Bills

Aboriginal Heritage (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 10 March 2016.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:02): I give notice to the house that I am the lead speaker on this bill. I would like to thank the minister for consulting with me on this bill and accepting the amendments that I suggested in order to add some clarity and further security for Aboriginal people in South Australia when it comes to Aboriginal heritage.

I remind the house that all of us in this place respect Aboriginal heritage for the broad issue that it is, both in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal society. The fact that we opened today's session with the recognition of traditional owners of this land, the Kaurna people, and their deep affiliations and affections for their land and their heritage, is an indication of how seriously we take this issue that we are debating today.

Aboriginal heritage is not just about finding or uncovering some bones, as was the case when a school gym was being built at Glenelg. It is not just about that anymore: it is about language, culture and tradition and it is about 60,000 years of Aboriginal heritage. That is why we need to be very sure when we change this legislation that we have consulted with people and that everybody understands what is going on.

I am a member of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee, and have been for many years, and I am very proud to be a member of that committee. I have stood in this place on many occasions and said that when I do leave I want to be certain that the lot of our Aboriginal South Australians has improved, and not just by baby steps but by significant steps. The gap is still very wide when recognising the deficits between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people on many parameters.

I recognise the heritage of Aboriginal groups in South Australia. I understand there are 39 different Aboriginal groups and 39 language groups in South Australia. I speak a tiny bit of Pitjantjatjara, and I should learn some Kaurna in respect of the traditional owners of this land that we stand on today. I do not have a deep understanding of the heritage, the knowledge, but I have had glimpses of it, thanks to some of the men I have had dealings with over the years. There is obviously women's business and men's business, which is completely separate, which forms part of the heritage that we have been given the privilege and the responsibility to protect here in this place in South Australia.

Changing the Aboriginal Heritage Act is something that has taken quite a while. It has been part of the Aboriginal standing committee. One of the remits of the committee is to look at the Aboriginal Heritage Act as well as the APY act and the Maralinga Tjarutja act. From my recollection, the Aboriginal Heritage Act first came to the committee's attention in the early 2000s. Premier Jay Weatherill, in his then role as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, introduced the first review of the act in 2008.

The bill before us today was introduced in the other place by the current Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The current minister is the fifth minister I have worked with in this place. I pay great tribute to the most outstanding Aboriginal affairs minister that I have worked with, the late Terry Roberts. When I first came into this place, he was an outstanding champion for Aboriginal affairs. While ministers who have followed have tried to achieve his level of drive and ambition and have done quite a good job in many cases, there have been times when I think, and Aboriginal people certainly think that they have been let down.

It has come to my notice in the last weeks that there is concern about this bill amongst Aboriginal people. As I said, we have been discussing it since 2008, and I will go through some of the papers that have been put out since 2008. We need to make sure that we are able to give Aboriginal people the opportunity. If this legislation does not prove to be the answer that we hope it will be, if it does not give further protection, openness and transparency to heritage issues in South Australia, I think we need to make sure that we listen to Aboriginal people and come back and amend this legislation, if we need to. I do not think we will need to do that because the government has consulted, but not to anywhere near the degree that some people think.

I heard the minister on radio the other day talking about consultation with over 90 groups regarding this particular legislation; he has listened to some of my concerns. I have spoken with the member for Heysen, who has extensive experience in Aboriginal heritage and native title, and I thank her for her input. We have put up some suggested amendments, which were presented by the Hon. Terry Stephens, and they have been accepted in the other place. They have been included in the bill and will, as I have said before, add protection to Aboriginal groups in South Australia.

The bill was introduced on 25 February by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. It seeks to amend the Aboriginal Heritage Act to recognise direct agreements not currently recognised in the act made with traditional owners and government developers and mining operations regarding the land use around Aboriginal sites, objects and ancestral remains protected by the act.

The bill also seeks to resolve discrepancies required through land access agreements, required with native title holders and claimants due to native title claims requiring ministerial authorisation under current legislation. The bill will enable traditional owners to have a say about how their heritage is protected by providing for native title matters to be addressed under the heritage legislation, and it seeks to provide efficiency and certainty of the land-use proponents.

