Parliamentary Committees

Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee: Inquiry into Aboriginal Governance

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (11:26): I move:

That the report of the committee, entitled Final Report—Inquiry into Aboriginal Governance, be noted.

The inquiry into Aboriginal governance was referred to the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee by the former Premier in February 2021. The committee received 48 written submissions and the—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Giles has the call.

Mr HUGHES: What a rabble. The inquiry had 27 witnesses provide oral evidence. The committee tabled an interim inquiry report on 26 October 2021, which summarised the bulk of the evidence received in the inquiry. I think it would be fair to say that this particular inquiry did generate a degree of controversy, and it was important that the submissions and the people appearing before us were handled in a sensitive manner, given the potential divisions that existed in some communities. I would have to say that the committee and the committee members handled it in a very sensitive fashion.

Throughout this evidence, the committee received consistent submissions detailing concerns about the way in which Aboriginal corporations are currently functioning. Stakeholders submitted that, unless you are a director on the board, it can be difficult to ascertain where money received by those corporations is ending up. The committee heard evidence from community members across a wide range of Aboriginal communities who made similar allegations regarding favouritism and closed dealings within board memberships.

The committee received sufficient concerns across many communities in this state to warrant it making nine recommendations in its interim report, and a further four recommendations in the final report. One important recommendation is in relation to updating the state's trustee legislation. The committee considers this is vital to providing increased accountability and transparency on public moneys making their way into separate trusts established by Aboriginal corporations. These trusts may fall outside the scope of the federal regulator. It is also to ensure that Aboriginal communities can receive and have access to the monetary support they are entitled to.

The committee recently heard from the Western Australian Attorney-General in relation to how their jurisdiction is dealing with this issue. The Western Australian parliament has just passed the new Charitable Trusts Act, and the committee has asked that our Attorney-General consider the act as a potential guide for reforms in our jurisdiction. I think what Western Australia has done is incredibly important and might well take into account the different legislative requirements in different states. It might well be a model when it comes to looking at a way forward.

Western Australia was also faced with a whole range of issues when it came to the expenditure of moneys, when it came to openness and transparency. In common with what had happened in this state, a lot of communities expressed concerns. It would be incredibly worthwhile to look at the implementation of the act in Western Australia to see what it is going to do on the ground to improve our circumstances.

In saying all of this, I know that some Aboriginal people have expressed concerns about the nature of the body of the work that the committee was undertaking. I would be one of those people who looks forward to the day when we have a genuine Voice to the parliament, whereby Aboriginal people themselves can take on board and work through these issues. It has always been a little bit of a concern of mine, even though all the members historically in good faith have acquitted their duties on the standing committee, that essentially you have a whole bunch of Europeans going into Aboriginal communities and making recommendations to this parliament.

A well-constructed Voice to parliament will have a very positive impact. Without pre-empting anything that the parliament will decide in future, I am confident that, given the sheer level of engagement going on at the moment, there will be strong bipartisan support for the ultimate model developed.

When you look at what the federal government has done, as recently as last week, it released its response to the commonwealth parliamentary committee's report into the destruction of Indigenous heritage sites at Juukan Gorge. This response noted governance as an issue currently being considered by the co-design partnership, which has been established to reform First Nations cultural heritage protections. It arises from a recommendation made by the commonwealth parliamentary committee that transparency and accountability requirements on native title prescribed body corporates be increased so that adequate consultation occurs between an Aboriginal corporation and local Aboriginal communities.

Obviously that goes beyond just the heritage issue. When you look at the amounts of money that some of these bodies are handling—and in some cases we are talking about millions of dollars—it is incredibly important for Aboriginal communities that there is real accountability and real transparency.

In relation to the incorporated associations at a state level, the committee encourages the Attorney-General to reintroduce the proposed amendments to the Associations Incorporation Act 1985, which were before the House of Assembly prior to the 2022 state election. These amendments are crucial for increasing oversight and dispute intervention powers for the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs. The committee also recommended an increase in resources for the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs to provide regular governance training and education to Aboriginal community-controlled associations around their obligations under the Associations Incorporation Act 1985.

This goes further than Aboriginal communities. I have come across a whole range of organisations over the years where there are people who sit on boards not necessarily with the background knowledge and with no understanding of their fiduciary duties and a whole raft of other issues. So it is important that, across the board, we empower people through enhanced knowledge and training.

It was made abundantly clear to the committee that self-determination can be maintained by Aboriginal community-controlled organisations with improved governance practices and greater transparency. The committee heard that it is when this transparency to the community is lost that the majority of disputes may arise. Certainly, as a regional member, from time to time I get people coming into my office expressing serious concerns about what is going on in some of the bodies in my region and further afield.

