HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-12-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (15:44): Can I first start by saying to the Anangu Executive members in the gallery: Kulila. Nyaratja manta, APY manta, nyuntumpa manta, rawa. Members, what I said then, hopefully in understandable Pitjantjatjara, is that land, the APY land, is the land of the Anangu and will be forever their land.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you the lead speaker, member for Morphett?

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am the lead speaker on this, ma'am. This bill is being rushed through this place as a matter of urgency and it gives me no pleasure to do this but, having been the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs and a member of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee for many years, I have been privileged to know Anangu and to have been invited into their homes and into their communities to visit the APY lands on many occasions.

Let me say one thing about this bill. This bill is not about land rights. This bill is about human rights. This bill is about the ability for Anangu to go to their homes at night safely, to have good governance, to have good administration in place, to have a future. We have heard a lot about the stolen generation over many years, and there is legislation before this place to consider where we go with that, but what I am seeing on the APY lands is a serious risk of the future of the next generation of Anangu being stolen. Why is it being stolen? Why am I worried about it being stolen? I see dysfunction. I see a huge part of South Australia that is unique, not only its country and its culture but in the people, being put at risk because of dysfunctional government and dysfunctional communities.

This is not a shame job standing here talking about this, this is making sure we move forward. This is making sure that this parliament does the right thing, not just for a small group of people on the APY lands but that we do the right thing for all Anangu. This is about making sure that there is a future for the children on the APY lands, that they do not go to bed at night having been the victims of sexual violence, that the last thing they watched on television was not pornography, not that the last thing their parents did was take drugs or drink alcohol or that there was domestic violence. That has been going on far too long.

There have been some improvements, there have been some changes, but what we are seeing now with this bill is that we are hoping in some way to turn the corner, change the future and change the path for Anangu. We are hoping to make sure that the administration, the governance, on those lands is headed in the right direction. It is about time this happened. It is overdue. I, and other members in this place, particularly members of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee, who have been privy to information and have had access to pertinent and privileged information, know that this is the right thing to do.

I take no pleasure in rushing it through this place, none at all. We need to consult, we need to talk to people about what is going on in this place, but we have come to the point in the road where we just have to say enough is enough, we have to go in the right direction.

This bill is in this place because of the inability, in some cases, and the inaction of some ministers for Aboriginal affairs, particularly the current Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. I have some particularly harsh criticism for him because I think he should have seen what was coming. I will read evidence. I will read information into Hansard that shows that this is not new information, that the circumstances up there are not new. The minister should have known about it, his department should have known about it. In fact, I think they did know about it but he has been kept in the dark.

There is nobody, not even me, who can stand here and say we are completely blameless in getting to this point, but we have got to this point where we recognise where we are and we have to move forward. It is not about protecting any individual, it is not about protecting any rights, it is not about protecting any privileges. It is about the human rights of Anangu, it is about moving forward on the APY lands.

Can I just go through the issues that have been raised, particularly the first issue that this is about land rights, that this is taking away the land rights of Anangu. This is not what is happening. I am not a lawyer, but I have spoken to a lot of lawyers in my time in Aboriginal affairs and I am reasonably familiar with the APY act. The particular section where we are talking about appointing an administrator is section 13O, and subsection (2)(a) states:

the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, appoint an Administrator, on terms and conditions determined by the Minister…

That is what this bill is about: it is about giving the minister carte blanche. The minister has the ultimate responsibility—a huge responsibility here; not only does he have that responsibility but we all share in that responsibility. We will be part of the blame game if this does not work, if we cannot turn the direction here. The subsection states:

(a) the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, appoint an Administrator, on terms and conditions determined by the Minister, to administer the affairs of Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara in the name of, and on behalf of, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara during the period of the suspension.

How long is that suspension going to be? We have not come down to the detail on that yet, and it may not be that long if we are able to have good governance demonstrated to the administrator, to the minister and to this place. Section 13O(2)(f) continues:

(f) the Administrator has all the functions and powers of Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara;

The next paragraph provides:

(g) in carrying out a function or exercising a power of Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara, the Administrator is not bound by a resolution under section 9B(4) that is, in the opinion of the Administrator, inconsistent with the appointment of the Administrator (but, to avoid doubt, is otherwise bound by a resolution under that section);

The administrator still has to consult and still has to take notice of resolutions of general meetings of APY. At general meetings, the Anangu still have the power to tell the administrator what they think is right. This is not about removing their ability to reside on their lands, occupy their lands, enjoy their lands; it is about making sure that those lands are going to be governed in a long-term, sustainable way. The act continues on in paragraph (k):

(k) the Administrator must cause proper accounts to be kept of the financial affairs of Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara and must cause the accounts of Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara for each financial year to be audited by a registered company auditor;

We hear that there have been no problems with the audits of the accounts in the past, yet every audit I have seen has been a qualified audit. Where is the money in the trust accounts? It seems to vary from a few thousand to tens of thousands of dollars. The auditors have always qualified those accounts, and I will say a lot more about the account keeping and finances of the APY in my later contribution.

Division 2, section 7 talks about the requirement of consultation and it talks about Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara. But, in the case of an administrator being in place, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara shall:

…before carrying out or authorising or permitting the carrying out of any proposal relating to the administration, development or use of any portion of the lands, have regard to the interests of, and consult with, traditional owners having a particular interest in that portion of the lands, or otherwise affected by the proposal, and shall not carry out the proposal, or authorise or permit it to be carried out, unless satisfied that those traditional owners—

(a) understand the nature and purpose of the proposal; and

(b) have had the opportunity to express their views to Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara; and

(c) consent to the proposal.

This is not about land rights. This is not a land rights grab. This is about a move forward, this is about good governance. It is in the act, and anybody who tries to misinterpret the act is not telling the truth to APY. It is easy to put out press releases and scare people about land rights. It is easy to run the race card. But this is not what this is about. If I am a racist for doing this, then I am proud of being a racist because it is those particular people up there I am very, very concerned about.

Let's look at what the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement said about this—a body I have had a lot to do with, particularly under the late Neil Gillespie, and a highly-respected body. In a letter dated yesterday, 2 December, Chairperson Ms Sandra Saunders is concerned about the effects of the proposed amendments, clause 4. 'Such amendments will take us back 30 years,' said Ms Saunders. I am not a lawyer—and by that I am boasting, not apologising—but any competent adviser to the Anangu would tell them the following about the bill to be introduced today: the minister would have to have reasons for appointing an administrator based on correct facts and provide natural justice by letting the board be heard before he acts. The minister met with the board and he told them what was going on. I am told there are issues that he cannot reveal at this particular moment in time, but that is for him to answer.

An administrator has a statutory obligation to act in the best interests of Anangu and his exemption from personal liability under section 42C is limited to the acts of good faith in performance of office. He cannot just do anything he wants. As I read out from the act a moment ago, he has to consult and he has to get the approval, unless it is a complete divergence from his appointment. Just to reiterate, an administrator must comply with general meeting resolutions unless inconsistent with reasons for his appointment. That is putting it more precisely.

