Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (12:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading explanation inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

I am pleased to introduce the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016. This Bill provides for amendments to the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1981 – the APY Act—to improve the overall governance and administration of the APY lands by Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara – the APY.

The APY Act was enacted over 30 years ago in 1981. It established an APY body corporate comprising and representing all Anangu, and transferred to this body the freehold title of over 103,000 square kms of land, as described in Schedule 1 of the APY Act.

The governing body of APY is the APY Executive Board. Currently (and this will change) the Board has 10 members elected every three years from 10 electorates, with residents of each electorate voting for one representative on the Board. The Executive Board's integrity, leadership and representative capacity directly affects decision making, and good governance of the APY Lands.

Strong governance is essential if the APY Executive Board is to operate as an institution that is effective and accountable to the communities they represent. Yet the APY Executive Board has faced difficulties in achieving stable and effective governance, with organisational instability and problems with financial management.

However over the last 12 months significant progress has made by APY to improve its administration and financial accountability. A range of new processes have been implemented including training to develop employee capability with respect to financial management.

APY funding for 2014-15 was released contingent on new requirements and conditions being implemented. This included:

implementation of strict delegations for approving payments with only the General Manager having authority for approval;

undertaking of an independent audit of spending and financial controls for the period July 2014 to December 2014; and

a requirement for specific documentation to be provided on the APY website including minutes of APY Executive Board meetings, monthly financial reports and annual reports.

The Auditor General noted in his 30 June 2015 report:

'It was evident from our review that DSD and the Minister had implemented more stringent conditions on the release of the grant funding in 2014-15. They also continued to facilitate processes that aim to improve governance and accountability arrangements for APY, including initiating a number of external reviews...'

Assistance to improve the Executive Board's governance was sought by the former Minister in 2013, through the commissioning of an independent, limited review of the APY Act. This review examined potential improvements to the election process and composition of the Board. The Independent Review Panel, comprised of its chair the Hon Dr Robyn Layton AO QC, Mr Harry Miller, Ms April Lawrie-Smith and Mr John Hill, consulted extensively on the APY lands throughout 2013. The panel visited the APY Lands 8 times for 24 separate meetings. In April 2014, the Panel submitted its final report to the former Minister who provided it to the APY Executive Board.

The key recommendations of the Layton Review include creating gender balance on the APY Executive Board, changing the electoral process to improve representation of all Anangu and changes to candidate eligibility requirements for election to the Board. The Layton Review's recommendations were carefully considered in the development of the draft 2015 Bill for consultation.

From December 2015 to May 2016, consultation on the 2015 Bill was undertaken by departmental staff, who conducted 22 feedback sessions with key APY leadership groups on the APY Lands and in Alice Springs, including APY Executive, members of the Law and Culture Committee and Chairs of Community Councils. Consultation also occurred with government and non-government stakeholders in Adelaide and Port Augusta, and five written submissions have been received.

The feedback received from the consultations, as well as the Layton Review recommendations and the government's policy approach, all have informed the development of this Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016.

In summary, this Bill seeks to improve governance and administration within the APY lands through its key reforms, which:

provide for gender balance on the APY Executive Board;

establish 7 electorates whose composition creates a more even population spread;

provide for an APY Executive Board of up to 14 members;

establish APY Executive Board member minimum eligibility criteria, thereby improving Board member respect and leadership;

provide greater certainty for election dates, ensuring elections are held between 1 May and 31 August every 3 years;

establish a panel of conciliators, thereby providing a more effective and transparent process for their appointment;

provide greater consistency of eligibility criteria for APY statutory officers and APY Executive Board members;

ensure that APY Executive Board members live in their electorate for the majority of their term in office;

establish eligibility criteria for Anangu voters through a voters roll, providing more certainty in election outcomes;

remove voting by marbles to facilitate greater voting options for Anangu;

enable absentee voting for Anangu out of their home communities; and,

provide transitional provisions, including for the first election under the new regime, to facilitate a timely first election following the passing of this Bill.

These are important reforms that will bring greater diversity, credibility and representation to the APY Executive Board, as well as improving APY administration and electoral processes.

The intention of the amendments contained in this Bill is to provide for a strong and representative APY Executive Board—

half of whom will be Anangu women;

whose membership will have the respect of their community;

whose members will be leaders well placed to meet the challenges of governance on their lands.

