Parliamentary Committees

Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee: Report 2016-17

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (11:01): I move:

That the 2016-17 annual report of the committee be noted.

During the past year, the committee has been fortunate to hear from many Aboriginal leaders, representatives and organisations across South Australia. It has been our privilege to listen to the lived experiences of Aboriginal people across South Australia, and we are most appreciative of people giving so freely of their time and stories so that we might better understand the needs and aspirations of Aboriginal South Australians. We have heard formally from 26 witnesses during this reporting period and we are pleased to note the progress of the stolen generations Independent Assessor, the Hon. John Hill, in his work on the Stolen Generations Reparations Scheme.

The committee continues to have a vested interest in this activity given our pivotal role in advocating and seeing this initiative come to fruition. We also heard of the progress of the treaty consultations undertaken by Treaty Commissioner, Dr Roger Thomas, providing the committee with valuable insight into whether the establishment of treaties would be beneficial for Aboriginal South Australians and whether such a mechanism would provide a stronger voice and governance systems. We very much look forward to seeing what this holds into the future.

The committee heard about matters relating to ear health and renal dialysis on the APY lands, access to interpreters for people in the criminal justice system, electoral provisions under the new APY Land Rights Act and also a number of specific matters relating to Aboriginal Lands Trust SA. All witnesses provided the committee with valuable insightful information with regard to their specific areas of expertise. We are very appreciative again of the time and input provided throughout this reporting period.

I would like to put on record that when it comes to renal dialysis in the lands we might well see a functioning centre in Pukatja by halfway through next year. That will be an incredibly welcome initiative and one we have waited a long time for, and I know both sides of the house would congratulate all the people involved in moving this forward. I would especially like to acknowledge Sarah Brown and Purple House, for the amazing effort they have put in to get the dialysis centre up and running, and also the strong community support on the APY lands.

Even though it is going to be in Pukatja, all the communities across the APY lands have got behind this initiative. One example of that was the recent art auction held in Adelaide a few weeks ago, where art centres from across the APY lands made a contribution of amazing works of art. That particular auction raised just under $170,000, so it was a fantastic effort by all involved. That money will of course contribute to the running in the first year of the dialysis centre.

The committee took the opportunity to visit a number of Aboriginal communities on the Far West Coast and Far North of the state. We were kindly hosted by many Aboriginal and community organisations on our travels, and I am most appreciative of the time they gave to the committee away from their everyday work and commitments. We saw the enterprise development work being generated on the Far West Coast at Scotdesco with the growth of this community and their investment in land and sustainable management of land into the future.

We visited the Far West Coast Aboriginal Cooperation and also learned of their business and investment growth providing greater opportunities for their members. In meeting with the organisation's leadership, we heard of their recent signing of the Aboriginal Regional Authority Agreement with the state government and their vision for the Far West Coast region. Whilst on the Far West Coast, the committee also had the opportunity to see firsthand the work of the Ceduna Aboriginal Corporation's Youth Hub, and the vibrancy of youth activity in that particular centre was inspiring.

We also visited the Ceduna day centre, which provides medical treatment, substance misuse counselling and referral services, hot meals and diversionary activities. The committee was most impressed with the community paramedic initiative, observing its operation within the day centre service in Ceduna. The benefits of this initiative were seen to be boundless and making a very real, practical and immediate positive difference in people's lives.

Whilst in the region, there was considerable discussion about the Indue cashless welfare card introduced by the federal government. These discussions provided the committee with arguments and lived experiences that both supported and criticised the initiative. The committee acknowledges that this initiative has created considerable debate locally and nationally, and we will remain connected on this topic and its impact on Aboriginal South Australians.

During the reporting period, the committee was also most graciously welcomed to the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands by local community leaders, APY Executive members, service providers and individual members of the communities. The committee visited Fregon, Pukatja, Amata and Umuwa. All communities were generous in providing time out of their day to meet with the committee and show their community, talk about their concerns and share their achievements.

Before going any further, I would like to sincerely thank each community for giving so generously during our visits. I know that it is often an issue with all sorts of organisations, individuals and others going into the lands. It is almost a revolving door. It a total population of 3,000 and they must get a bit sick of the constant attention. I do believe that it probably needs to be coordinated better than it is, given the burden that it can put on communities and people in leadership positions.

Across APY communities, there were common themes, including the desire for Anangu to play a greater role in local decision-making, and to be in greater control of what happens in their communities. The communities also expressed common experience with the Community Development Program (the current Work for the Dole scheme) expressing a desire for the federal government to revisit its thinking about how the scheme works in remote areas.

Indeed, I was in the APY lands last week and visited all the major communities. There was once again a common theme: the criticism of the Community Development Program and how it operates. There was a desire among some to return to the old CDEP, which they thought was a better program than the current program that is in place. Overall, the greatest area of discussion was the desire for greater employment opportunities for Anangu people and especially young people.

We also took a long road trip to see the progress of the APY road upgrade, with visits to a crushing site, a section of road resurfacing and the Toll administration site. These visits provided a valuable opportunity to see the work both physically and culturally undertaken to ensure not only that the goals of the infrastructure upgrade are met but that Anangu land and culture are respected in the process.

APY Land Management and Anthropology provided the committee with a valuable insight into the work undertaken to ensure that Anangu's songlines and cultural matters are a primary consideration in the planning, preparation, disruption and rehabilitation of land. It was also good to see local people employed on that particular road project, and we met a number of those people at work sites and at the Toll administration centre.

Of special significance to me and the committee was the very unique and special opportunity we had in being able to undertake a guided tour of the Caterpillar Dreaming and Cave Hill sites. Cave Hill in particular was a stunning site. If people get the opportunity to visit Cave Hill with guides, I would encourage them to do so. Just the sense of time passing that existed there and the vibrancy of the artwork in the cave were stunning. Both these experiences provided the committee with precious stories of the spiritual and ancestral connection between Anangu land and country. I express our appreciation to the guides at both those locations.

The committee's commitment to Aboriginal affairs and looking into matters affecting the lives of Aboriginal people extended beyond community visits and witness appearances, with members showing support through attendances at many key events throughout the year, including the Adelaide Lord Mayor's flag raising ceremony and the NAIDOC SA awards, the Premier's NAIDOC awards, the Aboriginal Lands Trust 50^th anniversary dinner, the National Reconciliation Week breakfast and the 50^th anniversary for the 1967 referendum dinner.

I also make mention that there have been a number of significant losses and passings within the South Australian Aboriginal community this year, and the committee have paid their respects to these families during these difficult times. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge all committee members and staff, past and present, for their commitment and dedication to the work of this committee. Finally, I would like to thank all the Aboriginal communities, organisations and their representatives that have given their time, assisted with visits and provided valuable insights to the committee during the year.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:13): I rise to speak on the annual report of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee 2016-17 and thank the member for Giles for his comprehensive summing up of what the committee has been doing in the last 12 months. I think I am the longest serving member of this committee and it has been my pleasure to be so. We used to be paid to be on committees; we are not now, but I can say that every member on that committee has been more than happy to continue on doing the work of that committee without any extra payment or any other inducement.

Perhaps, if there is an inducement, it is the opportunity to go and visit the most wonderful parts of South Australia on the tours we undertake visiting communities all over South Australia. The APY lands has a lot of focus, and so it should, but we should remember that there are 30,000 South Australians of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent, and they go from Mount Gambier in the south to Pipalyatjara in the north and Scotdesco in the west. They are all over the whole state.

The budgets spent on Aboriginal affairs in South Australia are massive. We heard just recently that the national budget for Aboriginal affairs and reconciliation in Australia is $33 billion—that is with a 'b' for billion. In South Australia, I understand that is $1.3 billion, and on the APY lands the best figure we can come up with, and it has been reported here in the estimates committee, is about $200 million. Significant funds are being extended and expended on Aboriginal affairs. There are lots of challenges and lots of opportunities. Unfortunately, when we see the Closing the Gap report, significant gaps still exist. They are closing, but it is a glacial change in many of those parameters, but fortunately it is always forward. Sometimes it might be two steps forward and one step back, but it is forward.