The general manager and director continue, unless removed by the administrator under section 13G, and so the day-to-day control is unaffected unless the administrator acts in accordance with the reasons for his appointment. I think any administrator that goes in there is going to be faced with a very difficult position. They are going to have to be very brave, and they are going to have to be so resolute and steely in their determination to put things right. I cannot see the current director of administration or the current interim general manager continuing in their place if the evidence I have been given is correct.

I am not here to defame people under parliamentary privilege. Later, I will read into Hansard evidence that has been given to me and explain some of the evidence that has been given in camera to the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee. Contrary to what the ALRM says, the bill does not remove fundamental powers of the landholding body. They remain alive and well and in the safe hands of Anangu members and the APY generally. It requires no skill or preparation to go to a group of exhausted Anangu who remember with longing an earlier time and tell them to be afraid of it, who is to blame for it, and that so-and-so is no good and he is responsible for your lot in life.

These points are coming from one of the traditional owners who is known to most people in this place, Mr George Kenmore. I have known Mr Kenmore for a long time. He has significant issues with the way things are being conducted on the APY lands, and he has passed on to me some of the advice that has been given. I will also be reading into Hansard the CV of a particular person I think should be the administrator. I think this person has the background, knowledge, ability and courage to do what will be required. The need to make sure that this bill is not going to lead to a disaster is something all of us need to be acutely aware of.

A letter was sent to the minister from the Chair of the Law and Culture Committee, Mr Murray George. It is not dated, but I think it might have been sent yesterday or on 1 December. It says:

The Law and Culture Committee fully supports the APY Executive Board. They have been doing a good job in difficult circumstances. The problem with APY have been with the general managers.

I know Murray George; he is a good man and an honest man, but I do not know who wrote this for him. There is a lot of red dust on this letter, and anyone who has been on the lands knows that there is a lot of red dust. When you sit in that dust with the Tjilpi and talk about things, it is a very moving experience.

I recognise a lot of the names in this letter. I am not concerned about the red dust but I am concerned about the red blood that is on the ground up there—the red blood on the floors of the houses and about the kids who are being abused, about the wives and husbands who are being abused and about the general abuse of the community. So, we are listening to people like Murray George and the Law and Culture Committee, but I am not sure who they are listening to or what they are being told because I do not think they are being told the truth.

Today, we saw a media release from APY. It was dated yesterday and the headline is, 'SA government rams through laws to allow intervention on APY land.' In the third paragraph, it says:

Minister Hunter has failed to tell us or the parliament what the problems are. The minister has failed to provide any substantial evidence of the need for this racist intervention.

What a cheap shot that is—'racist intervention'. I do not know anybody in this place who is a racist. I certainly know that everybody I have had anything to do with in Aboriginal affairs through this place does not have a racist bone in their body. I think that is a very cheap shot.

I should remind the place that this is not the first time we have come to this crisis in the road, unfortunately. Back in 2008, there was a report into the APY that highlighted significant issues that were going on up there, and that was done by no other person than the late Ted Mullighan. The Mullighan report raised a number of issues. The first recommendation of the Mullighan report was to have good governance on the lands. The first recommendation was good governance.

Back then, the leader of the Liberal Party was Martin Hamilton-Smith. On Wednesday 7 May 2008, the member for Waite put out a press release titled 'Rann wasted four years—time for action is now'. We are nearly 14 years into this government and, back then, Martin Hamilton Smith was saying:

An immediate State-run intervention on each APY Lands community by police, medical professionals and social and child protection workers is needed.

We had a lot of effort put in by a lot of people to try to improve the lot on the APY lands, but unless you have got a functioning executive body, one that is able to do its job as well as it would hope to do, then you will continue to have the crisis across the lands. Back in 2004, we had a similar crisis. I remember the Hon. Kevin Foley then talking about that, and I will talk a bit more about that later.

This is not duelling by media release here but, today, we had a media release put out by the APY Council of Elders. I know that there is a significant number of elders who are members of this group, and I have the highest respect for each and every one of them. The council of elders press release does not go down the racist line and does not try to scare people. What it does do in the bottom half of the first page is state:

The bill doesn't change the fact that each executive has a three-year lifespan or that there must be another election within three months of February next year

So, elections will go on. There has been no devolution of rights there.

Any appointment of an administrator or the newly-elected board would depend on the facts existing at the time.

So, that new board may be able to take over if there is sufficient comfort being given by the process and the people who are on that new board.

The bill doesn't change the fact that the governance of APY stays in the safe hands of Anangu at the general meeting even if an administrator is appointed.

That is what I have said before.

We also have concerns that the minister does not understand his act.

And I think this is a sad fact.

His embarrassment last night is because the portfolio holds no interest for him and he has not bothered to acquaint himself with the facts. We are also concerned that the minister revealed that shortly after Mr Deans' removal he met with the executive proposing a particular person for general manager and threatened the executive if they did not comply.

How is it that the minister has had a specific person in mind for Mr Deans' removal? Did the minister have a role in that removal?

I do not know. It would be nice to hear from the minister.

Is the legislation being introduced because of a failing relationship between the minister and APY Executive of who should be the general manager following Mr Deans' removal.

This needs to be explained, and this is in the press release from the APY Council of Elders yesterday.

That said, the APY Council of Elders lamentably supports the passage of this bill in the lower house today. The APY Council of Elders pleads that, if an administrator is appointed, that the minister consults properly about who that person should be.

As I said, I will be talking about a particular person I think would be a very fit and proper person to be the administrator. The press releases and pronouncements that have been put out by APY recently have said there has been no evidence. 'Why is this happening? Everything is hunky-dory.' I have just spoken about every audit being qualified.

Let me give the house a little bit of a potted history—a relatively recent history, as in the last four or five years—of what has gone on on the APY lands. Over the past four years alone, about $3 million has been wiped off the public accounts as a loss of members' funds. APY was insolvent to the extent of $1.39 million as at 30 June 2012. There is no budget for the $1.2 million in local government funding and cattle agistment income of $80,000 per month, which is mixed with public funds. One cattle company is suing the APY for $3 million.

There is a string of court cases, including strange, myopic matters such as opposing workers' compensation claims, which have been admitted by the insurer manager as a vendetta against former senior staff whose corporate knowledge has been lost.

There is Mr Deans' Supreme Court action for the judicial review before the court on 5 December, which is really a battle between Ms John and Mr Deans, who is the general manager paid out of taxpayers' dollars.

A Brisbane law firm seems to be holding minutes from March 2011 to 2012. That particular law firm got themselves installed as trustees on the mining royalty trusts and were paid $500,000 in fees for the five months prior to 30 June 2012, at which time APY ran out of money. They ran the recruitment for general manager Mr Preece, whose first public act was to tell The Australian that the $500,000 in legal fees was justified, and in conjunction with the law firm tried to get rid of the chair, withdrawing his vehicle and phone.

So they are no friends of the chairman when he gets in their way.

