Bills

Parliamentary Committees (Aboriginal Affairs Committee) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (10:31): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 and to make a related amendment to the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1990. Read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (10:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The house, indeed the parliament and the state and, in turn, the nation, will be perhaps more cognisant of the circumstances in which this bill is brought to the parliament than it might otherwise have been in the ordinary course concerning the re-establishment with some, although not unrecognisably many, changes to what has been a longstanding standing committee of this parliament in the form of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee.

Members will be aware that over the course of that committee's history it has had cause to engage in a whole variety of ways with Aboriginal communities throughout this state and with a focus on Aboriginal lands. One might think in this season that the last thing that ought to be necessary to do would be to come along to move to re-establish a standing committee of this parliament whose purpose and whose function it is to devote the resources of the parliament to engaging with Aboriginal communities in areas of key interest to them.

It is a paradoxical thing that, in the course of the government's moving to legislate for the establishment of what is described as the Local Voices and the SA State Voice, it found it desirable at the same time to dissolve that standing committee. It was done over protest and it was, moreover, done in circumstances where it was acknowledged that that very legislative step might have provided an opportunity to reform and enhance that committee and to provide any such legislated Voice with an opportunity as part of its work to engage with a standing committee of this parliament. But that was expressly rejected as a mode of operation for the Local and State Voice at the time—consciously expressly rejected by the government.

There is nothing mysterious about that. That was a course adopted by the minister in terms of framing the functions and nature of activities of the Local and State Voice to be legislated and, as I said in the debate in relation to that matter, 'Hang on, has this been thought through? Is it inadvertent?', and the response was no. In its conception, from the government's viewpoint, the Voice will somehow replace that committee function.

The follow-up question that many of us might ask—and I have certainly asked in the lead-up—is, first, 'How does the parliament devote its resources and capacities to engaging in an organised way, and how do individual members of the house and of the other place apply themselves to engaging with the Voice, let alone Aboriginal communities more broadly?', and the answer was, 'Oh, that will be up to individual members. Individual members are free to chart their own course'.

Well, okay, I regard that as an unmitigated retrograde step in terms of this parliament's commitment of resources and capacity in an organised way towards engagement with Aboriginal people. But here we are now in March 2024, and the circumstances of the introduction of this bill are further exacerbated by the fact that not only was the committee dissolved as part of the passage of the State Voice act—this was way back a year ago now—with the result that it ceased to exist at the end of June last year (we are getting on towards a year without the parliamentary committee) but, for reasons that are on the public record that have ensued over the bulk of last year, we also do not have a Voice, because the elections for that, which were supposed to happen in September, have been put off until a couple of weeks from now.

Not only that, but members might be surprised to learn, if they have not read about it already, that the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council (SAAAC) that, as the Attorney-General's Department website I understand as recently as this morning is describing in summary, operated as the government of South Australia's peak advisory body on matters of Aboriginal affairs, programs and policy between 2006 and 2023, also ceased to exist on 30 June last year. It is described on the website as follows:

The Council ceased on 30 June 2023 in anticipation of the establishment of South Australia's First Nations Voice to Parliament.

It is not just the standing committee that is gone, but the SAAAC has been gone now for the better part of a year as well. That might be regarded as a broader remark in terms of where the government's delay and inaction (I think it is fair to describe it as that) in implementing what was legislated with more fanfare then we have seen in relation to legislation from this parliament, really without exception, for quite some time.

The reality is that as a direct result of the legislation we are left without a standing committee that speaks up, engages and diverts resources in the interests of improvement to Aboriginal people, and we are left without the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council, that peak advisory body, also for the better part of the year. Well, it is what it is. At best, we are drifting in the whole public space, even when applying the government's agenda—and I will have a word or two to say about how and why we have got to where we have in terms of the Voice in a moment.

Let us be clear about the merits of a standing committee, about what a standing committee can do that individual members of parliament cannot do, let alone members of relevant communities or subject matter interests. Standing committees of this parliament are bodies that all members should be proud of and dedicated to the defence, nurture, reform and improvement of over time. This is no exception.

The bill would establish—now with the broader remit—a standing committee to be titled the Aboriginal Affairs Committee. It would be established as a committee of the parliament—again, no surprise to anyone here, including those who have served on the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee. The committee is provided for, as the subject of clause 2 of the bill and as set out in section 15Q, to be a committee involving members of the house and of another place—very much in recognisable form to the structure of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee.