The committee is sincerely grateful to the individuals and organisations who made submissions to the committee in this inquiry. The committee also thanks the federal regulator, ORIC—they probably need to be better resourced as well given the mountain of work they are expected to deal with—and thanks the state Commissioner for Corporate Affairs for providing it with detailed submissions in the inquiry. All submissions received in the inquiry added substantial value to the conduct of the inquiry.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the former members of the committee for their contributions to this inquiry, who heard the bulk of the evidence prior to the 2022 state election. I also thank the current members of the committee—from the other place, the Presiding Member, the Hon. Tung Ngo; the Hon. Tammy Franks; and the Hon. Stephen Wade; and from this house, the member for Newland and the member for Heysen—for their contributions and for the manner in which they dealt with what was often very sensitive information. I would also like to thank the current executive research officer, who has done an absolutely fantastic job on all the assistance that she has provided to the committee. I commend the report to the house.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:37): I join in commending the report to the house. I will make some particular reflections in addition to endorsing and adopting all that the member for Giles has just said. I have a somewhat partial role in terms of my contribution to the report as a member of the committee in the Fifty-Fifth Parliament but also as the author to a response in relation to the interim report during the course of the Fifty-Fourth Parliament, and that is on the record and also included as appendix 1 to the final report.

As I did on another occasion recently, I want to highlight in particular the Western Australian experience. The committee heard evidence on 23 September from the Attorney in Western Australia. The evidence, as the member for Giles has indicated, was of particular usefulness because it brought the committee up to date. The Hon. John Quigley MLA talked to the Western Australian experience in that state by the history of the development of trusts legislation there. There are two parallel 1962 acts, or there were until earlier this year when the 2022 Charitable Trusts Act came into force.

It was via the Charitable Trusts Act, the 1962 act in Western Australia, that, over a long period of time, what were often in a number of cases lump sum amounts of money that were to be set aside for these purposes were structured within a charitable trusts environment in circumstances where there is no individual beneficiary and where the mechanism of a charitable trust happened to be a vehicle that was adopted in Western Australia over a long period of time.

That had created difficulties of administration and oversight, and in particular practical difficulties of access, because the charitable trust legislation, the 1962 act in Western Australia, had provided for Attorney-General oversight and recourse to the Supreme Court, which were all very well but were not necessarily practical, because they were expensive and time-consuming and so on. That had led, particularly in the Western Australian context, to some thoughtfulness about how reform might be applied in the updating of that particular act in Western Australia. That has now been done and that now forms the substance, or the reference point, for recommendation 1.

I am quick to highlight in that regard in my response in February this year that it is not without its complications and there is not perhaps only one way of going about it. The member for Giles has adverted to the overlap or continuing relevance of the federal legislation. The Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 is also in the course of a review process and the committee has received correspondence, which is also included in appendix 1, from the then Minister for Indigenous Australians, the Hon. Ken Wyatt, about the stage that that process was at at the time of the interim report.

I will be very interested, as a member of the committee, in hearing from the Attorney, in hearing from the government, in relation to consideration of that Western Australian charitable trusts legislation and indeed reform more broadly that may assist in providing a practical pathway to improved oversight, confidence, access and so forth in relation to the management and governance of not just moneys but governance processes across the board.

Recommendations 2 and 3 have been addressed again. I take this opportunity to highlight that the amending bill to amend the Associations Incorporation Act was indeed before the last parliament. It is included in the government's report. The committee is urging its reintroduction and so we look forward to that occurring. Again, as the member for Giles has adverted, the provision of greater resources to the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs to continue to increase the fluency and capacity of those who are charged with the responsibility for community-controlled associations is called for and can certainly contribute to improvement in governance across the board.

So there are three very practical recommendations. They bring to fruition the results of work substantially conducted in the Fifty-Fourth Parliament, and I look forward to contributing both in the course of the committee's further work and what I anticipate will be work now for the parliament to do in the course of the near future, I hope, to progress in particular the reforms to the Associations Incorporation Act and thoughtful further work in relation to what might be done to reform the trust act in this state informed by the Western Australian experience.

It would be perhaps a suitable opportunity, in concluding my remarks this morning endorsing the final report of the committee in relation to Aboriginal governance, to recognise the very happy occasion just an hour or so ago in the Old Chamber with the unveiling of the portrait of Pastor Sir Douglas Nicholls, the first and so far only Aboriginal person to be Governor of a state of Australia appointed to vice-regal office. Pastor Sir Doug Nicholls served as Governor of South Australia from 1 December 1976 until he resigned due to ill health in April 1977.

He had the most wonderful life, and it is right that we have the opportunity to celebrate his legacy in perpetuity in this parliament. A very happy occasion indeed it was this morning when the parliament gathered here to unveil his portrait. I look forward to that adorning the walls of the parliament for many years to come.

The SPEAKER: Before the member speaks to close debate, I observe that it is in fact the anniversary today of Sir Douglas Nicholls' appointment to vice-regal office.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (11:47): I thank the member for Heysen for his contribution. I have to say that when I referred to the acting executive research officer it was remiss of me not to mention her by name: Lisa Baxter. The work that she does is highly professional, highly competent and makes our committee look better than it really is.

Motion carried.