There has been a failure to respond to FOI applications, and can I tell the house that I have put in dozens and dozens of FOI applications. I have sat in the Ombudsman's office with lawyers from APY arguing over what should and should not be released. That should not be happening under an open and accountable framework. That should not be happening with public funds. That should not be happening with Anangu funds. They should be proud of what they are doing and they should be able to show the progress. Why am I sitting in the Ombudsman's office with a team of APY lawyers arguing about what I can and cannot see? That should never have happened.

Then what happens? I cannot find the minutes, but I would like to see them. I did laugh initially, but then later on I thought, 'This really is a contempt of parliament.' In the minutes, I am mentioned as a 'troublemaker', because I am doing my job as a member of parliament asking questions about what is going on. There it is in the minutes. I am proud of what I am doing. I am very proud of the job I have done and am continuing to do and I will not give up. I will never, never, never give up. I am making sure that the Anangu get a fair go in South Australia.

The exclusion of Anangu from executive meetings is in breach of the act and the obstruction of the section 35 conciliation process, put in place to give Anangu a simple way to resolve governance disputes. You wait until I read from the conciliator's report, which was given to me by the appellant. You wait until I read that; it will make your hair curl. The conciliator, Dr Niemann, issued a damning draft judgement with a finding of maladministration by both AARD and APY. As a public officer, he had reporting obligations under the ICAC Act. We see in this bill that there is a change to allow ICAC investigators to go onto the lands any time they want, as they should, and that is something that nobody should be afraid of if they are operating openly and honestly.

As I said before, contrary to what some people say about the management and auditing of accounts, every set of published accounts is qualified by the fact that the auditor is unable to verify bank balances and trust account holdings from the bank accounts. Where are the annual reports of APY and accounts for the financial year ending 30 June 2013 and 2014? Have there even been required AGMs for those years? I do not know. I understand the Auditor-General is conducting an audit under section 32 of the Public Finance and Audit Act and I look forward to reading his report when it is tabled in this place.

Back in 2010, we had the withholding of the lawyers' reports from the then executive, the subsequent alteration of those reports without lawyers' knowledge and consent, and the obstruction of Anangu access to its first-class adviser panel, including a retired judge accepted by government as an eminent authority. Finlaysons, the former minister Mal Brough, Peter Sutton (well known in Aboriginal areas) and many more were there. More recently, former GM Mr Deans obtained pro bono service from a leading national firm and introduced competitive quoting for legal services before his removal destroyed the groundwork he had put in place for competitive tendering.

What happened there is he had received a tender or quote of $7,000 to conduct legal representation on behalf of APY for their negotiations with the state government over the roads project, but no, that was not taken. What happened was a $28,000 contract; not $7,000 but a $28,000 contract was given to Johnston Withers. I do not know what the people at Johnston Withers are thinking, but I do know that, if I was a member of the executive, I would be getting independent legal advice, not from Johnson Withers, because this could come back to bite them in a very big way.

Finally, why is there a queue of witnesses wanting to appear before the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee? We have had several general managers give evidence and we have another general manager and other people who have intimate knowledge of the workings on the APY coming to give us evidence. This is a very concerning piece of legislation—the haste, the extent of it—but it is necessary. I will go on to read from the conciliator's draft report, which was given to me by Mr George Kenmore.

Mr Kenmore was concerned about the way general meetings were being conducted, his access to minutes, and there were some other issues there. I will try not to read all of it, but some of it needs to be read for the information of the house. Mr Niemann, who was the conciliator, said in his first introduction—this is before February 2014—that he was aware of issues on the APY lands and he wanted to meet with the chair and the board, but that was not able to be done. He wrote to Mr Singer, as I understand it, and the board, yet there was no response. Mr Niemann said:

I am confident that the Chairman was aware of this correspondence because at one stage he wrote to the appellant essentially dismissing any allegations that the conciliator had put forward.

The main concerns the appellant had were the loss of $3 million in APY funds, the legal costs of $477,000 incurred over a six-month period in 2011, and concerns about the proposed amendments to the act, which they contended could be better dealt with by way of changing to the APY constitution and by-laws. The conciliator continues in this report:

The appellant impressed upon me that the process of appointing and dismissing general managers over the period of the last seven years demonstrated irregularities in the conduct of the executive board and, more importantly, that in most cases these appointments and dismissals occurred at the instigation of officers of DPC-AARD. This, he complained, undermined the independence of the board, thus preventing them from independently representing Anangu. He stressed that the reason why Mr McCarthy was suspended lay at the heart of his dispute with the board because he, Mr McCarthy, 'got too close' to matters that the board and DPC-AARD did not want revealed, such as the board's financial mismanagement and the proposed changes to the act.

This was like a red rag to a bull. Mr Niemann said, 'I resolved to investigate these matters further.' Mr Niemann was on the lands at the time and tried to meet with various people and, as we know, up there it does not always happen. He said in his report:

Upon my return to Adelaide I proceeded to 'inform myself' about the suspension of the general manager, Mr McCarthy. I first asked the appellant to advise me in writing why he was aggrieved by the board's decision and action on Mr McCarthy. The appellant advised that McCarthy was suspended because he had tried to investigate the loss of APY funds and to take steps to have these losses audited. He also began to investigate why large amounts of APY funds had been wasted on lawyers.

The conciliator had a telephone conversation with Mr McCarthy:

Mr McCarthy advised me of the history of his dealings with Johnston Withers who had apparently been instructed to act for the board in relation to his suspension. He advised that one reason why he was suspended was because it was alleged that he had employed a systems and compliance manager, Mr O'Shea, contrary to section 13L(2) of the act. McCarthy denied these allegations and, as far as I am aware, they have never been proved. However, two important issues arise from this matter. First, Mr McCarthy knows that O'Shea discovered significant compliance irregularities in the way APY had conducted its affairs. I have never had access to this report so I am unable to comment on it further.

Well, I can comment on it because I have that report. I have that report here. In the report, the scope of audit, the audit focuses on documented systems compliance in the APY Land Rights Act. This was how the APY Executive was complying with the act: 110 line items of compliance were identified in the act and, of those 110 lines, 52 line items (47 per cent) were in compliance. Forty-six per cent were noncompliant and 12 had opportunities for improvement identified. So, over half (58 per cent) of the obligations of the APY to meet the requirements of the act were not being met. No wonder the alarm bells were starting to ring back then. Mr Niemann continues his report:

What is intriguing, however, is that the reference to section 13L enlivens ministerial oversight of the matter and, had DPC-AARD wanted to interfere in the legitimate governance of APY, then this could have provided a basis for them to do so.

So we really do not need to be here today. We could have done this back on 7 July. This should have been raised then. If the department was not aware of that, well, then, I would be very, very surprised. In Mr Niemann's report, he goes on to say:

McCarthy then goes on to recite a very disturbing account of what he discovered after he commenced as general manager of APY on 7 October 2013. It would seem that he investigated the matters that the appellant and the APY elders and committee members had been complaining about to the minister and the board over the course of 2013.

So, it was not new to the minister, it was not new to the board, so what was the minister doing? What has he been doing all this time as the minister? Mr Niemann continues:

What is perhaps more troubling is that in many respects it confirms most of the allegations that the appellant and APY elders and committee members have been complaining about to the minister concerning financial mismanagement, unprofessional legal practitioner conduct and administrative maladministration.