The way this committee works is that we have a remit to examine just about anything to do with Aboriginal affairs in South Australia, and that is what this committee has done, and it has always done it in a very multipartisan way. It is upper house and lower house, as members would know. We have had Democrats, Independents, Greens, Liberal, Labor, Family First (they are Conservatives now but they were Family First then) on the committee always working in a very collaborative and collegial way for the best outcome for Aboriginal South Australians. The committee's work is important and will continue to be so in the next parliament. I look forward to being able to be involved in the committee in the next parliament.

The most outstanding achievements of this committee in my time, as the member for the Giles said, has to be the Stolen Generations Reparations Scheme, which is now underway. There has been some criticism of the way it has been conducted. Again, there is a slowness of payments, but it has to be done properly and in a fair way, and from the evidence we have seen in the committee, that is happening.

Just this morning we heard more evidence from Sarah Brown, Nurse of the Year from Purple House, about the renal dialysis unit being set up at Pukatja on the APY lands. This is an issue that the committee has been working on for years and years. While the numbers of people who will be undergoing dialysis are quite low, the importance for those people and their broader communities cannot be underestimated. The need to evaluate the social impact and the financial impact of what we do is something that I think we are all becoming more cognisant of. Certainly, the renal dialysis unit at Pukatja will be one of those achievements for which this committee can hold up its head and be proud of because we have been asking questions and pushing the issue along to make sure that we get a positive outcome, and that is actually happening.

The many other reports the committee has been involved in, the many places we visit, are all to advance Aboriginal affairs and reconciliation. I have said it before and I will say it again: every member in this place should do everything they can to come with the committee—if there is a spare spot on the plane or a spare seat in a car or a bus—and visit the parts of South Australia that most people in this place have not seen. They should see the remote parts and also some of the less remote parts.

Urban Aboriginal and rural city areas have large Aboriginal populations, and we should be visiting them and making sure that they are being looked after because their concerns are quite different from some of the concerns on the APY lands, for example. In some cases, they may be very similar—housing and access to health and education—but certainly the remoteness, the tyranny of distance, in the APY lands sets it apart.

I do have some serious concerns about the issues going on in the APY lands at the moment. I am involved in SACAT hearings, and I understand that I will be in the Supreme Court in the next few months with the Ombudsman—the Ombudsman is the first respondent and I am the second respondent—to determine whether the APY is subject to the FOI Act. I believe it is and the Ombudsman believes it is, but there are questions about whether it is. This is as a result of releasing information about how the APY lands is being governed and some of the issues that are going on up there.

Openness and transparency is something that we all want in this place. It is an absolute necessity, if we are going to spend billions of dollars in these particular areas, to be accountable. Everybody has to be accountable. Nobody should be afraid of what they are being asked about if they are spending that money wisely. On that same issue, Nganampa Health is another organisation quite unique to the APY lands. It has $17 million worth of operational funds, mainly from the feds but some from the South Australian government, yet they seem to be exempt from FOIs. They certainly seem to be recalcitrant when being asked questions about the matter.

I personally will maintain my interest—some people might say a crusade—in finding out exactly what they are doing and how they are doing it. They need not be afraid, unless there is something going on. This is not about patch protection, it is about being open and honest and it is about showing people that you are doing exactly what you have been asked to do and being proud of it, if you are doing it. It is exactly the same as I am asking of the APY Executive and the APY general manager.

The most important thing we can do as the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee is to keep pushing ahead and never be afraid to ask these questions. They may be embarrassing sometimes, even to the minister. A number of years ago I moved successfully in this place to change the legislation to have the minister removed as the Presiding Member of the committee. It was ridiculous to have the minister writing to themselves and then to reply to themselves as the Presiding Member of the committee. The way the committee works now is much more practical and much more functional.

Certainly with the members who are on the committee now, it is a committee that I am very proud to have been a member of for many years. I would like to thank all those members, and certainly our committee secretary for the hard work that she does as well. The member for Giles summed up very well our work this year in his contribution. I commend the report to the house.

Motion carried.