Division 2 then sets out the functions of the committee. Again, members of this place will recognise many of those functions as being aligned with those of the previous Aboriginal Lands Standing Committee.

As I have done on more than one occasion, I take up, adopt and would amplify the sentiments of member for Giles (who has served with me on the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee) in this regard, in expressing sentiments along the lines that there ought to be reform, over time, of the scope and functions of the committee of this parliament that is dedicated to focusing on matters of Aboriginal interest. I am entirely with the member for Giles on that.

It is in that regard that I have taken the opportunity to consider what the range of functions of the Aboriginal Affairs Committee ought to be so that the remit is appropriately broad and appropriately permits engagement and, in the interests of Aboriginal people, provides all of those resources, powers and functions and can act in their interests.

The dissolution of the committee—to take up the sentiments of the member for Giles, as have been expressed from time to time—is at the very least a 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater' measure when legislating for the new Voice. But, as I said in the debate, it is actually striking at the functional capacity of the Voice. Again, without relitigating that debate (the legislation has passed), it remains my view that any Local and State Voice that is to be elected in coming weeks and coming to exercise its functions will be markedly more functional, productive, empowered, engaged—call it what you like—if it has the capacity to draw on a standing committee of this parliament with which to work up matters of interest to Aboriginal people.

Because the committee has been jettisoned, we have now legislated a set of circumstances in which there is to be a number of elected bodies who, again—and it has been put as a virtue—are not to meet more than four times a year except with the permission of the minister, and in terms of the business of this place, the nature and extent of the engagement is to be characterised by, if a member wishes, coming along and having a contribution to a second reading debate on a bill and presenting a report from time to time.

The opportunity that is presented to engage with a standing committee of the parliament, by distinct contrast, is one that involves dealing with a group of members of this place and the other place that will meet generally as often as the house meets and will be able, as a matter of functioning activity, to grapple with a far wider range of matters than simply those things that make their way to being bills that are before the parliament but, rather, matters of concern.

As well as that, those members of the committee—of both places, remember, within the parliament—will be charged with responsibility to step up and be actively engaged themselves so that the parliament is more effectively in a position to work towards improvement and engaging with matters of merit.

As things stand, in the environment that we have been left with over the last year or so, where individual members are charting their own course, we are really in a much diminished way in this parliament able to engage and involve members in terms of having a better understanding of Aboriginal matters. That includes issues that can be conducted here locally, and it also includes that capacity in an organised way to get around to different parts of the state, to communicate with Aboriginal communities in an organised way and to bring matters to attention.

I cite, just as one basic example, my visit recently to the Davenport community in response to an invitation of a resident to go and to meet and visit, and I appreciate the opportunity to see for myself and get a sense of some of the issues that are keenly felt by residents in that particular community. That is within my shadow portfolio responsibility. It is an activity that I enjoy and it is something that will inform me in terms of the understanding of the priorities and issues.

How much more effective that can be when, as an organised group, those members of the committee can go and undertake a visit, can undertake work on inquiry, can require the adducing of evidence and can, in turn, present findings back to this parliament, as the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee did so effectively just in the course of its final two reports of inquiry before it was wound up in June last year: one on governance and one on heritage matters. There is more work to be done, and more wideranging engagement.

The functions of the committee, as it would be reinstated, go broader than those of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee, although they still include functions to review the operations of those key acts. I note that we look forward to a somewhat delayed 40^th anniversary recognition, in particular, of the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act, which ought to have happened in 2021 but has been delayed until now, in part because of difficulties with COVID. That is coming up, and the review of the operation of those acts remains a key matter.

It is also to inquire into matters affecting Indigenous Australians, to consider any other matter that might be referred to the committee by the minister and to perform other functions imposed on the committee under this or any other act, or by resolution of both houses of the parliament. So it is a pretty broadranging remit.

In the time that is available to me, I will mention as well that there is a related amendment to the Parliamentary Remuneration Act, which is to simply identify the proper name of the new committee and the presiding member of what would be termed the Aboriginal affairs committee. It is a change that needs to be made, partly evidencing the government's haste in legislating the Voice in the first place. It is still sitting there, providing for the relevant arrangements for the Presiding Member of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee, which of course no longer exists. That is a change that needs to be made anyway, and I suggest that there is no better time for the house to move for the establishment of this standing committee. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Odenwalder.