The minister knew about this, according to the conciliator, the ministerial-appointed conciliator. Why hasn't the minister acted before? Why hasn't the minister hauled the APY Executive over the coals before? Why hasn't he told them to lift their game before, rather than coming in here with this legislation today? It is a sad, sad point we are at today.

The question left begging is that, if McCarthy could discover these matters in the short term that he was general manager, why had these matters not been more rigorously and effectively dealt with by now? As I have said, why had they not been brought to the minister's attention? Who was blocking it? Was it the board? Was it the department? Who was it? Mr Niemann's report continues:

McCarthy then goes to allege that it is 'apparent that there is substantial evidence that AARD is complicit in breaches of the act, has systematically maladministered the act and has deliberately interfered with and overstepped this authority in respect to APY'.

It is the minister's department as well. Unfortunately, the more you read of this report this minister's credibility is really at risk. Mr Niemann continues:

On 6 March 2014 I received a letter from Johnston Withers informing me that they acted for APY and inter-alia—

What does that mean?

Ms Chapman: Amongst other things.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Amongst other things; I am not a lawyer—

requesting me to supply copies of all correspondence I had received from the minister. I could not understand why they were requesting copies of the documents from the minister appointing me as conciliator when their clients, pursuant to section 35(2) of the act, had passed a resolution approving my appointment as conciliator on 9 October 2013.

The lawyers have a lot to answer for. McCullough Robinson, Phillip Toyne out of Brisbane, have a lot to answer for. Johnston Withers have a lot to answer for. Mr Niemann continues in his conciliator's report:

On 11 March 2014 Johnston Withers wrote informing me that they were 'surprised and disappointed' that I had refused to provide them with documents that they had requested from the minister appointing me as conciliator.

Curiously, they had cc'd this letter to the minister and DPC-AARD. If Johnson and Withers were acting for the APY Executive, a separate and independent statutory authority, why were they sending copies of their correspondence to the minister and DPC-AARD? The minister was obviously aware of this, AARD was aware of it, the board was aware of it, but what was done? Nothing, and that is why we are here today. Mr Niemann's report continues:

On 4 April 2014 I received a letter from the executive director of DPC-AARD, Miss Saunders, wherein she informed me that she had been contacted by Johnston Withers and supplied with copies of correspondence between me, the board and Johnson Withers. She said that 'the content and tone of the correspondence is concerning in terms of its suggestion that the executive board has lost confidence in your ability to conduct conciliation with the required level of independence and impartiality'.

She then says:

The executive board has now made a request to the minister that you be replaced as conciliator.

Mr Niemann then goes on to defend himself, and this is where it gets even more interesting. Mr Niemann says:

I was a ministerial-appointed conciliator—

remember this—a ministerial-appointed conciliator, approved by the executive board—

There are a number of things that can be said about this letter. One, I have never met with the executive board nor have they communicated to me their dissatisfaction with me continuing to act as a conciliator.

There are a couple of other issues but I quote No. 4:

Arguably, removing me as conciliator could be convenient to Johnston Withers, DPC-AARD, the minister and the executive—

because he knew too much. No. 6 says it all:

The approach taken in the letter dismissing me as conciliator follows a familiar pattern whereby if anybody upsets the executive board, or members of it, the board with the assistance of DPC-AARD 'removes the problem by removing the person'. This is evidently the fate that had befallen McCarthy and possibly other APY general managers as well.

That says it all. Everybody is complicit in this, but some are more complicit than others. The conciliator's report has a list of 23 findings. The first one is:

I find that I was validly appointed as an Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara conciliator pursuant to section 36 of the APY Land Rights Act 1981 by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Hon. Ian Hunter MLC, and that there are no other impediments to me acting as conciliator in this case.

He continues on in No. 10:

I find that the approach taken by the law firm Johnston Withers to this conciliation did not comply with the spirit and intent of this statutory requirement.

No. 16 says:

I find that the executive board members are persons who are members of a governing body of a statutory authority.

It is in the act. It is all there. No. 17 says:

I find that the executive board has a primary responsibility to advance the interests of Anangu at all times.

It is there in the act. Finding No. 20:

I find that the executive board has a duty to independently and objectively defend those interests as advocates for and on behalf of Anangu. The board—

not the white advisers, not the general manager, not the director of administration, not the director of finance, but the board—

has the responsibility to defend and protect Anangu.

But that has not been happening, and that is not just my opinion. That is the opinion of many people who are far more experienced in Aboriginal affairs in South Australia than I. The last finding, No. 23, says:

I find that there is enough evidence to form the belief or suspicion that the executive board may have engaged in conduct involving substantial mismanagement in relation to their official functions.

My understanding is that the minister knew and the department knew. The board certainly knew what was going on because they were trying to fend off this conciliator. So why are we here? Because of the inaction of the minister.

The last little bit of the conciliator's report is saved for DPC-AARD. I am not going to name the public servants who are named in this report. I have met them all but I will just say what the conciliator thought of their actions:

While DPC-AARD and some of the public servants employed by the department are not parties to this dispute, they have nevertheless been involved in it in a significant and at times unhelpful way. It is not for me to make findings about the relevant public servants but, in my opinion, the employees of DPC-AARD are Public Service employees who in their dealings with the executive board have a duty to act in a manner consistent with the APY Land Rights Act and not only in the interests of the minister but Anangu as well.

In my view, should they fail to do so, they may, if it involves a finding of substantial mismanagement in relation to their official functions, amount to maladministration in public administration. On the basis of information that has been provided to me, I consider that there is enough evidence to form the belief or suspicion that conduct involving substantial mismanagement in relation to their official functions has occurred within DPC-AARD.

So the minister, the department and the executive are all in the frame, and it is a very sad position to be in.

As I said before, as a member of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee, I have heard evidence from a number of former general managers and a financial controller. We are hearing from the conciliator on Friday and from another former general manager. I am not sure what the protocols are for in-camera evidence, but I would have thought that members of parliament and not just the committee should be able to be privy to that evidence. I will investigate that, if members of parliament want to come and listen, because I am sure that evidence will be given in camera.

I remember the first time we had a former general manager come to give evidence, and who was sitting in the front row? A lawyer from Johnston Withers, monstering this guy. So we cleared the room because we wanted to hear the evidence without any intimidation. I have 28 pages here of in-camera evidence, and it is damning. It is absolutely damning of the way the APY Executive have allowed themselves to be manipulated and the advancement of Aboriginal affairs on those lands carried out.

The history of interventions on the lands, though, is something that none of us in this place can forget. I thought it a very sad day when there were headlines in The Advertiser and The Australian saying that the government was taking over. I forget what the actual words were, but it was basically that it was going to take over, it was going to 'rule the blacks'. I think it was a very unfortunate way of putting things.

We have had a history of revisiting this particular issue, or going through this issue, in the past, and we are revisiting it again today, but I hope this is the last time. It behoves all of us in this place—every one of us—to make sure that we do not betray the Anangu and that we do get an administrator in place who is able to do the job and we get the job done.

