginal heritage, but the Aboriginal Heritage Act in its present form does not recognise these linkages or the need to integrate. The review of the act will work to align the objects and powers of the Aboriginal Heritage Act so that the acts will recognise and integrate better with each other.

Another matter that the review will address is a process for identifying the people or groups that have the responsibility for making binding agreements. The system that currently operates is ad hoc. There is no process in the act for establishing which peoples have an interest in a particular heritage matter. As a result, there is no consistency about who gets consulted and on what basis and, obviously, this leads to questions and challenges about whether Aboriginal heritage matters are referred to the rightful people for consideration. This lack of certainty has the potential to cause undue cost and delay.

This government is strongly committed to the use of heritage agreements where possible and supports negotiations that will lead to certainty for the parties to the agreement. Unfortunately, the current legislation is not always helpful in this process and heritage considerations have not always been integrated into the development process. The review will address this situation in order to ensure that the agreements that are reached are binding and certainty will be achieved by Aboriginal people and developers alike.

All these factors have led to criticism of the act from both points of view—Aboriginal organisations' and developers'. Most stakeholders believe that the review is needed to ensure that the new Aboriginal heritage legislation provides a practical balance and that the broader communities need to protect and manage Aboriginal heritage and economic development and community prosperity. Both Queensland and New South Wales have in recent years enacted legislation that recognises and strengthens the role of Aboriginal people as the primary guardians of Aboriginal cultural heritage. Each state has promoted an agreement process that provides for the management and protection of Aboriginal heritage. This is what we hope this review will achieve—a process that will achieve agreements that are timely and effective and that can be backed by the certainty of an appropriate statutory power.

The government has recognised that the review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act is timely and important by allocating, in this budget, $300,000 in each of the next two financial years to ensure that the consultations and processes are properly undertaken. Whilst the outcomes of the review cannot be pre-empted, I believe that it is appropriate to take an optimistic view of the outcomes for both Aboriginal people and developers alike.

The CHAIR: I think it is probably appropriate now for us to move on to Ageing. I declare consideration of the proposed payments in relation to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, completed.

Membership:

Mrs Redmond substituted for Dr McFetridge.