Good governance will positively affect the health and wellbeing of Anangu living on the APY Lands. Strong leadership and decision-making can build the confidence of the community and external stakeholders, facilitating the provision of services, programs and development initiatives.

Not only do Anangu benefit from good governance, but all South Australians are enriched by improving the health and vibrancy of Anangu culture and communities, by recognising and respecting the continuing practice of the world's oldest living culture.

I commend the Bill to Members.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

3—Amendment provisions

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981

4—Amendment of section 4—Interpretation

This clause inserts a definition of 'serious offence' into section 4 of the principle Act.

5—Amendment of section 4A—Objects

This clause amends section 4A of the principal Act to include, as an object of the Act, the fact that both Anangu men and Anangu women are afforded the opportunity to have equal representation on the Executive Board.

6—Amendment of section 5—Constitution of Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara as body corporate

This clause makes a consequential amendment to section 5 of the principal Act.

7—Amendment of section 9—Executive Board of Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara

This clause amends section 9 of the principal Act to vary the composition of the Executive Board so that it now consists of up to 14 members (being 1 man and 1 woman from each of the electorates).

The clause substitutes new section 9(6)(a), prescribing the period within which elections must be held.

8—Amendment of section 9D—Casual vacancies

This clause amends section 9D of the principal Act to provide further grounds on which a casual vacancy occurs in an office of the Executive Board.

First, the Executive Board may remove a member if he or she resides (without leave) outside of the electorate from which he or she was elected for a total period of more than 3 months in any 12 month period.

Second, a member's office is automatically vacated if he or she is found guilty of a serious offence as defined.

The clause also makes consequential amendments to the holding of supplementary elections arising out of the new gender requirements for members.

9—Amendment of section 10—Procedure of the Executive Board

This clause makes consequential amendments to section 10 of the principal Act.

10—Amendment of section 13B—Director of Administration

This clause amends section 13B of the principal Act to make consistent the kinds of conduct that will see a person prevented from being appointed as Director of Administration.

11—Amendment of section 13D—General Manager

This clause amends section 13D of the principal Act to make consistent the kinds of conduct that will see a person prevented from being appointed as General Manager.

12—Amendment of section 13G—Termination of appointment of Director of Administration or General Manager by Executive Board

This clause makes amendments to section 13G of the principal Act consequent on the amendment of sections 13B and 13D.

13—Amendment of section 13O—Minister may suspend Executive Board

This clause amends section 13O of the principal Act to specify the grounds on which the Minister can suspend the Executive Board, and repeals subsection (1a) of that section.

14—Substitution of section 35

This clause inserts new sections 35 and 35A into the principal Act as follows:

35—Minister to appoint panel of conciliators

This section requires the Minister to establish a panel of conciliators and makes procedural provision accordingly.

35A—Application for conciliation

This section enables an Anangu who is aggrieved by a decision or action of the Executive Board to apply to the Minister for conciliation, and makes provision as to how the Minister is to deal with such applications.

15—Amendment of section 36—Conciliation

This clause makes consequential amendments to section 36 of the principal Act reflecting the change from a single conciliator to a panel of conciliators.

16—Amendment of section 37—Order compelling compliance with direction of conciliator

This clause makes a consequential amendment to section 37 of the principal Act reflecting the change from a single conciliator to a panel of conciliators.

17—Amendment of Schedule 3—Rules of election under section 9

This clause amends Schedule 3 of the principal Act to vary the rules by which an election of members of the Executive Board is to be conducted. The changes of note are as follows:

Subclause (3) requires 7 electorates to be constituted by regulation.

Subclause (7) sets out changes to requirements that must be met for nomination for office, including a requirement that the candidate be enrolled or provisionally enrolled on the State electoral roll, and a requirement that a criminal history report be obtained in relation to the candidate before the election (to be paid for by the Electoral Commissioner).

Proposed clause 6A of the Schedule provides for the establishment of a voters roll for elections, with eligibility to vote requiring enrolment on the voters roll.

Subclause (10) inserts a requirement that the returning officer provide for absentee voting in Adelaide and Alice Springs on election day.

Schedule 1—Transitional provisions

1—Executed documents

This clause continues to apply section 5(4) of the principal Act (before amendment by this measure) to documents executed before the commencement of section 6 of the measure.

2—Casual vacancies

This clause provides that section 9D(5) and (6) of the principal Act (as in force before the commencement of this clause) do not apply to certain vacancies in the office of a member of the Executive Board, in effect allowing those vacancies to not be filled until the next election.