Back in March 2004 was one of the very few times I actually agreed with what Kevin Foley said. We are all in the chamber, I know that, or listening in our offices, but listen to this. The Hon. Kevin Foley, who was then deputy premier and minister for police, said in a ministerial statement on Monday 22 March 2004:

In public office there arises from time to time an issue of such importance that it demands an extraordinary response—an issue of such significance that it calls for measures reserved for times of state emergency. That response may be unpopular with some people and may result in criticism. However, as political leaders, we are obliged to do what needs to be done in the interests of all of our citizens.

Pipalyatjara, it is like driving from Adelaide to Sydney. Watarru is one of the most remote communities in Australia, and I will not talk about the current state of that community. Kevin Foley actually summed it up quite well then.

We saw the government bring in former senior police officer Jim Litster. Poor old Jim succumbed to the pressures there, and that is why I say that if we are going to put an administrator in there this person better be of the highest integrity, have the highest levels of courage and be given the greatest level of support not only by this parliament but by the Anangu, because we all want progress. We all want a real way forward.

Back in June 2005, we have been through Jim Litster, we have been through the very ill-fated Bob Collins. I remember sitting with Bob Collins in one of the ministers' offices here and having a very jovial, friendly chat about things in the APY lands. I am afraid I was not convinced that Bob was the man, and I do not think he turned out to be. I do not want to speak ill of the dead, but I do not think that he was a suitable choice in the first place.

Then we had that wonderful lady, Lowitja O'Donoghue, and Tim Costello, who did their reports, made their recommendations, but what happened? Very little. What did Lowitja O'Donoghue say? How angry was she? I know firsthand that Lowitja is supporting this legislation with a very heavy heart, but she knows it needs to be done. What did Lowitja say back in 2005? Lowitja said:

The Government's responses are driven by the desire to neutralise potential criticism. So they put in 'quick fixes' rather than going to the heart of the problems.

At the first commonwealth state task force meeting, Lowitja was asked if she wanted to comment about what was going on with Aboriginal affairs in South Australia. I will quote Lowitja, and this is very out of character for her:

I said it was all bullshit. I was so angry. Now I don't use that sort of language. It was the first time ever. I have never ever in my whole experience in Aboriginal affairs been treated the way I have been treated by the Rann government. The difficulty for the APY community members is that they are having money dangled before them and they are being manipulated.

That is what Lowitja said back in 2005 and, unfortunately, that is what is happening now.

The person we put in place has to be somebody we can trust. I forget the word for 'all of us' and I mean including Aboriginal people, Anangu as well as us. We have to be able to trust them. The person I would very strongly urge the Premier to talk to, to sit down with and hopefully put in place as an administrator is a man called Neil McLeod.

Neil McLeod is an Office Managing Partner with Deloitte Growth Solutions in Alice Springs. Neil has been a partner in Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu for 17 years. He is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia. He has a Bachelor of Arts in accounting. He is a registered tax agent and a fellow of the Taxation Institute of Australia. He has more than 40 years' experience in the accounting profession, having commenced his career in South Australia and then moving to the Northern Territory in 1986, initially to Alice Springs, relocating to Katherine in 1992 to run the Katherine office before he returned to Alice Springs in 2004.

Neil has significant experience in the following areas: Aboriginal communities and enterprise, tourism and hospitality, retail, manufacturing, service industries, statutory bodies, construction. His professional experience was initially in relation to small business and some national operators. Since moving to the Northern Territory, a wide range of experience has been gained, not only in small to medium businesses but also in providing accounting and bookkeeping advice and support to numerous Aboriginal corporations, including Waltja Tjutangku Palyapayi Aboriginal Corporation, Mangkunegara Aboriginal Corporation, PY Ku Aboriginal Corporation, PY Media, Institute for Aboriginal Development assisting the Statutory Manager for Deloitte, Mungoorbada Aboriginal Corporation, and Jawoyn Association Aboriginal Corporation in Katherine.

Mr McLeod is a very well-credentialled person to be appointed as an administrator. The checking that I have done on Mr McLeod reinforces in my mind and my heart that this is a man who is not only well intentioned but can achieve results.

I have been given the name of a person the minister is considering. I strongly advise the minister to reconsider where he is going. If we are going to share half the pain in this process as the opposition, surely we should have some say in who the administrator is going to be. When you have somebody who is independent—as far as I am aware, Neil McLeod has no political connections at all, he has very good experience though—he is the sort of person I would be very interested in seeing the Premier and the minister talk to.

This position we have come to today is all about the problems with governance on the APY lands. I remember reading a letter in this place during question time to premier Rann from Makinti Minutjukur about a meeting on the lands, and she was fuming because she had hoped to have some dialogue with the premier then, but he stood across the creek with the TV cameras and it was all about photo opportunities. Well, the photo opportunities have to end. This has to be about getting on with the job.

Back in 2005, the APY Task Force Progress on the Lands report was about governance on the lands and how the government was committed to improving governance on the lands, then in 2007 we saw almost word for word exactly the same report two years later. The governance has not progressed. In the report by the Minister for Education and Child Development, in response to Ted Mullighan's report on sexual abuse, we still see recommendation 1, that any changes to governance of communities on the lands be implemented promptly so as to reduce the extent of dysfunction and possible corruption in the communities. Not just the communities, but in the executive, who should be the leaders. Unfortunately, the dysfunction in the executive reflects what is going on in those lands.

There are about 3,000 people on the APY lands during the wintertime and fewer in summertime. There are a number of small communities and some larger communities. Those community councils are doing their very best, and they should be able to do better because I understand that the global budget is about $200 million a year. In my 12 years on the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee that is well over $1 billion—it is about $1.4 billion, I think, at eight times 12. You are still talking about a lot of money going in: federal money, state money, and local government money through the federal government grants.

Where to from now? Let's pass this bill through this place; let's put our armour on; let's put up with the criticism; let's be called 'racist' if that is what people want to do; and let's make sure that we do what is right for Anangu—not what is right politically, not what is right for the media and not what is right for a sector of the Aboriginal industry in South Australia. Let's make sure we do what is right.

I conclude by referring to a piece of paper that was given to me by the APY Council of Elders about some of the things they would like to see. It is not a statement of demands, nor is it a complete plan, but it certainly is a way forward. They have called it 'Anangu Phoenix Dreaming', and there are a number of points here which I will read out:

1. Under section 64A of the Constitution of South Australia, we are entitled to local government—we don't have it. APY looks like a local council but it has none of the necessary powers. $1.2 million in local government funding is wasted on lawyers, consultants and trips to town. We need a local council to be the principal service provider, not a mishmash of warring agencies and NGOs. The Prime Minister was not joking about service delivery devolving to the lowest level of government. We have known about changes to the MUNS funding for many years. We won't need to worry about this for the local council.

2. We need a Western Desert Regional Authority driving developments for the whole Western Desert block, including those parts of Western Australia and the Northern Territory, like the Torres Strait Islander Regional Authority.

3. We need APY governance to be drawn from properly-elected community councils which should be funded sub-committees under the APY act and constitution. The communities are aware where people live and where we need things like gender balance and police checks. Councils can appoint a delegate to a committee to advise about governance of how our land is administered. Councils can do real work in things like welfare reform, school attendance, housing administration, and many other things. All this can be done under new APY constitution.

