Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee: Review into the Operations of the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act 2013

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (11:22): I move:

That the report of the committee, entitled Review into the Operations of the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act 2013, be noted.

I rise to speak to this report and start by commending the committee and the work it has done so far to formulate that report. I was lucky enough to join this committee late and, for the most part, I have found it to be a convivial and cohesive committee. I joined the committee to make the timetabling possible, and it is pleasing to be part of such a well-meaning committee.

The committee is working towards a common goal, and I believe that goal is to improve the prospects and living standards of the great Aboriginal people of this state—an undeniably exceedingly important goal. The committee is required to review the operations of the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act after the third anniversary of its commencement and report that review to both houses of parliament, which is exactly what I have the great pleasure of doing on behalf of lower house members today.

The committee heard a great deal of evidence from affected communities and representative bodies. Six written and 11 oral submissions were received and heard from the community, and I would like to thank all those who contributed to this process. Personally, I would like to particularly thank those who made the effort to give their evidence in person. For some, that meant quite a journey to Adelaide in order to make their submissions heard. Certainly, from a personal perspective, it was really an invaluable experience hearing from those communities directly.

The committee came up with five recommendations, which I intend to touch on in more detail shortly, but I might offer my perspective on a dominant theme to emerge from the evidence that was received by the committee. It felt to me that the majority of those who presented to us desired a greater level of autonomy over the land that currently falls under the charge of the Aboriginal Lands Trust. Evidence of this dominant theme is present in the South Australian Native Title Services' written submission, which is summarised in the report as:

…believing that divestment of ALT lands to native title groups is wanted and the ALT Act requires further changes to provide for a suitable pathway and mechanism for this to occur.

A number of communities explicitly share this view, and I intend to voice their concerns here and now without offering any personal opinion or perspective. The Davenport community from the Mid North shared their concerns with the current ownership model in which the land is held in trust for them by the ALT. They felt that their ability to own a house was compromised under that current model. They felt that this prevented them from becoming self-sufficient and determining their own fate and was inhibiting their community from moving forward.

The Point Pearce community, which is in the electorate that I represent and, it should be noted, are the very people after whom the electorate is named, presented a number of concerns regarding the ALT model. People at Point Pearce were disappointed that the lease negotiated by the ALT on their behalf was not as good as they perceived it could possibly have been, and they would have appreciated the ability to enter into the lease agreement on their own and to self-determine that lease agreement.

I do not profess to know the ins and outs of their lease agreement, but I do know that the farmer with whom they have entered into the agreement is a good and decent man and would not have ripped them off or treated them poorly. Even with that being the case, the strong point to emerge from the Point Pearce evidence was the desire to self-govern and self-determine.

Mirning community representative, Ms April Lawrie, who has since commenced as the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People and is doing a wonderful job, also explicitly shared her view that the divestment of land back to the traditional owners was now the pathway forward. She used the Far West Coast Aboriginal Corporation as the best example of what happens when a community is given the ability to self-determine. They have gone ahead without government funding and with complete independence. Yalata joined the chorus of communities that shared their desire to own and run their own land.

Perhaps the most persuasive evidence was that received from the Raukkan community, both at the hearing and when we had the great pleasure of visiting their community and talking directly to the people within it. They are an exceptional community with strong leaders who are forging a path that is heading towards economic success. They have their own arable land that is leased out to a local farmer and they have a robust wildflower export business. They are performing so well that they are finding themselves hemmed in, in their view, as too much of their land is held up in trust and not available for development.

They use the incredibly apt analogy that they are the descendants of David Unaipon, who I understand to have been a proud supporter of Aboriginal self-determination and certainly an intelligent man capable of determining his own destiny. In their evidence, they are no different. I present that evidence without comment, only to say that it was a dominant theme that emerged from the communities that presented to the committee.

It is worth noting at this juncture—and perhaps Point Pearce in my electorate is the best example of it—that the usefulness of the ALT has been demonstrated a number of times. Point Pearce has been in significant financial trouble on a couple of occasions and they would have lost their land if not for the safeguard that the ALT provides. That is an undesirable outcome for everyone.

So, while communities from around the state desire greater autonomy over their land, there is evidence that the ALT is working at its primary purpose. ALT presiding member, Haydyn Bromley, and CEO, John Chester, fronted the committee to make that point and made a persuasive argument as to why it was so important. We thank them for their effort in coming in.