The government aims to do this by inserting a new Part 2B—Recognised Aboriginal representative bodies, which provides a process for Aboriginal bodies to apply to the South Australian Aboriginal Heritage Committee to be recognised as those representative bodies. As I said, these recognised Aboriginal bodies are now going to be the go-to people. I will explain in a moment how that is being organised and if there are any discussions or arguments about who is going to be the representative Aboriginal body and how that will be overcome as well.

Under section 19B(4) a registered native title body corporate will automatically become the recognised Aboriginal representative body unless it opts out or the committee does not approve it. In the new section 19E and 19F, the committee has powers to revoke, suspend or reappoint the appointment of a recognised Aboriginal representative body. Under new part 3, division A1, the recognised Aboriginal representative body may enter into agreements with proponents and undertake negotiations and, with ministerial authorisation, may approve them.

The new division A2 provides for the approval of Aboriginal heritage agreements and native title agreements under other acts. The bill also repeals sections 6(2) and 6(4) which provide for ministerial delegation decision-making powers under section 23 to authorise damage to sites to the traditional owners on their request who have normally been consulted on in the past. That consultation will continue, but the transfer of that power is removed under that. There is some concern about that.

I understand there have been very few cases where that has been asked for, and I have an open door policy to Aboriginal groups in this state. If there are issues around that, please come and see me and talk to me, because we need to have the evidence that if this act when it comes into force is not working we need to make sure we are able to correct it and amend it if necessary. It has taken a long time to get to this stage. It may not be perfect in the eyes of some but it has been a long time coming.

I proposed three amendments to the government—and they have been accepted. When the Aboriginal Heritage Committee were asked to decide on who was going to be the representative body, if they made a decision against a particular group, they were not going to be bound in any way to give any reasons for that. I asked that the committee be instructed to give written reasons in relation to an appointment under that particular section, and I think that is something where openness and transparency is required and that is something that will add to that.

The second amendment that I suggested is, if there are disagreements between groups which think that they should be appointed as the representative body, then the committee can attempt to resolve any disputes by mediation between parties. As to how that will be finally resolved, I think the proof will be in the eating when we see how the legislation actually works. I am sure that the heritage committee will do their very best to make sure that there is an open and transparent process and a fair outcome.

The third amendment that I suggested was about how lawyers get involved in Aboriginal affairs, and it has been my sad experience to see hundreds of thousands of dollars go out in legal fees when you are talking Aboriginal affairs. If there is a particular heritage issue that ends up in the District Court, as it can under this act, we do not want it to become a lawyer's breakfast.

We do not want Aboriginal groups particularly to be in any way intimidated or restricted because they are going to be faced with a high cost of putting their position and defending their position on a particular heritage issue. So, the amendment I suggested was for no order for costs to be made under subsection (2) unless the District Court considers such an order to be necessary in the interests of justice. I think those amendments assist Aboriginal people in ensuring that they are able to challenge any decisions that are being made.

I will remind the house of what the State Aboriginal Heritage Committee is. It advises the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation on issues relating to the protection and preservation of Aboriginal heritage. Committee members do not represent particular heritage groups, although every effort is made to have a broad coverage and knowledge of Aboriginal heritage throughout the state. The Aboriginal Heritage Committee is established under section 7 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act. Section 7 of the act states:

(1) The Aboriginal Heritage Committee is established.

(2) The Committee consists of Aboriginal persons appointed, as far as is practicable, from all parts of the State by the Minister to represent the interests of Aboriginal people throughout the State in the protection and preservation of the Aboriginal heritage.

(3) The Minister must, as far as is practicable, appoint equal numbers of men and women to the Committee.

(4) The members of the Committee will be appointed on such conditions and for such terms as the Minister considers appropriate.

(5) The Committee may, with the approval of the Minister, establish subcommittees…to investigate and report to the Committee on any matter.