4. Once these things are done, Anangu can have a real conversation about things like:

subdividing communities out of the APY freehold in exchange for implementation of outstanding reforms recommended by so many inquiries like Bringing Them Home, Mullighan, and Little Children are Sacred;

subdividing housing lots out of communities for individual ownership;

dedicate roads and service delivery assets in exchange for them being done up;

mobile phone coverage etc.;

reform permits in communities and on roads to let the real world in subject to having safeguards in place;

leverage future income streams from royalties in exchange for real progress now in areas like early childhood and reception to year 3 education.

There is so much more. We don't need to hang around waiting to die watching Toyota convoys, listening to gossip about the latest bloodsucker debacle on APY. So let's pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off and start real conversations about positive things.

There is a way forward and the way forward will hopefully start today. I know the executive board and some of the appointed administrators up there are not very happy with us, but I can wear that. Somebody said to me I have put on a bit of weight. No, I just have a thicker skin because you need it in this place. You need to be able to stand up and do what is right. It is about making sure that we do exactly what is right for the people of South Australia and, in this particular case, what is right for Anangu.

The need to rush this legislation through is, as I have hopefully shown, something that should not have come to this point. There has been ample evidence that the minister should have stepped in a long time ago. I have been calling for an administrator for ages. I remember asking the former minister (member for Colton) in 2012 about the administrator.

As I said, I have put in FOI requests to try to track down what is going on up there and have had continual battles. I have been called a troublemaker, but I wear that badge with honour because the trouble I am causing is for the bad people, not for the good people. Good people have nothing to fear. They do not worry about qualified audits, they do not worry about scrutiny, and they certainly will not worry about any investigations with the Auditor-General or any other investigators that may be inquiring about their activities on the lands.

So, in many ways it is with a heavy heart that I actually come to this point and say that we do support this legislation. We strongly object to the fact that it has come to this method of getting an administrator appointed, and that one needs to be appointed in the first place, but we do not resile from the fact that it has to be done. We do not want lawyers fighting over the legislation and that is why it is pretty brutal. I do not shy away from that. Giving a minister unfettered powers is not something with which I lie comfortably, but the minister should know that with power comes responsibility. We will be watching. Anangu will be watching.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:41): I rise to speak on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2014. This is a bill that was introduced in the Legislative Council yesterday. It passed after significant debate with, I think it is fair to say, a considerable number of concerns being raised and a very long list of questions unanswered. However, approaches by the current minister (Hon. Ian Hunter) to the opposition have resulted in meetings with the Leader of the Opposition and with the member for Morphett and the Hon. Terry Stephens, both of whom represent our side of the parliament in the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee.

It is disappointing—that is probably an understatement—to me that there has not been any formal reference of this legislation or its proposal to the committee, but I note the minister has at least consulted our representatives on it and has presented to them concerns that he says justify this legislation. We are being asked to change the rules and structure of governance on the APY lands, and we are also being asked to change matters of access, permissions and exemptions to the permit scheme that currently operate under the APY Land Rights Act 1981.

That act was established and pioneered legislation to recognise a decade of discussion and conversation with representatives from the Indigenous community and state government to develop a scheme or a system with statutory protection for the independence, self-governance and autonomy of Indigenous peoples in South Australia. It made provisions for a number of things, but since its passage it has operated in that manner. It has had some significant amendment. I am only familiar with what occurred after I came into this parliament.

There had been some amendment as a result of there being a long period of time when an election had not been held, notwithstanding that being contrary to the rules of the legislation at that time. It is important to remember this legislation was set up to provide that autonomy. It established a number of safeguards in setting up a structure elected by the local people.

Sometimes, I suppose that has been difficult to identify, but the Electoral Commission has taken on that responsibility and tries to ensure that a fair and democratic process operates, making provision for the proper accountability and administration of funds, which are very significant moneys, as has been pointed out by the member for Morphett. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars a year that are paid in, largely by federal and state governments, with the federal government's funding incorporating moneys under local government regional entitlements.

There is a very significant amount of money going in and a moving population. Around about 3,000 people reside on the APY lands at any one time. They are not all permanent residents. In fact, it is a fairly mobile population. Some live there part time, some are infrequent visitors and some are permanent.

Remember, the whole purpose was to have an act which provided for the vesting of title for certain lands for people known as the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara peoples, and a number of things were set up. Number one was, of course, the governance structure, as I say. There were access rights—who could go on with a permit—and special provisions for the township of Mintabie, which was a precious stones field and mine which operated and ended up within the boundary.

We had some special rules that were set up leaving the right to the Crown to continue to occupy certain parts of the lands. We had provisions for dispute resolution. We had a special provision that says they do not have to pay any land tax. I am thinking about setting up a house up there myself, at this point. These are all the special rules that were set up and have been added on to.

When I came into this place, one of the things that became very quickly apparent was that there had not been an election under the proper set of rules that operated under this legislation for some time. As has been pointed out by the member for Morphett, various reports were then undertaken to deal with this question of governance and the whole election. Mr Jim Litster was appointed; that was fairly ill fated and short term. Then, the Hon. Bob Collins, a former parliamentary representative for the Northern Territory who has since passed away, was brought in. I can recall having a meeting with him with the then shadow attorney, Mr Lawson.

He had a fairly full and frank discussion with him. His report came out with a number of recommendations but, in short, he said, 'Send the police in straightaway. The situation is that dangerous for those who are living there. They need protection. An election must be called immediately, and action must be taken by the government to deal with that.' There were other comments that he made about shooting all the dogs, giving people hot meals each day and all these sorts of statements that were typical Bob Collins, to be frank, but that was the reality and the significance of what he collated at that stage.

I was quite shocked by the fact that human rights had reached a dangerous level, as the member for Morphett has pointed out, and there was an urgent need for the protection of many of the people who were living on the lands. The government made certain commitments that that would occur. Lowitja O'Donoghue's report, not long after that, again indicated that, notwithstanding the urgency that was identified and the importance of having police there, there had been little action by the government, and she expressed very explicitly her concern about the lack of that.

Then, the late Ted Mullighan, former Supreme Court judge, undertook his review in respect of sexual abuse towards children in institutional care; that is, under the guardianship of the minister. He attended at the lands. His final description in relation to what he identified was absolutely horrific to read. It was bad enough that, in his first report, reports had gone missing and even a child's death had not been recorded properly, but when we read the report in relation to the APY lands area, it sent shivers up your spine.

After that, I asked the then minister for Aboriginal affairs and families and communities, now Premier Weatherill, questions like: what has happened in respect of the reporting of child sexual abuse and the action taken to protect this apparent plague of problems that are there and are being reported mainly by the women in the community? His response was: 'We do not keep a record of that at Coober Pedy. We do not identify whether there is a problem here.'

When you go to the Nganampa Health Council annual reports and try to identify what used to be recorded in respect of sexually transmitted diseases within children, and what used to be reported in relation to drug and alcohol abuse, particularly in children, these things have just evaporated from the financial records. What do you do about that? You then try to seek that information.