With that background in mind, the committee made five recommendations in its report. Importantly, the first one was to acknowledge that no changes to the act should be made without proper consultation and agreement with the traditional owners who may be affected. That is important. We in this place must not try to impose things on those affected but strive to make life better for them in one cohesive effort.

The second recommendation in the report is for an independent, whole-of-state inquiry to investigate ultimate models of Aboriginal land ownership. There was enough unrest or disagreement with the current model that the committee felt it warranted an investigation into what might work better. The recommendations include that the review should consider the best management system that balances the needs of traditional owners and Aboriginal community residents across South Australia. That balance is important and difficult to find.

Thirdly, it recommended that the parliament and ALT work on developing a policy to improve communication, consultation and engagement. That was another criticism from the communities of the ALT that arose during the hearing that was conducted. They often felt that they were not consulted properly and as though they were being informed of what was happening in their communities and not what they wanted to see happen in their communities.

Fourthly, the committee recommended that the government includes measures to improve Aboriginal governance structures, systems and administration for Aboriginal communities situated on Aboriginal lands in the South Australian Aboriginal strategic plan. Finally, the fifth recommendation was that independent analysis be undertaken into the levels of funding provided to the ALT.

It was a productive committee and I would like to thank my fellow committee members: the member for Giles, who I believe served on the same committee in the previous parliament, and the member for Waite, as well as the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. John Dawkins and the Hon. Kyam Maher from the other place.

I would also like to thank Shona Reid, who crafted a large portion of the report that we are noting today. Unfortunately for us in the committee, but fortunately for her, Shona has since departed to take up a role as the Executive Director of Reconciliation SA. I would like to take this opportunity to wish her all the best in her new role. If she brings the same level of organisation, energy and unparalleled knowledge to her new role as she brought to her previous role, Reconciliation SA is in good hands.

We, too, are in good hands with the appointment of Dr Ashley Greenwood, who has started well and has been a real instigator for investigations and inquiries on the committee. I am already looking forward to working with her going forward for more positive outcomes for the local people. It is worth noting that the recent trip the committee undertook to the APY lands, organised by Dr Ashley Greenwood, was a resounding success. We visited quite a number of communities across the APY lands to discuss various issues around housing, education and so forth. We are enjoying Ashley Greenwood's contribution to the committee already.

I conclude by commending the report and thanking those members who did such a wonderful job of crafting it. I take the opportunity once more to acknowledge Shona Reid and Dr Ashley Greenwood for their invaluable contributions to its development.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (11:32): I rise today to also speak on the report on the Aboriginal Lands Trust and the review that has been carried out by the committee. The committee is charged with a responsibility to carry out regular reviews of the Aboriginal Lands Trust legislation. I do not particularly want to repeat anything that has been said; I think the member for Narungga has been comprehensive in his assessment of the deliberations.

It might be worthwhile providing a bit of background for those members who are not clear about the history of the Aboriginal Lands Trust. It is a history that goes back into the 1960s. When the legislation was introduced into this parliament at that time, it was genuinely groundbreaking legislation. It had not been done anywhere else in Australia and it has been reviewed a number of times since and has been amended. There is a series of recommendations here that have arisen from the committee hearings that I think are very sensible recommendations.

It is probably worth reflecting on what the original thinking was behind the setting up of the Aboriginal Lands Trust. I will quote from the report:

In the minds of legislators, the intention of this 1966 Act were very clear, the then Minister of Aboriginal Affairs (Walsh Labor Government), the Hon. Donald Dunstan, in his second reading speech, made the following comments:

'[The Aboriginal Lands Trust Bill] takes a significant step in the treatment of Aboriginal people not only in this State but in Australia. The Aboriginal people of this country are the only comparable Indigenous people who have been given no specific rights in their own lands. The Maoris, the Eskimos and the American Indians—

to use the language of the day—

all had treaty rights and ownership and control of lands in their countries. The Aboriginal people in this State, as elsewhere, have had certain areas of land reserved…but these have been Crown lands not owned or controlled by the Aboriginal people and from which they could be removed. It is not surprising that Aborigines everywhere in this country have been bitter that they have had their country taken from them, and been given no compensatory rights to land in any area…[Aboriginal people were] wrongfully deprived of their just dues…(w)e must as far as we can right the wrongs of our forefathers.'