The committee is commonly referred to as the State Aboriginal Heritage Committee to indicate its formal status as a principal body distinct from local Aboriginal heritage committees. The function of the State Aboriginal Heritage Committee is set out in section 8 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act. Its functions include providing clear advice and guidance to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation and the South Australian government on all matters related to Aboriginal heritage for the protection and preservation of Aboriginal sites, objects and remains that are significant to Aboriginal archaeology, anthropology or history; or of significance according to Aboriginal tradition.

The functions of the committee are also laid out in the act. I will not go through all of those; people can read those in the act if they are interested. The eligibility for appointment to the committee is that you must be a South Australian Aboriginal aged over 18 years at the time of appointment, active on the committee on local heritage matters and, where practicable, committed to attending meetings in Adelaide every six weeks. It is something you have to be committed to and you have to have some experience in, and you have to be able to provide sound advice to the minister. You would expect nothing less, because you do want to make sure that the advice that the minister is getting is going to be sound advice.

The concerns that have been raised just recently about the lack of consultation about the bill have been a surprise to me, and that is not putting it too dramatically. They have been a surprise because discussion about the changes has been around for many years now; in 2008 it really hit the road. I received a copy of a petition signed by 10 people today, calling on the government to withdraw the bill. It is up to the government to do this. I have told people who have contacted me that this is a government bill and they should contact the minister and voice their concerns with the minister. I have also received today a copy of a letter from the Law Society, who have expressed some concerns about the bill.

I must say, though, when lawyers start complaining about this legislation, I do tend to take a bit of a step back and have another look at what is going on, because, as I have said, my experience with lawyers and Aboriginal affairs is that in some cases—not all cases, and certainly I am a veterinarian and not a lawyer; and by that I am boasting not apologising—I do think there are some lawyers out there who are not involved in Aboriginal affairs for the right reasons.

As I have said, my experience is both from a personal point of view and a committee point of view. I have seen examples where lawyers have taken a lot of money out of Aboriginal communities and there has been very little benefit. When lawyers start complaining about this legislation, that they are being excluded, some of my colleagues might disagree, but it is something that I am not too fussed about, because in this particular case we are making sure that we have representative Aboriginal bodies in there who are being appointed to do the work. The legal avenues are still there through the District Court to challenge these decisions that are being made, and that has been strengthened by the no-cost jurisdiction that we had put in there.

Proceeding with this bill today is something that I am more than prepared to do. The history, though, as I said, goes back to 2008. The first official documentation was a consultation paper put out by the then minister for Aboriginal affairs, the now Premier, Jay Weatherill. The two-page document talked about the meeting arrangements, and 25 meetings were listed, from Port Adelaide to Pukatja, from Port Pirie through to Mount Gambier, Port Augusta, Coober Pedy, Oodnadatta; all over the place: Raukkan, Camp Coorong, Amata, Pipalyatjara. As I recall, some of those meetings, if not all, certainly took place, so that discussion was started.

The consultation paper also had a scoping paper with it in which the aims of the review were laid out, and I will read some of those into Hansard so that it is on the record. This is on page 2 of 14 pages, so it was a quite comprehensive scoping paper. It says in the introduction:

Aboriginal heritage is a unique and irreplaceable part of South Australia's history and heritage that requires effective protection and management. Respect for and recognition of Aboriginal heritage is important for Aboriginal identity and community wellbeing. This Scoping Paper is designed to describe the context of and reasons for reviewing the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988…It provides general information, and is designed to stimulate discussion about the future of heritage protection and management in South Australia.

Since the [Aboriginal Heritage Act] was proclaimed in 1988 there have been many important changes which impact on Aboriginal heritage administration and legislation. The changes include:

The enactment of Native Title Act 1993 (Commonwealth);

The enactment of new Aboriginal heritage legislation interstate;

The Government's Native Title Claims Resolution Process;

The development and implementation of legislation that takes an integrated approach to land management and use;

The widespread use of agreements negotiated directly between Aboriginal people and land developers about heritage and related matters; and

The implementation of the South Australian Strategic Plan.