3—First election of members of the Executive Board

This clause makes special provisions for the first election of members of the Executive Board under section 9 of that Act following the commencement of this measure. In particular, the clause sets out the electorates, disapplies certain provisions of the principal Act specifying time limits and requires the first election to be held as soon as is reasonably practicable. The clause also allows the returning officer to make further rules, or to modify existing rules, to allow the election to be conducted in appropriate manner.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:01): I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition. Having said that, I will not be taking a long time with this particular piece of legislation. This is a fine example of where, if people act in a non-combative and non-aggressive adversarial manner, things can be achieved in a sensible and sane fashion. Aboriginal affairs is one of those areas which should be above politics, and it should be about improving the future for our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander constituents.

I have had the pleasure of working with six different ministers for Aboriginal affairs in South Australia, starting in 2002 with the late Terry Roberts, who I can say without any doubt was one of the most passionate supporters of Aboriginal South Australians I have ever met. Terry was certainly doing everything he possibly could to advance the cause of Aboriginal affairs in South Australia, and he was able to do that with a department of Aboriginal affairs and reconciliation back then.

But what we see now is that the department has been reduced, the ministry has been moved and the bureaucrats have been reduced to a small group—I suppose you would call it an 'office of Aboriginal affairs and reconciliation'. It is not a department and it is not a division. It is a group in a department and its role has certainly changed as well, as has the need to continually bring back to this parliament the concerns of all South Australians about the welfare and future of Aboriginal South Australians. That has changed in many ways, but in many ways it has also stayed the same.

I will give the house a little bit of background on the lands, the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands. It would be interesting to know how many members of parliament have not even been to the APY lands; if you have not, you should make a point of coming with the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee, which I have had the pleasure of being a member on for many years now, on one of our trips to the lands or, indeed, go up there with one of the ministers or one of the other committees. The Natural Resources Committee has been up there recently. Go up and have a look at this wonderful part of South Australia. It has some of the most beautiful countryside there is in South Australia. Let's not forget that the highest point in the South Australian landscape, Mount Woodroffe, is on the APY lands.

The APY lands is an extensive area in the north-west corner of our state where it abuts the Northern Territory and Western Australia. It covers about 103,000 square kilometres and, on the southern boundary, you have the Maralinga Tjarutja lands. In 1921, with white settlement starting to encroach on the Anangu lands, the South Australian government proclaimed the north-west Aboriginal reserve. This reserve consisted of most of what is now known as the APY lands, with the exception of the eastern part of the lands, which was given over to pastoral leases to Europeans.

The history of the APY lands is associated with churches—the Presbyterian Church, in particular. I pay homage and great regard to the late Dr Bill Edwards, who spent many years as a Presbyterian minister on the APY lands. He was one of those wonderful people who communicated with Anangu in their own language; in fact, he was an interpreter. He wrote books and other scholarly articles. He was an absolutely wonderful man and his death was a tragic loss, not only for all South Australians but particularly for the Anangu.

In 1937, the Presbyterian Church established the Ernabella Mission on the lands at the place that is now commonly known as Pukatja. By the 1950s, many Anangu were living at the Ernabella Mission, while many others lived at camps on pastoral leases on what is now the lands, or nearby, where they would work. Those pastoral leases included Granite Downs, Everard Park, Victory Downs, De Rose Hill, Kenmore Park and Mount Cavanagh. In 1961, to prevent overcrowding at the Ernabella Mission, the church established what became the community of Amata, which is generally known as Musgrove Park.

At the same time, the church also established what is known as the community of Kaltjiti, which was then known as Fregon. In 1968, what is now known as the community of Indulkana was established by the South Australian government as a base from which to provide welfare services to Anangu living in camps on pastoral leases, where work was becoming increasingly difficult to find. At that time, the surrounding area was excised from pastoral leases and declared the Indulkana Aboriginal reserve.

The body now known as Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara was formed in 1981 by the passing of the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981 in this parliament. It was a wonderful step forward, and let us never forget that the South Australia parliament has been a leader in Aboriginal affairs. Certainly, with Dean Brown's apology in, I think, 1997, we were the first to offer an apology for past ill-treatment of Aboriginal people. People in this place and outside do not realise how many communities there are on the APY lands.