That was the genesis of the legislation. Once again, we can say that South Australia has taken the lead in a number of areas, as it has historically, and I think we should be commended as a state for that. There has been a general consensus within this parliament to try to do the right thing. I think the committee hearings and the recommendations are once again another example of trying to do the right thing.

The member for Narungga indicated that it is not for the committee to impose on Aboriginal communities in our state, but it is to actively listen. That is why it is important that the first element of the recommendations made is about deep and widespread consultation with Aboriginal people in this state when it comes to the future of the Aboriginal Lands Trust and the lands that they hold. Certainly, we did get a whole range of opinions expressed by both the Aboriginal Lands Trust and organisations from around the state.

That whole issue about not imposing is an important issue. I think the nub of the issue is that the desire on the part of many communities for a far greater degree of autonomy when it comes to their lands is sometimes in tension with the need to ensure that lands are not alienated over time. It is also about how we go about coming up with a model or a framework to ensure that we can respect both of those elements. Leading on from that is the recommendation to call for a comprehensive, fair review to look at models elsewhere in the nation, because there have been in years past various changes and various approaches.

The issue about communication did come up when it came to the Aboriginal Lands Trust, and I think there is an issue there. The impression I got, and I think some of the other members got, is that we expect the Aboriginal Lands Trust to do a lot. People, widely spread in this state, expect them to do a lot, but there needs to be a question about whether they are adequately resourced to do the job that they are charged with. I think that is one of the things that needs to be looked at while looking to improve communication.

The issue of governance came up on a number of occasions, and it will come as no surprise that governance standards vary across the state. There are some organisations that are incredibly good and others that need assistance, if you like. When you do get governance right, it makes a lot of other things a lot easier. These days, there is a whole issue about trust when it comes to institutions, but one of the things that does bolster trust is when people feel as though the governance structures that are in place are appropriate.

I think it was a good body of work. I commend all the members who took part. We worked in a manner that tried to seek consensus and we did that. I would also like to acknowledge the officers. I thank Shona Reid for the excellent work that she has done for the committee over an extended period of time, and I wish her all the best in her new role. I have no doubt that Dr Ashley Greenwood will also acquit herself incredibly well in the role.

Mr DULUK (Waite) (11:39): I also rise to make a few small comments in relation to the noting of this report on the review into the operation of the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act 2013. I certainly do not want to repeat the words of the member for Narungga or the member for Giles, who I think have covered very well the committee's intentions and its management, but I would like to look at some of the recommendations. I would urge members to look at the recommendations of this committee.

A strong theme from many of the witnesses who came before the committee was the autonomy of decision-making in their communities, and I think that is something that all members of parliament can appreciate. People in general want to make decisions that they believe are in their best interest. How we as a parliament, through this particular act, can further enhance the desire of those communities for self-determination is so important.

Their sense of belonging and the way in which they navigate the world is very important to them and their communities. More importantly, a greater degree of autonomous decision-making will allow a greater level of not only independence but also financial independence to help deal with some of the disadvantage that those communities experience and which they expressed to our committee.

In particular, recommendation No. 4 encourages the government to include in the South Australian Aboriginal strategic plan the development and strengthening of Aboriginal governance structures, systems and administration for Aboriginal communities. I think that is very important. Many of the witnesses who came before the committee expressed that, in some of their communities, there is a lack of governance and a lack of trust, which is seen to be leading to a perception that Aboriginal land is not being as well managed as it should be. Those are some of the key concerns that we need to consider; that is, how the state government and the parliament look at structures of governance and provide the right training and the right framework for communities living on ALT land.

It was a very informative committee. I would like to thank everybody who came to present as witnesses, especially those members who came from the Far West Coast—from your communities, Mr Deputy Speaker—and across all of South Australia. To touch on the words of the member for Giles and the member for Narungga, I thank Shona Reid for her work as the secretary of that committee for many years. I think she was a fantastic advocate for and passionate representative of her community. I would also like to thank Dr Ashley Greenwood, the current secretary, who has picked up right where Shona Reid left off and is leading the committee in a fantastic manner.

Motion carried.