It is not forthcoming from the government. It is not forthcoming from the Nganampa Health Council. They are an exempt agency under freedom of information, so it is little wonder that concern has been raised as to what is actually happening and what accountability there is to remedy the protection of what is obviously an assault predominantly on women and children in this area. It is of great concern to me that nothing appears to have been done. My colleagues (the member for Morphett, the Hon. Terry Stephens in another place, our leader, and other members) have repeatedly asked the government questions about what is happening in relation to matters on the lands. The answers are dismissed; in fact, they are treated with disdain. It is of great concern.

Yesterday when the government came to the parliament with this bill, it was to raise really two things. It was suggesting that it was necessary to appoint an administrator, which of course there is already power under the act to do, in a circumstance that was entirely within the discretion of the minister. There needed to be no accountability on his or her part to identify how that is to occur and under what circumstances. He wanted to have the power to do this.

It seems, from his very brief second reading, that this is because, one, there have been multiple general managers. Well, if one were to look at the multiple Aboriginal affairs ministers in this state in the last four years—I think there have been four of them—or the number of people who have been minister for families and communities—there would have to have been six, seven, eight in this government since I have been here—the number and turnover of general managers in itself does not tell me that there is a level of dysfunction requiring an administrator.

I would want to know why those administrators have been and gone and what has happened in relation to either their dismissal or resignation. It seems to be a little vague as to what has occurred when one reads through the debate yesterday in the parliament. In the member for Morphett's contribution, he said apparently a number of them want to come forward to his committee to give evidence. I will be very interested to see what they have to say.

The second aspect is that there appear to be deficiencies in the financial management of all this money that comes in and out. I, for one, would agree that, if it is necessary to deal with the financial management and that it may need some support, that can either be done in one of two ways. Sure, you could bring in an administrator, but that might be like a sledgehammer to an ant, or you could provide the resource of people who are competent to be able to provide that or with ministerial direction to ensure that there are conditions set for the operation of that.

It appears that all the minister has done, apart from not answering a lot of questions in another place yesterday (and I will be asking the minister in this place to give us an update on a number of issues in relation to that), is suggest that the only way to deal with this is for him to appoint an administrator. The next question is: who should be appointed and how are they going to work with the Anangu people and those on the APY lands? That is a good question, because we have no clue about what the government are proposing in this space or whether they intend to consult with anybody, whether they will be brought in on Monday or when the suspension is going to occur. We have no clue about how much they will be paid.

All these questions are unanswered: what qualifications they will have, and whether Mr Neil McLeod, as suggested by the member for Morphett, is a fit, proper and appropriate person. I do not know. He may well be, and it may well be one for the government to consider, but it may be that his financial credentials are only dealing with one of the issues that is a problem there. It does appear at this stage that it is the financial mismanagement under question, but I certainly would like to have some more detail of that.

Secondary to that in this bill is the question of access to ICAC (Independent Commissioner Against Corruption) representatives. He currently employs a number of serving police officers as support staff to his commission. As the government is often proud to tell us, there are serving police officers on the lands, and I know that because last time I went up there I got lost and had to ask one of them in the middle of the night to help me find a place to stay. They were very helpful, I might say. In fact, I think I wrote to the then police commissioner to thank them for that assistance, so we know that they are up there.

What on earth has been happening? If there is a form of corruption occurring, first of all we have no clue about the detail of it. If corruption is occurring, I think the government needs to tell us: what has been reported to the police, what action have the police taken, has it been referred to the DPP, and what investigation has been occurring by our serving police officers and/or other that can be sent there for the purposes of undertaking action?

The serving police officers currently working in ICAC can go there tomorrow. They already have power under the permit system to go there. Quite frankly, if they were interested in going up there to get documentary records, they should have been up there yesterday, before this legislation was even filed. It is a bit like getting the report from the government who say to us, 'It is very important, the ICAC Commissioner tells us, for the government to understand that they cannot use private emails, either ministers or their staff, and we are telling them that, if they do, they are part of the State Records Act so they should be sent a reminder that they are not allowed to do that.' Well, two months later, we do not even have confirmation from the government that it has sent an email of instruction to their staff not to use private emails.

So, hello? What do you think the people who are involved in some kind of corruption on the APY lands would have done in the last few weeks, having had notice of what is happening here? They would have shredded whatever documents they had up in the APY lands quicker than you can think. Heavens above! What sort of Mickey Mouse operation is this government running. I for one do want answers as to why the police have not been up there already and what action has been taken to protect any records or documents or persons who might be called to support any allegations of corruption or misconduct that apparently ICAC needs to look at.

At the moment the minister is asking us to blindly provide for permits. The commissioner himself, as I understand it, has said, 'If you want to get in this space, I want to go up there to look at this and I will need to have access as a separate provision.' That is the explanation that is being given to us as to why we need to amend the act. Before we do that I certainly want some answers from the minister as to why the police have not been up there already. And those who are there, why have they not acted? What action has been taken in relation to those investigations and at least the very nature of the alleged corruption? All I keep hearing is rumours at this point.

The best it has been explained to me so far is that the board, or at least some of the members on that board, have instructed their general manager to do certain things. The general manager has taken the view that that is not appropriate and, when that has occurred, they have either been dismissed or they have just resigned, given up and left. There has obviously been some sort of bullying or intimidatory behaviour and, as a consequence of this circulation of general managers, somehow or other in the meantime, the board or some members have got access to moneys that they should not have, including board fees, which were referred to last night in the Legislative Council, and meeting fees, which they have either had in advance or should not have had access to, which has raised some question about the financial accountability of the operations on the APY lands. That is about as high as anyone can put it.

If there has been misconduct, if someone has broken the law, if there has been intimidation or any action of that sort, again, I want to know what has happened. If the Minister for Police and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs can throw some light on that, I would appreciate it. I appreciate that the Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade in our house now has the conduct of this matter, and I am hoping that she will have some of her advisers come in with all the answers to the questions that were asked in the other place yesterday. Frankly, I think we need to have some answers to those questions today, and I will repeat the questions in the committee stage of the bill if we do not get any answers. However, I certainly hope that the minister who has conduct of this matter will come back to us today with some of those answers and, if not today, tomorrow. Quite frankly, this parliament deserves answers. Secondly and more importantly, the people of the APY lands deserve some answers.

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (16:59): I rise to speak on this amendment bill which is currently before the house. Can I just say that I have very much enjoyed visiting the APY lands. I think it is an extraordinarily precious part of our state; in fact, since becoming a member of parliament I think I have been up there every year. When I was first elected to the South Australian parliament I had the very great honour of representing my party and this house on the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee. That was a real eye-opener for me into both the beauty of our Aboriginal lands in South Australia and also the deprivation which exists in terms of services, job opportunities, and a whole pile of other outcomes for the people living on our Aboriginal lands right throughout South Australia.