I just remind people that driving from Adelaide to Pipalyatjara, which is way up in the north-west corner, is like driving from Adelaide to Sydney, apart from the fact that the last 600 ks are on some pretty ordinary roads. Even with the APY roads project going on—which I understand is way behind budget and has been underspent so far—the roads are still pretty ordinary. I was at Pipalyatjara just recently for a funeral and people were travelling in over very wet muddy roads in some cases for four or five hours for what would normally be a drive of an hour or so in fine weather.

The communities on the lands are not massive. The total population is about 2,500 to 3,000 people. Certainly, during the summertime that drops off as people leave the lands and go to Port Augusta, Ceduna and Port Lincoln. Some go to Coober Pedy. It is extremely warm there during the summertime. It will be interesting to see how many Anangu have actually filled out the last census online. I doubt it would be very many because computer services are pretty limited up there but, in the 2011 census population figures, Ernabella (Pukatja) had 503 people; Amata, 479; Indulkana, 395; Fregon, 285; Mimili, 281; and Pipalyatjara, 118.

There are also a number of other localities and I will quickly put them into Hansard: Amata, Fregon, Indulkana, Irintata, Iwantja, Kalka, Kaltjiti, Kanpi, Mimili and Mintabie. Mintabie is mainly non-Indigenous. It is certainly a site for—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: An admin centre.

Dr McFETRIDGE: It is an administration centre and it is a site for buying cars and other things. The list includes Murputja, Nyapari, Pipalyatjara, Pukatja, the Tjurma Homelands, Turkey Bore, and Umuwa, which is really the administrative centre where most of the government departments base themselves. The others are Watinuma and Yunyarinyi, and the other one that is listed on the communities but is currently closed down at the moment is Watarru.

I said a moment ago that Mount Woodroffe, the highest point in South Australia, is up there. Watarru, also known as Mount Lindsay, is also there and is one of the most beautiful parts on the APY lands. Watarru is like a cross between Uluru and Kata Tjuta, Ayers Rock and the Olgas. It is an interesting fact that Mount Lindsay is 11 kilometres around and that Ayers Rock is nine kilometres around. It is a spectacular sight.

Sadly, though, we have $20 million worth of government infrastructure there that has been shut down and in many cases trashed. The schools, the clinics, the administration centre, the store and the mechanic's workshops have all been trashed. It is a sad indictment on not only all of us but indeed the administrators on the APY lands, the executive and the community leaders, that this has been allowed to occur.

That said, the communities on the APY lands do try, but they are struggling. We hear the same stories about lack of governance over and over again. We certainly should hang our heads in shame at some of the gaps between white and Aboriginal health and expectations, when you consider the APY lands as a particular example of where Aboriginal people are in 2016 in Australia. A very salutary fact about health is that on the APY lands we have the world's worst trachoma rates.

Trachoma is an eye disease that is very simply controlled and eliminated by increased hygiene. We have the world's worst trachoma rates in parallel with one small part of Ethiopia. It has been controlled or eliminated as a scourge from the rest of the world, but not on the APY lands—along with hearing problems, with 75 per cent of the kids having hearing problems.

We know from the Mullighan report into the abuse of children on the APY lands that there has been abuse of children on the lands, and unfortunately it is still going on today. Children are not going to school as much as they should, there are still drug problems and there are some alcohol problems. Certainly, we need to make sure that we have some way forward, and the bill we are considering today is hopefully going to provide some way forward, with some changes to the electoral make-up up there and also the constitution of the APY Executive.

In 2003, the Hon. Robert Lawson QC gave an address to the Bennelong Society about the Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Act 1981. In his address to the society, he talked about the enormity of the lands site, the people living on the lands and the different communities. He also talked about some of the ongoing issues, and even back then there were some issues raised by the Hon. Robert Lawson about the reporting of health issues.

Nganampa Health on the lands is a unique organisation that has been around for many years. To try to get information out of them is particularly difficult. They have their reports up on the net, which they say will provide everything, but I understand that you still cannot FOI any of their reports, that the federal government control is limited as well. I think we need to think about the future of an organisation like Nganampa Health on the APY lands if we still have health issues as dire as those that are being reported to the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee and that I am hearing personally.

In his address to the Bennelong Society, the Hon. Robert Lawson also talked about the amount of funds that were being put into the APY lands. Back in 2003, he said:

It has been calculated that $60 million per annum of commonwealth and state government funding is paid to or for the benefit of people on the lands, (i.e. about $24,000 for each man, woman and child on the lands).

