HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-10-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee: Report 2015-16

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (11:03): I move:

That the 2015-16 annual report of the committee be noted.

This is the 12th annual report of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee and the third during my term in this place. The committee is responsible for reviewing the operation of the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act 2013, the Maralinga Tjarutja Land Rights Act 1984 and the Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Act 1981. The committee also has the responsibility of reviewing the operation of the new Aboriginal Lands Trust Act three years after its commencement.

The committee discharges its responsibilities in part by visiting Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal lands, by maintaining strong relationships with the Aboriginal landholding statutory authorities, by inquiring into matters of importance to Aboriginal people and their communities and by inviting representatives from these authorities to appear before the committee to give evidence.

During the past year, the committee visited dialysis service providers in the Northern Territory to determine how sustainable dialysis services could be delivered to Aboriginal South Australians and, in particular, in the APY lands. The committee was aware that Anangu requiring dialysis were having to leave their homes and relocate to Adelaide, Port Augusta or Alice Springs with family members for treatment. This dislocation was adversely impacting the patient's health, their families and their community.

In April, the committee visited the Aboriginal community of Kabulwarnamyo in West Arnhem Land. This community, through their business development company, Warddeken Land Management, won the 2015 National NAIDOC Caring for Country Award for their work in Indigenous protected area management. The committee was very impressed to learn how this small remote community developed successful business opportunities by partnering with the commercial sector, the Australian government and philanthropic sources. The partnering was critical in building infrastructure and generated income streams and employment for the majority of the members of the community as well as funding a school with a full-time teacher.

The committee believes that some of the Warddeken business development concepts could also be applied in certain circumstances in South Australian Aboriginal communities, with funding from corporate philanthropic services emerging as an important resource for not-for-profit and community organisations. The planned visit to the APY communities of Ernabella and Umuwa, as well as Yalta and Oodnadatta, was cancelled due to the funeral of a prominent member of the APY Executive. However, the committee did travel to Yappala Station in the Flinders Ranges in my electorate to hear traditional owners' concerns about the federal government's proposal for a low and intermediate-level nuclear waste facility near Hawker.

It is worth reflecting upon the process for site selection or what might be the potential site selection. Even though the Yappala community is immediately adjacent to the proposed property that has been suggested as a site, the Yappala community was not consulted. It is passing strange that an absentee landlord can nominate land next to an Aboriginal community without consulting with that Aboriginal community, and that Aboriginal community certainly had serious concerns about the establishment of the facility in lands they have walked for many thousands of years. On a personal note, I believe it is a relatively benign facility. On that basis, I do not see why it cannot go in New South Wales, close to where most of the waste is generated.

The committee also travelled to the Aboriginal Lands Trust holdings of Nepabunna, Iga Warta and Marree. The committee heard evidence from 26 witnesses during the course of the year, including a number who gave evidence in regard to the feasibility of the construction and operation of a dialysis centre at Ernabella in the APY lands. The evidence was strongly supportive of the establishment of a permanent dialysis centre in the APY lands, and the committee worked with the state government and the intended service provider, Western Desert Dialysis, to ensure that any potential logistical issues were resolved. In July 2016, the state government offered its support for the establishment of a permanent dialysis centre at Ernabella.

The committee commends Western Desert Dialysis, the Australian government, who will provide the capital for the establishment of the centre, and the South Australian government, who will provide the recurrent funding for the centre, for delivering this important initiative to the APY lands. As the member for that area, it will be a proud moment when that dialysis service is permanently established in the APY lands. I know that this has been an ongoing issue over many years, and it is really good to see that there is strong tripartisan support on the committee and in this parliament for this direction. Congratulations to all concerned on bringing this to fruition.

As a committee we have moved that we will, on a regular basis, seek updates about the establishment of the dialysis service on the lands because we believe it is something that should happen in a timely fashion. The permanent dialysis service on the lands will complement the mobile dialysis service, which has now been in operation for a number of years.

In addition, following on from the committee's recommendations that came out of the inquiry into the stolen generation reparations bill 2010, I thank the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation for establishing the $11 million Stolen Generations Reparations Scheme in November 2015. The scheme will provide up to $6 million in ex gratia payments to members of the stolen generations and allocate a further $5 million to a stolen generations community reparations fund. There will be a community consultation process to determine how this fund could be used, and I look forward to seeing the outcome of that consultation.

During the year, the committee also raised a number of issues on behalf of Aboriginal people and communities with respective commonwealth and state ministers and agencies. The committee feels that it has an important role in advocating for Aboriginal South Australians. The committee members again showed their support for Aboriginal Australians by attending a number of different events, including the eighth anniversary of the national apology to the stolen generations and the National Reconciliation Week breakfast in Adelaide.

As always, the state and commonwealth agencies provided considerable information, which greatly assisted the committee with its work, and I thank those agencies for their support and for following up on matters that arise at meetings and at committee hearings. Most importantly, to all the Aboriginal communities, organisations and their representatives, who have given their time and provided evidence and valuable insight to the committee during the year, I say thank you. I also say thank you to the committee for the way it carries out its work and the consensual approach it takes to assist in furthering the interests of the Aboriginal people in our state.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:12): As the house would know, I have been on the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee for many years now. I compliment the current members, including the member for Giles and the member for Napier, for the work they do on the committee. This is a multipartisan committee: we have had Democrats, Family First, Independents, Greens and, obviously, Labor and Liberal members from the upper house and lower house.

It has worked and does work extremely well over the years. For quite a while, we were suffering under the fact that the Presiding Member was also the minister, where the committee would write to the minister and he would write back to the committee, basically writing to himself. We fixed that, and I can say that that was more easily fixed than a lot of things in Aboriginal affairs.

One of my colleagues on another committee, who recently visited the APY lands, questioned the speed of progress of the work of this committee. I am the first to admit that Aboriginal affairs can be, as Mike Rann said to me at a function, two steps forward and one step back. I would probably go further and say three steps forward and two steps back. It can be very slow and very frustrating, and it does take passion and stamina to work in Aboriginal affairs.

Despite the fact that committees are not get paid anymore, the committee membership has not changed at all, and attendance at committee meetings and on the trips is as full as it possibly can be. Occasionally, we cannot all go or be there, but we do what we can. It is a great committee to work on, and I congratulate the members on the work they have been doing.

Certainly, the Aboriginal people of South Australia are better off for this committee's being in place. It might be baby steps, they might be incremental steps, and some of it may seem to be work that is done and then is undone and you start again, but that is okay. We can keep on keeping on—and we will keep on keeping on. You always have to have a plan B, and this committee not only has a plan B but also a plan C—we could go through the whole alphabet in some cases—and the committee will pose questions and provide some options and solutions where possible.

The things that we have been involved in in the last 12 months of particular significance for me were not only the trips away to various communities, including those in the Northern Territory and Arnhem Land, but also being involved in the changes that happened in this place and the other place, with the Aboriginal Heritage Act and the amendments we saw to the APY act recently to change the electoral system and the make-up of the executive. These are very important moves that will improve the governance on the APY lands.

Let's not forget that in South Australia—and this might surprise some members in here—about 30,000 people identify as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. The state and federal global budget (this was confirmed by the minister in estimates) is $1.3 billion. Nationally, about $58 billion is spent on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. In South Australia, it is $1.3 billion. In the APY lands, the budget is about $200 million a year for 2,500 people. Very significant funds are going in there, so we need to make sure where they are going.

The recent Ernst & Young report on some of the expenditure up there posed a lot of questions. Again, there was some funding that could not be tracked down and was unexplained. The changes we have made in this place and the other place, and the work of the committee on the electoral system, the amendments to the electoral system and the make-up of the APY lands, will be a very good thing, not least having 50 per cent of the members of the executive as women.

I remember years ago, when I did a Pitjantjatjara language course, I asked one of the female tutors, 'What is the one thing you would change in Aboriginal Affairs if you could?' She said, 'Come back as a man.' Unfortunately, that was not going to happen, but what we can do and have done is make sure that women are more equally represented on the APY Executive. There are some wonderful women on the APY lands who are very strong in their desire to improve the outcomes for the people on the APY lands. The Anangu, too, will benefit from these changes.

The particular highlights for me this year, though, were the projects we have been working on for many, many years, including getting the renal dialysis onto the lands. We have had the bus going in there, and we have had some changes recently, and we will establish permanent dialysis on the lands. It is an expensive process, but it is life-changing for the people on the lands. To allow people who are on dialysis to stay in their communities, to stay on the lands, is very important for them. To achieve this has taken a long time, but we have done it and we will continue to monitor it, as the member for Giles said.

Another thing that we have been able to achieve—the Hon. Tammy Franks in the other place was one of the initiators of this whole outcome—is that we have had a Stolen Generations Reparation Scheme put in place. A total of $11 million will be put in place. The Hon. John Hill is the independent assessor, and just this morning the committee received evidence from him about the progress that is being made. It is so important that South Australia has a scheme in place now, where Aboriginal people who were stolen can now come back and tell their stories.

I should also mention that when we received evidence from these people over the years, when we have been discussing the Stolen Generations Reparation Scheme, a lot of people did not want money themselves. They did not want money: they wanted money spent on some interpretive centres, some memorials, that sort of thing, and a significant amount has been set aside from the Stolen Generations Reparation Scheme ($4 million or $5 million, I think) to establish these trusts, some of them for universities to do extra research, for memorials and for interpretive centres—a very important and very much wanted part of the process of healing of this part of our history.

Some of the stories we hear were well intended at the time. Just this morning, we heard about some of the language that was used, the racist language, and the racist attitudes back then. It was all well intended, but that does not mean to say that now, in 2016, we cannot do something about repairing the damage that was done, recognising it and then remembering the history that we have in South Australia.

Moving on, the reconciliation process is part of the work of this committee and I think that we are doing a good job. We are making sure that Closing the Gap is something we do in all areas, whether it is in health, justice, community living, family standards or the roads up there. The Public Works Committee visited the APY lands last week, and it will be interesting to read its report. I understand that progress is quite slow.

I should not concentrate just on the APY lands because the committee also visits other communities all over South Australia. We have 30,000 people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent spread over this state, with about 2,500 on the APY lands, so a significant number live in urban and regional towns and cities.

The committee does very valuable work, it does good work, and I look forward to continuing to work with the current members on the committee for the rest of this parliament. And who knows? I hope to be the minister in the next parliament, which would mean that I would not be on the committee, but I would certainly be making sure that the committee is able to do what it wants to do and should be doing—that is, improving outcomes for all South Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:21): I have been listening with interest this morning to both the members who have commented on this report. As someone from the Public Works Committee who had the opportunity to go on the APY lands last week, it brought back a few memories.

Some years ago, well before I was in this job, I was in Alice Springs at the Rural Health Alliance Conference, as I was chairman of the regional health board at that stage. The guest speaker was Ted Egan, who was then the administrator of the Northern Territory. He was a well-known, very straightforward and down to earth gentleman, and his speech made the front page of The Australian the next day. After my visit there last week, it seems that not much has happened in many respects since Ted Egan made that speech in front of a considerable number of Aboriginal elders at Alice Springs on that occasion.

A couple of Ted Egan's suggestions included that they go into the Aboriginal communities and get rid of all the dogs. He was quite blunt and adamant about that. He said that they did not need dogs. They used to use them for hunting, but they are full of disease and they spread disease particularly amongst the children. In his view, the best thing they could do would be to get rid of every dog in every Aboriginal community in an effort to improve the health of the local communities.

On our trip last week it was noted that the dogs certainly have not been removed, quite frankly, and I think it is disgraceful. When we pulled up at Mimili, we immediately had some 20-odd dogs surround us. They were absolutely starving and, looking for food, trying to get into the eskies to get the sandwiches. They were mangy, and it was just appalling, quite frankly. Someone has to take some action. I listened to what the parliamentary committee had attempted to accomplish throughout the year, but it could well look at this issue or take it to the federal government and say, 'Get in there and get rid of these dogs.' Sure, there would be a bit of pain and agony.

Ted Egan also suggested that a lot of these communities want to live a basic life. I remember well that he said that they do not need certain aspects of houses that we need. He thought that if they wanted to light a fire in the middle of the house on the floor, which is their culture, they should be able to do that without having to go through the process of whatever they have to do to enable them to do that.

Last week was an eye-opener. I am sure that other members of the Public Works Committee may feel that they want to speak about it, too. You have to have a permit to go onto these lands, and afterwards I seriously wondered, if the permit system were removed and the rest of the Australian community could go through there and see what is happening—and, more particularly, what is not happening—whether that might be the best thing that could happen, quite frankly.

Dr McFetridge: The executive wrote to Weatherill in 2006 wanting the permit system removed.

Mr PENGILLY: Well, there you go. The member for Morphett has just said to me that they wrote to the Premier, Mr Weatherill, at the time and asked to have the permit system removed. I say it should be removed. We are spending $106 million on the road into the APY lands and it is fantastic country to drive through. If mainstream Australians could go through and see what conditions are like, I think there would be a massive push to actually get something happening. I would support that, if the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee were to have a look at it. It may be worth doing something about it.

The road will be good. I do not think I need to go any further into that, but I felt it was necessary to make a few comments on the committee's report and the issue to do with dialysis at Ernabella or Pukatja because it is important. In my own electorate, where dialysis has been put in place, it is a huge asset to local communities. There is no question whatsoever that to have dialysis available in some of these Aboriginal communities would be beneficial to the local population, so I followed it with interest.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (11:26): I thank all members for their contributions. Some of the observations by the member for Finniss were interesting, but I think a lot of this has to be done in consultation and with the involvement of Aboriginal communities in the APY lands. It is often very easy for us here in Adelaide to—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pontificate.

Mr HUGHES: —say, 'This should be done and that should be done.' It is often far more complicated when you are on the ground up there. There is no denying that there are some incredible challenges and there are many things we would like to see improved. One of the things I have been exposed to while on the committee—and I knew Lyn Breuer very well before she retired and I knew of her interest in the APY lands and Aboriginal communities in general—is that whole issue of trying to move things over time, with the best of will and in conjunction with Aboriginal communities, in a direction so that we do close the manifest gaps that exist, and those gaps are manifest.

I think the member for Morphett was on the mark when he indicated that these are incremental processes. These are processes that take place over what are often extended periods. If you take the dialysis services that are now going to be permanently based on the lands, that has taken a long time. In my view, it has probably taken far too long.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Twenty years.

Mr HUGHES: That is why I am pleased, as the local member, to see this happen in my first term of government. I acknowledge the role of the minister and his keenness to see something done, but I also acknowledge the complexity of delivering services on the lands and, given the number of things that have happened in the past, ensuring that, when you do deliver services on the lands, those services are going to be sustained.

One of the worst things is the thought bubbles that arise here in Adelaide often amongst members who are representing metropolitan seats, and we have had some of those thought bubbles on our side of the house. I was one of those people who was highly sceptical when it was suggested that we put these market gardens up in the APY lands. It was something that one of our people was strongly advocating at the time but, if you had a bit of knowledge about what was going on up there, you just knew that it was not going to be sustained.

However, when it comes to the provision of higher quality food, some of the things that have happened in those communities over recent years with the involvement of a number of organisations have led to a real improvement. There have also been improvements when it comes to a whole range of health stats in the Aboriginal in the APY lands, so there are some positives.

When we visit the art centres, which are some of the few facilities that generate some private income on the lands, I am always impressed with the quality of the work that is produced. It is of such quality that it is exhibited in galleries overseas. There are some positives happening and we should spruik those positives, while acknowledging that there is still a long way to go.

As the member for Morphett said, these are incremental processes. Sometimes they are frustratingly slow, but it is not a case of going in and riding roughshod over communities that in themselves are often quite complex. It does take time, but we are seeing some improvements. We now have far more police stations on the lands in far more communities, which I think is in general a positive thing, and there is a whole range of other services that are now on the lands that were not there in the past.

Motion carried.

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