The last one I think probably does not need to be there but the government saw fit to have it in there. The paper goes on to talk about:

Recognising Aboriginal custodianship of cultural heritage;

Creating a strong framework for long term protection and management of Aboriginal heritage;

Enabling Aboriginal negotiation of agreements about heritage;

Embedding Aboriginal heritage considerations into the development and land management process;

Creating timely and efficient processes;

Creating certainty for all parties;

Complementing the Native Title Act…

The scoping paper and the initial announcements were out there. They bubbled along. The actual drafts of the legislation were not available, as I understand it, for people to see and, even with this current legislation, there has been little public exposure, from my understanding—and surprise, quite honestly, from what the minister said.

In 2008 the now Premier and in 2011 the former minister for Aboriginal affairs (Grace Portolesi) received advice on why this act still needed to be amended, and nothing happened in the 2008 initial efforts. In the briefing paper that the minister received, there were questions about whether it is necessary to have an Aboriginal Heritage Act; is the native title act not efficient; and what definitions were going to be changed. They looked at the Victorian and Western Australian models that were in place and, just as importantly, they looked at the other very important piece of Aboriginal heritage legislation and that is the commonwealth legislation.

We should never forget that not only is our state heritage legislation in place but there is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, which is commonwealth legislation. The commonwealth has been reviewing that. According to this 2011 paper, and I have seen the current version of the act, there are, if not hundreds, certainly tens of amendments that have been made over the years since the act was first assented to. Looking at some of the more recent ones, the latest I can find is dated 25 March 2015 and that is an amendment to one clause of the commonwealth legislation.

The commonwealth had initially proposed 15 major reforms to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act and one of those was addressing gaps in state and territory laws to ensure respectful treatment of Indigenous sacred objects and remains. So, if there are any flaws in this legislation, the commonwealth legislation should be able to pick that up. It is a bit of a safety net, in some ways.

Also, the commonwealth looked at updating the penalties, improving the enforcement powers and reviewing the effectiveness of the legislation at regular intervals. That is what we need to do with this. It has been a long time: it has been eight years since this was first mooted. That is far too long. As times change, legislation and attitudes change. This should be a piece of legislation that is reviewed more regularly than it has been in the past.

Moving on quickly to the bill itself, the answers to the questions I put to the minister are yet to really be seen. The proof will be in the pudding there, and I will certainly be making my thoughts and objections, if there are any, very clear. Part 2, clause 4, subclause (1) states: 'Aboriginal Heritage Guidelines or guidelines means the guidelines published under Part 2A' of the act.

We have not seen the guidelines yet. I have asked the minister about those. I asked him to address those in the other place, and I do not think he was quite as forthcoming as I would have liked there. I will be watching to see what the guidelines are and, certainly, if there are any issues with those guidelines, I will be making my views well and truly known to the minister.

Under clause 19C, if there are multiple applications for appointment as a representative body, then the committee will be able to mediate and conciliate between those groups so that we have a truly representative group of people who are negotiating on behalf of the various interest groups that are there. The other things beside the guidelines, and they are always a bogey with a lot of legislation we see in this place, are the regulations. The regulations can always be used and abused. I will be watching very carefully again what happens with the regulations.

I certainly have a very good relationship with the current minister, and I thank him for that open relationship. We discuss things before they come to this place, so we are able to sort out many issues before they come to this or the other place. I am looking forward to being able to look at the guidelines and the regulations and be satisfied that they are doing what they are intended to do, and that is protect Aboriginal heritage in South Australia.

I can tell the house that I know people are very concerned about their perceived lack of consultation on this. It has been around for a long time. These changes that are in this legislation are meant to improve the ability to protect Aboriginal heritage, and I do not just mean, as I have said before, some bones that may be found during some excavation or exploration: it is about the whole range of Aboriginal heritage.

I look forward to seeing how this legislation does the job we want it to do. As I have said, my door is always open to people who have concerns about this so that I can voice those concerns not only with the minister but also in this place to make sure that we are all doing what we are supposed to do, and that is represent all South Australians to the very best of our ability. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:27): I thank the shadow minister for his contribution and consideration and advice to the opposition on this matter, and confirm his indication to support the bill. However, I will have a number of questions in committee, and I also place on the record my support for and appreciation of the shadow minister's moving of three amendments. I am not quite sure of the third, frankly. No cost orders is not usually something I support; nevertheless, I think the first two, comprehensively, will help support the new structure that is to be in place.

I have heard a lot of talk about why this act was originally set in place nearly 30 years ago. It had a meritorious beginning and was universally acclaimed. It had a very specific purpose. I will not repeat it but, in 2008, the government decided that it would conduct a review of the act. Other legislation had come into place around the country and it was reasonable that there be a review.

The two key objectives of the review were to enable traditional owners to deal directly with land use proponents about the impact of their activities on Aboriginal heritage and, secondly, the accommodation of native title holders and complainants within this structure, and I will have a bit to say about that in committee.

I should also perhaps just highlight that under the present act already traditional owners have a powerful tool to be actively at the forefront of decision-making about activities impacting on Aboriginal sites, and that is section 6(2), which is an obligatory provision requiring ministerial delegation of certain powers to traditional owners. The government told us in the second reading that, in addition to the review process which has been outlined by the shadow minister, and in relation to the agreements that were reached:

Agreements of this kind do not have to be made with a RARB but because they are made according to the requirements of other legislation and the Minister is required to approve them if of the view that an additional regulatory burden is not required. Since consultation commenced in 2008, there has also been litigation about the meaning and effect of section 6(2) of the current Act. Section 6(2)—

and it goes on to explain, as I have indicated, what it does. The second reading explanation continues:

The impact of judicial decisions about the interplay between section 23 and section 6(2) has led to difficulties with the administration of the Act. The current wording of section 6(2) where the Minister must at the request of Traditional Owners delegate his powers has proved to be impossible to determine since the Act was introduced in 1988. There have only been a handful of section 6(2) requests and no section 6(2) requested has ever been successfully granted.

That, I suggest, is a far cry from what has actually happened. In fact, in 2011 the government was found to have acted unlawfully and to be in breach of the provisions by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia in the case of Starkey v State of South Australia (2011) SASCFC 164. That is the reality, not the colourful, minimalist description as outlined in the second reading contribution. The government have not been doing the right thing. They had a means by which they needed to deal with it and one of them was, as is in this bill, to abolish section 6(2) of the act.

Do I think that is the best model? I do not, actually. Do I think that will better protect Aboriginal contribution and consultation in this area? No, I do not. Will it improve it at all? I am hopeful, as is the shadow minister, that there will still be some improvement in the model that is otherwise outlined. Am I confident that I can trust the government to do the right thing? Certainly not. With those words, I indicate my scepticism as to what is happening, and I will be asking the minister, who can deliberate on this while pending going into committee, why in fact section 6(2) has even to be removed at all or at least why the initial protections under that are not preserved.

I think this is more about the accommodation of other interests, including proposed developments which the government are keen to approve. Perhaps that is an indication of why the Minister for State Development and Treasury and various other important things on behalf of the state actually has carriage of this bill. Aboriginal Affairs, of course, is now under State Development, so it is reasonable that he is here to deal with it, but he has some other fairly powerful interests and responsibilities on behalf of the government. He can rest assured that I do not give the same ringing endorsement of what is actually happening here; nevertheless, we will try to work with the government. The fact of their bona fides could have easily been promoted, if they were really genuine, by allowing us to view the guidelines and be consulted in the course of the deliberation of what the guidelines were going to incorporate.

The second aspect which I am very concerned about relates to the assertion by the government that a native title body corporate will automatically become a registered Aboriginal representative body unless it opts out or the heritage committee does not approve it. In fact, when one reads the bill, it is a prerequisite for a native title body corporate actually being approved by the committee.

Sure, it could opt out, and it could not apply at all of course, but be under no illusion: this does not automatically become a RARB, because that is not something where you simply put your hand up and there is no bar to that occurring. In fact, you lodge an application and, subject to the heritage committee allowing that, it can progress.

I think again that the government have been disingenuous in their approach, and in the language in the second reading contribution, because it is clear that under section 19B(5) the heritage committee's approval is a necessary precursor to the native title body corporate becoming an RARB—and it is a very important difference. I will raise some questions about the matter, and I also will have some questions about the $7.6 million funding that had been allocated in the budget for securing the implementation of the new act over four years, so the Treasurer will not be caught like a possum in the spotlight.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (11:35): There has been extensive stakeholder consultation since the proposed reforms to the Aboriginal Heritage Act commenced in 2008. Consultation to date has informed the bill as well as the most recent stakeholder consultation.

My colleague in another place, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, committed to meet with the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement prior to this bill being debated in the house. I am advised that that meeting occurred on 17 March and agreement was made that the government would work with the ALRM and other interested parties on the content of the guidelines and the regulations.

The bill recognises that agreement making about avoiding damage to Aboriginal heritage is taking place, but this is currently not recognised by the act. It provides that these arrangements will be recognised and drive the decision-making processes under the act. The agreement-making scheme is optional and parties can elect to proceed under the current provisions of the act if they wish.

In addition, the section 6(2) and section 6(4) delegation provisions in the current act will be repealed. I am advised that section 6(2) requests in particular have proved difficult to determine. Indeed, I understand that no section 6(2) delegation has been made in the almost 30 years the act has been in place.

The bill represents an important practical step for traditional owners to have a meaningful say about how their heritage is protected. By providing for native title matters to be addressed under the legislation, it also provides much sought after efficiencies and certainty for land use components.

I want to personally thank the shadow minister for his support and members of the opposition in another place for the speedy passage of this legislation and their understanding that this is an important piece of legislation that needs to be passed quickly for the benefit of our Indigenous Australians. I thank members for their contributions and I look forward to the deputy leader's probing questions.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: In all the consultations the government has undertaken since 2008, has it ever received a written submission from an Aboriginal party or person advocating the deletion of section 6(2)?

The CHAIR: We are looking at clause 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am, but I am talking about consultation with respect to the bill generally.

The CHAIR: You were being pretty specific there, but, yes, go on.

Ms CHAPMAN: If so, from which personal parties has this submission been received?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do not know. I will have to go away and check.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! One could presume that the adviser has already advised the minister. He has given you an answer. There is not much I can do about that, deputy leader. Do you have another question?

Ms CHAPMAN: How many people made submissions in respect of the review?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We would have to count them. I am happy to provide that to the member by the end of the committee stage so we can have a chance to count them.

Ms CHAPMAN: Why does the bill seek to grant the minister veto-like powers, which are not found in the current act, over any agreement made with Aboriginal people including an agreement made under the proposed new agreement making provisions contained in the bill, which is the new section 19, and how is this consistent with the government's alleged support of Aboriginal self-determination?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that ultimately the minister's role is not one of the veto but that of decision-making to ensure that heritage is not being destroyed, or being in agreement between two parties. I would also point out that it is not just the government that agrees with that position: its members of the Liberal Party in the upper house who voted for the bill.

The CHAIR: How many more questions do you have that are general around consultation?

Ms CHAPMAN: One more.

The CHAIR: One more, then we might make a leap forward into several clauses. Okay, one more. Deputy leader.

Ms CHAPMAN: Does the minister say that under the new structure the minister will have more power or less power?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the minister will have the same power.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 8 passed.

Clause 9.

Ms CHAPMAN: The minister heard me speak in respect of the automatic elevation of the registered Aboriginal representative body and, in fact, that it needed to be cleared by the heritage committee. Does the minister agree with that?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sorry, could you repeat that? I was distracted by a note after we counted the submissions.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am sure the minister was listening intently, perhaps—

The CHAIR: He was trying to satisfy your earlier query, but he is listening to you now.

Ms CHAPMAN: Although the government has asserted that a native title body that is corporate will automatically become an RARB, unless it opts out or the heritage committee does not approve it, in fact, it is not automatic at all; it has to be approved. There is a prerequisite of the committee's approval. It is one where you can put your hand up as a group, but it is not something that just simply means you are automatically registered. You have to go through the process of being approved by the committee. There is nothing automatic about that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that, yes, the scenario you have just placed is accurate.

Ms CHAPMAN: Perhaps the minister could check his notes, then, when he is actually reading out these second reading speeches in the future.

The CHAIR: In fairness, deputy leader, that is not really helpful—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: No; order! That is not helping the committee process. If you have another question, deputy leader, let's have it please.

Ms CHAPMAN: After the full rigour of the native title determination through the Federal Court of Australia has determined conclusively who the native title holders are, why is it that a person's role in having a say about Aboriginal sites can be vetoed by the heritage committee which, while made up of Aboriginal people, may in fact have few or no representatives of the traditional owners concerned?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised quite simply that the reason is that we want to ensure that traditional owners are continually consulted about heritage on their lands. One process is never final and we want to make sure that everyone has their say.

Ms CHAPMAN: How can the minister be assured that all of the bodies that apply to be a representative actually have traditional owners on them and, if they do not, is it the government's intention that they will require that those bodies have traditional owners on them, as part of their group, for them to get approval?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Generally, the advice I am receiving is that the people on the groups are traditional owners. This oversight is simply to ensure that consultation is occurring. I have to say that I think the deputy leader is looking for conspiracy where there is none.

The CHAIR: Do you have the last question on this particular bit?

Ms CHAPMAN: If generally the native title body corporates do have traditional owners as part of their group, and that is something that the government expects would occur, can you give an assurance to the house that, if there are not traditional owners on it, they will be rejected?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that that is why the committee has oversight.

The CHAIR: Do you have another question on this one? If you wish we can be lenient here, because I presume this is the area where you have the most concern.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, thank you. Four years ago, the government reported that 'funding of $7.6 million has been secured for the implementation of the new act'—that is, the Aboriginal Heritage Act—'over four years'. For the record, that is on page 18 of the 2011-12 annual report. Has all of the $7.6 million allocated in the 2011-12 financial year been preserved and, if not, how much funding has the government allocated for the implementation of the new act over the forward estimates?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Surprisingly, I do not have the answer to that here but—

Ms CHAPMAN: Says our Treasurer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, it is a $17 billion budget—I will get back to the member on that answer. While I am on my feet, I am advised that, to date, 36 submissions were received across consultations on the heritage act, and amendments.

Ms CHAPMAN: The minister, having apprised himself of the 36 submissions, have any of the 36 asked for section 6(2) to be removed or repealed?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We just counted them; I have not read them all. What I will do, though, is I will endeavour to speak to the department—

The CHAIR: Perhaps we could ask the deputy leader if she knows the answer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —and I will find out.

The CHAIR: Do you know the answer?

Ms CHAPMAN: I don't know of any, but we will wait to hear.

The CHAIR: You don't know of any who have objected?

Ms CHAPMAN: No, but have they actually sought it?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So the question the deputy leader is asking is: has anyone who made representations on the consultation asked for the amendment to section 6(2)? What I will endeavour to do is to get a detailed answer for the member.

Ms CHAPMAN: While he is looking for the money, the $7.6 million that is not immediately familiar to him—I appreciate that he will make that inquiry—I would also ask that the Treasurer/minister inquire as to what proportion of this allocation will be used to fund the operation activities of the proposed RARBs.

The CHAIR: That is not really a question; that is an instruction.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, it is a question. I will ask him whether he will inquire into that for that answer.

The CHAIR: I think he has agreed to do all of that already.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is so hard to refuse the—

The CHAIR: It is the way she asks.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —deputy leader/future leader.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (10 to 14), schedule 1 and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (11:50): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.