I can tell you now that that $60 million then is about $200 million now. So, $200 million a year is going into those lands and where is most of it going? As Robert Lawson pointed out in 2003:

Much funding goes to pay non-indigenous administrators, managers and bureaucrats and to meet the high cost of infrastructure.

The school fence around Pipalyatjara Primary School, which is about 150 metres long, if that, was $350,000. It is just a tubing fence. Downtown here, I think you would get it for a quarter of that price, if not possibly even less. I know that you have to truck it up there and you have to get people up there and that there are costs. We see huge increases in prices—for example, building a very modest three-bedroom home costs about half a million dollars. There must be better ways of doing business on the lands than we have been doing for so many years.

Another issue I think is very salutary, and one we hear about a lot, is as Robert Lawson said in his 2003 address:

As for the youth, their abiding interest is betrayed by abundant posters of AFL stars and football jumpers. I sense that, like many other Australian young people, their most potent spiritual drivers come from television, rather than tradition. They dream of money and fame and the good life of sporting heroes and rock stars.

What is the future of these kids on the APY lands? They go to school, they come down to Wiltja or they go to some of the private colleges. Going back to the lands is not a real option for the vast majority of them as the job opportunities on the lands are really limited. Once mining takes off again, there may be some more opportunities. There are limited opportunities working in schools, working in clinics, working in the stores, working at the swimming pools, or working on the roads there. They are still limited.

Some very good friends of mine, Tony and Aileen Rodgers, run Wiltja Building Services on the lands. They are based on the lands, and Aileen is a Yankunytjatjara woman. They are providing really good services and employing Aboriginal people, yet time and time again they are frustrated by being overlooked in the competitive tendering process. They are obviously a little bit dearer in many cases, but what they do provide is the end long-term gain of employing Aboriginal people. We need to make sure that we consider some positive discrimination perhaps in these cases and have regard to the long-term outcomes.

There are lots of short-term solutions for some of the problems on the lands, but we need long-term solutions for long-term outcomes. The political background to the APY act goes right back to the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act 1966 and the Aboriginal Affairs Act 1962. Labor governments and Liberal governments were keen to introduce legislation that was going to allow Aboriginal people to have some control of their own land and have control of their own destinies, and it was all well intended. After a lot of agitation by various Aboriginal groups, we saw it culminating in the 1981 act coming into force.

The bill was introduced by Don Dunstan, but when it had not passed when Labor lost office in 1979 the Liberal Tonkin government, which was elected in 1980, picked up the legislation and it was passed through both houses in March 1981. Back then, there was bipartisan agreement on what was going on. Certainly, the ministers and I, as the opposition, have differences of opinion, differences of attitude and differences of priorities on some of this, but by sitting down and talking about it we can come up with some good results.

We have today a bill before us that may not provide all the answers, but let's hope it will bring some of the problems forward and provide some of the solutions. The current role of the government in supporting Aboriginal people, the changing role of the department—it has gone to a division now, it is just an office in the Department of State Development—is something that I am concerned about. I think we need to raise not so much the profile but the prominence and the impetus of furthering Aboriginal issues in this state.

The Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation agency, as it is called on the government's website, says that its role is to:

empower Aboriginal people to have a stronger voice in government decision-making and provide leadership in promotion of effective governance arrangements

provide whole of government policy advice and leadership

support skills development, job creation and sustainable employment for Aboriginal people

support engagement with Aboriginal stakeholders including the provision of culturally appropriate advice to government

develop and coordinate whole of government strategies

support the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council, Chief Executive's Group on Aboriginal Affairs and other representative bodies as required—

The South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council is one that I am watching at the moment, how it is functioning. I do not think that a half-hour meeting in Adelaide, like the last meeting, is adequate to really go through a comprehensive and long agenda, particularly when people are travelling a long way. I will be watching this group carefully, how it is used by this government. Certainly, I hope it is not being used as a shield in any way, saying, 'We have this council and we are consulting.'

The other roles of the AARD are to encourage across-government knowledge sharing and support of reconciliation and provide advice and support to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation on the administration and legislation committed to the minister. That legislation, as I say, is what we are debating today. We need to make sure that we continue to move forward.

Going back through some of my files, I came across a copy of a letter to the then chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Warren McCann, from none other than the late Bob Collins. Remember, Bob Collins went up to the APY lands to look at some of the issues there, including the COAG trials, the changes when ATSIC was abolished and the need to bring a change to the electoral system. He looked at those and made a whole lot of recommendations. That was in April 2004.

There were 10 recommendations, and amongst them were changes to policing on the lands and the distribution of funds on the lands for health and substance abuse programs and other things that are still issues on the lands. The second recommendation was that the South Australian Electoral Commission conduct elections on the lands, and that is something we are going to see today. Unfortunately, not all of those 10 recommendations have been fulfilled.

Bob Collins' letter is dated April 2004. In May 2004, one of the Aboriginal women, Makinti Minutjukur, who was a significant leader on the lands, was the municipal services officer in Pukatja. She was on the APY Executive at the time. She hoped to meet with then premier Rann and talk about Bob Collins' visit to the lands. However, as she says in her letter to premier Rann:

When you didn't arrive I drove across the creek to see where you were and found you outside the TAFE building in front of the newspaper cameras. Unfortunately I didn't see you again.

There was a failure to communicate back then and there is still a failure to communicate in many areas now. However, I must say that the current minister has worked with me to try to make sure we are communicating not only between us but also with the people on the APY lands. In her letter to premier Rann, Makinti wanted the government to respect and understand what Aboriginal people were trying to achieve, and I think that is what we are all trying to do. I do not think that that has been achieved as well as we hoped and as much as Makinti hoped.

The background to this bill, though, is that we need to make changes to the way elections are being held on the lands. We need to make sure that there are changes to the traditional patriarchal society which result in mainly men being elected to positions. In 2016, the need to have more women represented both in this place and also in the APY Executive is something I think we would all support. I have met women on the APY lands who are very intelligent and capable of being on the executive, and I strongly encourage community members to get behind these women to make sure that the whole of society there is being represented.

When I did the Pitjantjatjara language course in 2003 with the late Dr Bill Edwards at the University of South Australia, one of our tutors was Mona Tur. I asked her what she would do if there was one thing she could change as an Aboriginal woman, and she said, 'Come back as a man.' That to me was an indication that patriarchal society really was biting. What we are doing with this bill today is providing gender equity on the APY Executive Board and establishing seven electorates (decreasing from 10 now to seven) to create a more even population spread.

We are increasing the executive board up to 14, and half of those will be women. We are establishing eligibility criteria to be on the executive, and certainly part of that eligibility will be to be of good character. There is a list of serious offences that will disqualify a person from being on the executive. We need to provide certainty for election dates. Elections will be held every three years and they will be run by the Electoral Commission. The system of voting will change so that we do not have marbles—in the past, I think they have even used ink on fingers. It is going to be a lot more sophisticated.

There will be touchscreen computers with pictures, with explanations, both in English and Pitjantjatjara, so that electors can make the determinations for the people they really want to have on the executive, and it will all be done in secret. The need to make sure that we give people the right to stand is there, but we try to encourage the potential leaders, the future leaders, the people who are out there to want to stand and also then get elected with a fair and open ballot system. This is something that I think will result.

APY Executive Board members must live in their electorate for the majority of their term in office. I know that changing boundaries often make members of parliament live outside their electorates, or sometimes they choose to, but it is a bit different on the executive up there. This is a more specific area of land that we are talking about, with different communities. If you want to represent your community, you should really be able to demonstrate your deep ties to that particular community.

There will be some absentee voting. There were some concerns about the people on dialysis who cannot live on the lands not being able to vote. There were about 21 of those people, I think, and because most of them are long-term dialysis receivers, most of them would not be eligible under any state or federal electoral laws. That has been an area of some contention, and perhaps we might revisit that if it does become an issue. However, absentee voting has been included in this.

Another issue that has come up on many occasions is the need for conciliators in relation to disputes. Initially, the bill said that the minister may appoint conciliators. I emphasised to the minister that, if there were a request from an Anangu that a conciliator be appointed, he should appoint a conciliator. We agreed on that. In fact, he has agreed that there will be a panel of conciliators that can be used, and those conciliators will then report back to the minister, and hopefully the shadow minister, on what went on with the conciliation process.

There are divisions up there. Even just recently at the last executive meeting, half the executive were in the room and half the executive were outside the room, and I think at one stage that changed over: the half that was in the room went out of the room, and the other half that was out of the room went in the room, but nothing happened in the end. There were disputes. There were resolutions that should have been passed, and could have been passed, but the disputes were still going on.

The changes here will, hopefully, bring sense to people who are putting their hand up to stand on the executive that they have a job to do, they have a job to lead, they have a job to make sure the executive is functioning in the way it is supposed to do, according to not only the act, but to the way we all want it to, both Anangu and Piranpa (white people). The bill is the result of a lot of consultation. You can always say to people, 'There wasn't enough consultation,' but there was. There was a lot of consultation.

Robyn Layton QC went up onto the lands. I encourage everybody to go to the lands to see how difficult it is to get around, how difficult it is to organise a meeting, how difficult it is to sit down and have some in-depth discussion on any issue, never mind on issues as complex as this. There was a lot of consultation going on. You could always consult more, you could always consult differently, but I think that the outcome here has been one that is more than reasonable under the circumstances.

The beauty of the democracy is that if we find it is not working we can come back and we can look at it again, and that is what it is about. I can guarantee this is not the first time that we have had to change Aboriginal legislation and it will not be the last, but that is what the democratic process is about. The bill has been amended in the other place by my colleagues and members of the minor parties. The government has listened to their concerns and where possible we have worked together to accommodate those concerns.

If the outcome of this legislation is that the election is held as early as we can next year, and a new executive of up to 14 with up to half being women is in place, then it behoves all of us to support that executive to make sure they are given the training and the support that they need so that we do not continue to get letters from people up there who are frustrated beyond belief, so that we are not going to see reports on deplorable health conditions, and so that we are not going to see $200 million every year going into the lands only to go to white contractors, bureaucrats and other people up there and not benefiting the Anangu.

We need to make sure that the gap—the closing of the gap that we all talk about—is going to be reduced to zero, we would hope, and that is a big ask. Unless we continually look at ways of improving not only the legislation in this place but also the outcomes on the APY lands, we will achieve nothing. I hope this bill gives the Anangu some confidence that their election of their representatives will be a full, open and transparent one and that the representatives then have those responsibilities to represent them to their best ability. They will do so with the support of the parliament, not just the government. With that, I wish the speedy passage of this bill.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (12:31): I rise to support the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016, introduced into the other place by my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation whom I know has deeply engaged with APY community members about its content. I commend his development of this bill, his work with, for and alongside APY community members, and I thank and commend all APY community members for their work, voice and input to bring the bill to this point and to reimagine and reinvigorate their governance structures. I also commend the member for Morphett for his long-term passion and interest in the APY lands and for his words today.

This bill provides for amendments to the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1981 (the APY act) to strengthen and improve the overall governance and administration of the APY lands by APY people. It has been developed following a review of the APY act undertaken, as the member for Morphett said, by an independent panel chaired by the Hon. Robyn Layton QC AO.

The review examined potential improvements to the election process and the composition of the board, with a view to strengthening the board's and the community's voice for the long term. One of the key recommendations of the review, and one of the key reforms included in the bill before this house which it is my pleasure to speak in support of, is the requirement for gender balance on the APY board. Members of this house know well of my longstanding passion for gender equality and for developing measures to ensure that this equality is enacted. I am, therefore, very proud to speak today about changes to the way in which APY Executive Board elections will be conducted.

An election of the APY Executive Board on the APY lands will now consist of an election of one man and one woman from each electorate. With the establishment of seven electorates in the bill, there will now be 14 APY Executive Board members, half of whom will be women. Historically the overwhelming majority of APY Executive Board members have been Anangu men; however, Anangu women are increasingly expressing their interest in taking up leadership positions and participating more directly in APY decision-making, no doubt inspired by the strong leadership and advocacy of the board's first female chair.

Gender balance on the APY Executive was enthusiastically and overwhelmingly supported by Anangu men and women during the review, and it is supported by the majority of the current APY Executive Board. Anangu have told us they want this reform; they want to give Anangu women a greater voice in governance; they want to bring Anangu women's perspectives to the board's discussions and decisions. They know well how diversity and decision-making, and decision-making bodies being made up in a way that reflects the community for whom they make decisions with and for, make for better and stronger decisions and initiatives. We know that Anangu woman are waiting in the wings for this opportunity and that they are committed to making a difference with and for their community.

It is interesting to note that recently this very opportunity has been recognised as central to reforming community leadership, with Cape York community leader, Mr Noel Pearson, stating in The Australian on 25 May 2015:

We need to revisit the whole question about the appropriateness of leadership structures in communities...I really think the women have got to be empowered to take more leadership in the community.

This bill will provide for a strong and representative APY Executive Board, whose membership will have the respect of their community, whose members will be leaders well placed to meet the challenges of governance on their lands, and whose membership will be half Anangu women.

Real representation for our communities can only occur when our power structures reflect our communities, and that is why I absolutely commend this bill to the house and look forward to seeing the benefits of it realised in the APY community and to hearing the strong voice of APY community members.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (12:36): I also rise to support the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016, introduced into the other place by my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. I also acknowledge the contribution of the member for Morphett in this area over many years, and his longstanding interest.

I recognise that, as the member for Giles, the APY lands have been in my patch now for two and a half years, so I will not claim to have the experience and the knowledge of a number of people in this place who have had involvement over many years. I think the two attributes that I would like to bring to my role as the member for Giles, when it comes to the APY lands, is that sense of openness and support.

It is, in many respects, another world on the APY lands, a world unto itself, and in itself a vast area, in excess of 102,000 square kilometres, with a range of isolated communities. Since being elected I have visited the APY lands on two occasions, and I will be going back in October. It is still my intent to go there, not with a committee and not with any other people, but to drive through all of those communities and take my time and get to know people far better than I have been able to date.

I also acknowledge the former member for Giles, who had a special relationship with the Aboriginal people of the north of this state, and that was recognised by the conferring of a name on Lynn, which was a very special honour and one of which she is deeply proud. I keep having to tell myself that she did spend 17 years in this parliament, so there is a lot of catching up to be done. I doubt that I will ever be able to catch up with the things she did, and the special relationship she had with many of the women in the APY lands, and it is why these amendments are so commendable in the way they touch on Anangu women.

The bill provides for amendments to the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981 (the APY act) to improve the overall governance and administration of the APY lands by Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara. The bill comes to us for consideration after many years of consultation on the APY lands and with Anangu people, my constituents.

The vast majority of these changes will bring the APY elections and surrounding processes more in line with elections held in every other part of the country. Anangu who are not physically in their own community on the day of the election have previously not been allowed to cast a vote for who they want to represent them. There are no ifs, buts or maybes. If you live in Amata or happen to be in Fregon for work on that day, visiting a family in Kalka or even receiving dialysis in Port Augusta, the bill in its current state does not allow anyone in these circumstances to have a voice in the APY lands.

I just briefly touched on dialysis there, and I know it has been over the years a subject of debate about how best to address those challenging health issues. The mobile service was introduced, and I think that was a very positive thing. I know that people on the other side of the house were advocates and strong advocates for a permanent presence on the APY lands when it came to dialysis, and that was a conclusion I came to very early on, probably in the lead-up to my election as the member for Giles.

There is a need for that permanent presence when it comes to dialysis on the lands. I think we are about to have a significant step forward, and it will be something I will be paying very close attention to to ensure that we have timely, permanent dialysis at least in one community on the lands, which will complement quite effectively the mobile service that was introduced during the last term of this government.

I am so glad to see the changes in the amendments reflected in this bill before us. The Electoral Commissioner will no longer use marbles as a voting mechanism and will be able to accept absentee votes from Anangu who are entitled to vote but are not physically in their home community. The creation of a voters roll will also provide greater certainty and transparency for the APY lands. I know there have been contentious decisions about who was allowed to vote in previous elections. The creation of a voters roll removes any ambiguity and ensures that only eligible people are voting and, importantly, voting in the right electorate.

Another positive change will be the reduction of the number of electorates from 10 to seven, with the election of a male and a female from each. This will see a greater balance of population spread and gender balance, thus providing greater representation. I know that the first female chair of the APY Executive, Kunmanara Paddy, set a great example for many young Anangu women who want to have a greater voice and contribute to their communities. If the NPY Women's Council is a measure of this kind of Anangu women who may be elected on the APY Executive, I think it would be incredibly difficult to argue against this amendment. I think it is a real step forward.

Strong and representative leadership is essential to improve the lives of everyone living on the APY lands, and I believe these amendments will deliver a more just result for all Anangu. I commend this bill to this place.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (12:44): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Sitting suspended from 12:44 to 14:00.

The SPEAKER: The member for Schubert will restrain his mobile phone from ringing.