As I said, I have made an annual trip up to the APY lands, and this year in August I had a great pleasure of visiting that far north-west corner of our state. I had never visited Pipalyatjara before, and on this trip I travelled to Pipalyatjara, I travelled to Kulka and Watarru, and I went over the border into Western Australia to Wingellina. It is an extraordinarily attractive part of this state. I must say that the people I met with there were extraordinarily generous and hospitable. I love the football oval; in fact, I took a photograph of the football oval in Pipalyatjara. There is not a blade of grass on this football oval, but I am told that they have an excellent football team there.

I visited the school, I met with Mrs Paddy, I met with Sally Scales, and I met with some of the community leaders and the people who know that there are many challenges that face people, the Anangu, living on the APY lands. My thoughts are with them at this very difficult time, when the parliament is considering this extraordinary bill.

I would also like to put in Hansard that I think that this is an extraordinarily difficult portfolio to have. Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation is extraordinarily difficult because there are enormous challenges which confront the government and any minister who has this portfolio. I believe that we on this side of the house try to be as reasonable and as bipartisan as humanly possible, given the fact that we are in a political environment. I think at every opportunity that I have anything to do with this portfolio we have extended that hand of bipartisanship to this government.

I remember very distinctly when the latest minister for this portfolio was appointed (I think that was in January 2013). I met with him within a month of his appointment. I had become the leader of the parliamentary Liberal Party at that time, and I said, 'If there's anything that we can do from opposition to improve the lives of the people living on the APY lands, then let us know what that is.' In fact, I put forward a range of suggestions, almost like a menu of things, that we thought needed to be done, and we settled on a range of issues, including updating the Aboriginal lands act in South Australia and introducing and passing the Mutaka legislation in South Australia.

The minister said he wanted to do something with regard to governance on the lands, and at every single opportunity I said yes. Sometimes I did not agree with what the minister was putting forward; in fact, several times I did not agree with it, but I said, 'I appreciate this is a difficult portfolio and I will work with the government on this legislation.' Unfortunately, I do not think this is a portfolio that the government is really taking seriously. We have had four ministers in five years. We have had a succession of cuts to the budget in this important portfolio area. Every year for the last three or four years, we have had a cut.

This important agency does not even exist within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet any more; it has been moved to State Development. There has been no explanation whatsoever as to why that has occurred. As I said, this is a tough area, and it is an area which requires dedication and bipartisanship, and it is a portfolio that requires some 'stickability' because it is not that easy.

I must say I have learnt a lot by not only being on the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee but I am now serving in my fifth year on the board of Reconciliation SA, and I want to thank the other members of Reconciliation SA for helping me in my journey to understanding the complexities that face our first peoples in South Australia.

You can imagine my surprise when, last week, I was requested to attend a meeting with the minister. It was an emergency meeting. I was supported in that meeting by our shadow minister, Dr Duncan McFetridge, himself a longstanding advocate for people living on the APY lands, and also the Hon. Terry Stephens, who also has been a longstanding member of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee and has a great empathy for the people living on the lands. We were summoned to this meeting where the government presented us with the most extraordinary of bills—I think that is the only way I could explain it—in which the government was asking us to, essentially, hand over these extraordinary powers to the government without explanation.

The bill only has two parts to it; one is to allow the ICAC to enter the lands without seeking a permit. I think, generally speaking, most people agree with that. In fact, the representative of the APY indicated to me when I met with him on the weekend that that was something about which there was not going to be an argument. I think on that clause everybody is in agreement and we can move on.

I suppose the clause that causes the most stress is the clause which provides the minister with the power to, essentially, dismiss the APY Executive or, as the minister said in his lengthy contribution in the other place last night, suspend the APY Executive. The minister, according to this piece of legislation, can do this without showing any cause.

We asked the minister in our meeting, 'What is the reason?' He said, 'We cannot tell you.' As I said, it was an extraordinary meeting. He could not tell us. He suggested that we visit the ICAC commissioner, which I did the very next day. I met with Commissioner Lander and he spoke to his clause which, as I said, we will be supporting.

We are left in this very difficult situation. We have tried to adopt a bipartisan approach to this portfolio over an extended period of time. We do not know the reasons why the government has asked for this, we do not know why the commissioner has asked for his increase in powers, but we are being asked to trust the government.

I have to say that it has been a very difficult decision for the parliamentary Liberal Party to take the government at their word on this position because we have been let down by the government in this portfolio over an extended period of time. Nevertheless, we have committed to the government that we will be passing this extraordinary piece of legislation.

I want to place on the record today why I am so disappointed with the government. It seems to me that the existing piece of legislation which governs the APY has plenty of opportunities for a responsible, hardworking minister and a responsible, hardworking government to put processes in place to appoint an administrator without these extraordinary powers. We have one day of parliament left, tomorrow.

It breaks all precedent, virtually—nearly every precedent of this parliament—to consider a piece of legislation, through both houses, in the one sitting week. Certainly, there has been no other piece of legislation while I have been in this parliament, and I cannot think of any other piece of legislation, which has required this. The only explanation that I can see for this is that this is a government which, in this portfolio, is in crisis.

I sat through the entire debate—the entire sorry debate—in the Legislative Council last night, and I believe it was one of the most shameful times that our parliament has ever seen. Reasonable questions that need to be answered in a reasonable, considered way were dealt with flippantly by a minister who has shown no respect for this portfolio whatsoever. The answers that came were anything but satisfactory. It is quite clear to me that this minister and this government have not thought through the ramifications of this piece of legislation whatsoever.

Any reasonable person sitting through the debate in the other place last night would come away thinking, 'What is this parliament doing?' I think it was one of our most shameful days in this parliament, and I think that this minister has performed extraordinarily poorly. If he does not have an interest in this portfolio, he should hand it over to somebody who does.

The minister has made it clear to us that there are things which need to be done on the APY lands. We are very sceptical. We need to see some accountability. We have inserted a clause which the government has agreed to and which the crossbenches in the other place have also agreed to, which will require any appointed administrator to report to the parliament. We thought this was extraordinarily important, because any administrator should not be simply reporting to the government. They should be reporting to the parliament, because if the minister does exercise these extraordinary powers which he has demanded of the opposition, then there has to be some accountability.

We have also agreed to a sunset clause. We do not think that these powers should continue indefinitely, and so we have insisted upon a sunset clause. The government says that if that sunset clause is too short it will not allow the appointment of an administrator; it would severely limit the administrator who could be appointed. Again, we are in this difficult situation with a gun held to the head of the opposition to take the government at its word.

You, Deputy Speaker, are a person whom I know also shares a great love for our APY lands. You are one of the few people in this chamber who can actually pronounce it correctly; everybody else has a go at it, but I think that you probably do best of anybody. It is incumbent upon us, if this passes, that we have a government which starts to place some importance on our APY lands. It is an asset to our state. It is something that we should be rightly proud of. At the moment, sure there are challenges up there, but we have to get to a different methodology.

If I had to define the minister's and the government's approach to the APY lands since I have been in this place, it would be summarised in the expression, 'out of sight, out of mind'. It is shameful and it needs to be changed, and I will just commit that every single day that I am elected in this place I will do every single thing that I can, and I know the opposition will do everything that they can, to advance the cause of the Anangu.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT