In this session of Senate Estimates, I sought clarity on the operation of the Indigenous Procurement Policy (IPP). There’s a lot of confusion around whether government contracts over $7.5 million must be awarded to Indigenous businesses.
After questioning officials, it’s clear that this isn’t the case. The policy doesn’t mandate awarding contracts based on race—it requires that, for large contracts delivered in Australia, companies meet minimum Indigenous participation targets. These targets can be achieved through employment, subcontracting, or a combination of both.
Australians deserve transparency on how their taxpayer money is spent. While the government says these measures aim to close the gap, we must ensure that procurement decisions remain focused on value for money and fairness for all. I’ll continue to scrutinise policies that risk introducing race-based preferencing into government processes. Accountability matters.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Alright, I’ll move on to clarifying the operation of the Indigenous procurement policy. I’m told that every Commonwealth agency is obligated to choose Indigenous content on contracts over $7.5 million, so if there’s a choice between a white employer and an Aboriginal employer the government must choose the Aboriginal agency. Is that correct?
Ms Guivarra: I think you’re referring to mandatory minimum requirements which actually relate to employment. There are mandatory set-aside requirements for contracts valued between $80,000 and $200,000, where, all other things being equal, if it is an Aboriginal organisation, then a preference is allocated.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you talking about employment or expenditure?
Ms Guivarra: No. I think the figure you were referring to was the $7.5 million, which refers to the mandatory minimum requirements. For contracts over $7½ million, there’s an employment target.
Mr Dexter: That’s right. The $7.5 million threshold is one part of the IPP. It’s the mandatory minimum Indigenous participation requirement. It does not require Commonwealth agencies to grant those contracts to Indigenous businesses. That’s not a feature of the IPP.
Senator ROBERTS: So if the contract is granted, then they must hire—
Mr Dexter: What it does require is for there to be mandatory minimum Indigenous participation targets as part of that contract, and that’s for contracts delivered wholly in Australia valued at $7.5 million or more in 19 industry categories. That’s been one of the three parts of the IPP since 2015.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what’s the basis for the government engaging in race based preferencing?
Senator McCarthy: I reject outright your assertion there. I have called on all senators and members of parliament to join me in trying to close the gap in terms of the targets we’re trying to achieve. Those targets are specifically aimed at trying to improve Indigenous employment and Indigenous businesses, and we make no apologies for that.
Senator ROBERTS: So, all things being equal, an Aboriginal will be preferred based on race to a non Aboriginal?
Mr Dexter: No, that’s not correct.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m exploring this.
Mr Dexter: I’m trying to be helpful in clarifying that that’s not a requirement of the policy. In selecting those contracts, Commonwealth procurement officials are always required to demonstrate value for money for the contract, whether there are MMRs applied for the contract or not.
Senator ROBERTS: But then there will be hiring criteria that are favourable to Aboriginals if the company gets a contract. Is that correct?
Mr Dexter: How the supplier meets those targets is entirely a matter for the company. They can do it through subcontracting arrangements, they can do it through employment arrangements or they can do it through a combination of both.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/XteFhlSW_cM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-30 10:08:472025-12-30 10:08:50Setting the Record Straight on Indigenous Procurement
During Senate Estimates, I asked the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC) about the issue of late reporting by Aboriginal corporations. I was told that of the 3,312 Aboriginal corporations registered with ORIC, 2,940 were late in submitting their required reports and 1,162 reports for the 2024 financial year had not yet been lodged.
Of the reports not yet submitted, 84% were from small corporations with an income of less than $100,000. ORIC advised that out of the approximately 3,300 corporations, 60 had been listed for prosecution, with 27 already prosecuted. Penalties imposed ranged from deregistration and winding up to personal litigation against directors.
The most common reason cited for non-submission of financial reports was apathy. As part of their response to this issue, ORIC is now offering training for all relevant parties to help improve compliance.
– Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are to ORIC, the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations. Thank you for being here. It has been widely reported that many Indigenous corporations have not submitted reports required under statute. How many Indigenous incorporations are in breach of requirements to submit their required reports for this period?
Ms Stroud: As at 6 October, I can confirm that, of the 3,312 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations, 2,940 are required to lodge one or more annual reports—some have exemptions. Of those 2,940 corporations required to lodge one or more reports, I can confirm that 1,162, or 39½ per cent, have not yet lodged their 2024 reports, which would’ve been due in December 2024, noting that the 2025 reports are not due till the end of this year. For context, though, I would add that, of those 1,162 corporations that have failed to lodge last year’s reports, 84 per cent are small corporations. They are corporations that have a consolidated growth income revenue of under $100,000 each year and are only required to lodge a general report. Corporations that are large and, rightly so, are those that should be subject to greater public scrutiny and funding body scrutiny, represent two per cent of those corporations that have not yet lodged their reports.
Senator ROBERTS: My rough mental arithmetic is about 250 that are not small corporations have failed to lodge a report.
Ms Stroud: I’ll give you that number—it’s 241.
Senator ROBERTS: I was pretty close. That’s a lot. It might only be two per cent, but it’s actually about eight per cent of the total of corporations. How many board members, on average, are on a corporation board?
Ms Stroud: I don’t have that figure on hand. I can take that on notice. I can tell you that, across the 3,000 odd corporations, there are 17,649, in total, director positions. That doesn’t account for that some directors might sit on multiple corporations. Under the legislation, corporations can have up to 12 directors and over 12 requires an exemption to do so.
Senator ROBERTS: Say that again about the exemption, please.
Ms Stroud: To have fewer than three or over 12 directors on a board requires an exemption.
Senator ROBERTS: How many Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are overseen, helped or serviced by these boards?
Ms Stroud: Sorry, I wouldn’t be in a position to answer that question. I can tell you that, of the just over 3,000 corporations, they are made up of just shy of 245,000 members, again, that’s not accounting for that some members might be members of multiple corporations.
Senator ROBERTS: What was that number again?
Ms Stroud: It is 245,594, to be exact. Those 3,300 corporations, as I mentioned before, can be very small corporations with under $100,000 in assets or $100,000 in income through to large corporations. They do everything from cultural heritage protection to land and water management, schools, health services and other vital social services. I wouldn’t be in a position to even estimate the total reach of those services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients and beneficiaries.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve mentioned that 2,940 are required to report, and 3,300 is the total number. So about 360 are not required to report.
Ms Stroud: Eighty-eight per cent of corporations are required to lodge some form of annual report.
Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your concise and direct answers. Thank you for that. Why have these breaches occurred? I know for small corporations it’s probably lack of—well, you tell me.
Ms Stroud: There are a number of reasons why corporations don’t lodge their annual reports. We encourage corporations, wherever possible, to reach out to us and let us know to help us understand the reason for it. It can be turnover in boards, difficulties of getting the services of auditors, disruptions in corporations or it can be just apathy and negligence of directors’ duties. Why we encourage corporations to reach out and let us know—and be on almost an update plan with us so that we can keep on top of when we can expect reports—is that we take that into consideration with our prosecution work. We have referred 60 corporations to CDPP for prosecution for failing to lodge reports. Twenty-seven corporations have been prosecuted. They are medium and large corporations, so, again, they’re corporations with over $100,000 annual revenue and those from which the public would rightfully expect a higher degree of accountability to their members and to their regulator and also to their funders. That’s why medium and large corporations are those which we refer for prosecution where they persistently fail to lodge reports for a couple of years. We now deregister corporations.
Senator ROBERTS: What happens when they’re deregistered?
Ms Stroud: If a corporation is deregistered, it no longer exists. There are challenges with deregistering corporations, particularly those that hold assets. There might be a corporation that holds assets but is ordinarily not conducting business and continually failing to lodge its reports. We’ve recently sought legal advice on alternative measures for those corporations, including winding up. We’ve also flagged to the public that, where a corporation continually fails to lodge its reports and has been subject to prosecution and still refuses, we will consider civil prosecution against individual directors.
Senator ROBERTS: So the directors can be liable?
Ms Stroud: It’s a lengthy and expensive exercise for ORIC to peruse civil litigation against directors that continually fail, hence why we flagged it in our recent regulatory posture. It’s done so because, where a corporation is prosecuted for failing to lodge its reports, it’s an offence of the corporation, and the corporation is what pays the fine if the court imposes one. Our intention now is that, where directors sit behind that, we will civilly pursue individual directors. I’ve also got with me Deputy Register Andrew Huey, who can help answer your questions.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there any suggestion of fraud being involved or incompetence being involved, or is it just apathy? You mentioned apathy. What would be the defining characteristics?
Ms Stroud: For the small corporations—again, that’s 84 per cent of corporations not lodging reports—I would say it is a capacity and capability issue, or challenge, and a degree of apathy around reporting. We have no evidence that there is an immediate and direct correlation between medium and large corporations failing to lodge their financial reports and evidence of fraud, noting that, when corporations do lodge their annual reports, a quality check by us has been done, directors have signed off on it and directors have done their declaration to accept responsibility for it. That is one way of identifying where there might be red flags. But, in the main, evidence of corruption, fraud, mismanagement or negligence of director duties or abuse of director duties comes through other avenues—through referrals, reports of concerns and complaints.
Senator ROBERTS: Finally, apart from keeping track of it, what changes in oversight will you introduce to ensure the integrity of the management of these Indigenous corporations? Have you got an overall plan for raising the standards?
Ms Stroud: We have refreshed our two-day guidance training. It’s for directors sitting. Current directors are given priority. Members and relevant staff can also attend the training, and we’ve also introduced a new one-day ‘understanding your finance’ training, which is designed for directors to understand how to read financials and have greater confidence in asking questions, knowing what to look for and holding their management staff accountable for financial reporting to them.
Senator ROBERTS: Building understanding to build confidence?
What we suspected all along about The Voice to Parliament …
When Australians rejected the Voice to Parliament, they were not saying ‘No’ to a single referendum question – it was ‘No’ to a broad activist ideology seeking to entrench racial privilege into democracy.
Australians were deeply offended by the push to create treaties between Australians.
They were horrified by the suggestion that taxation would become a matter of skin colour.
And they remain furious about efforts to erase Australian history and have ancestral stories brutalised by so-called ‘Truth-Telling’ commissions.
The experiences of our pioneers, convicts, and free settlers – the ancestors of so many Australians – have been deliberately and maliciously twisted with the full authority of state governments who see the past as a tool to implement vile racial movements which, ultimately, desire land and money that belong to all Australians.
Remember when ‘Yes’ proponents of the Voice promised their demands would be ‘mild’?
Racism is never mild. It is corrosive.
Western Australia has authorised an $85,000 per person ‘reconciliation payment’ for Aboriginal people. A payment that takes money off people who were never perpetrators and hands it to another group who were never victims.
This is not equality.
How many national parks, beaches, mountains, rivers, and forests have a racial lock on the gate?
We are seeing this in Victoria where the Jacinta Allan Labor government has ignored the voice of Victorians and pushed ahead with a Voice-like entity known as the First People’s Assembly – a body set up to negotiate a Treaty.
This month, the Yoorrook Justice Commission handed down 100 recommendations to the government, each more appalling than the last.
Many of these demand public money, resources, and power.
They ask that racial priority be given for housing, health, government contracts, and jobs. Widespread compensation, reparations, and tax relief is being sought for Aboriginals.
The recommendations are divisive and discriminatory suggesting that Aboriginal people should be treated differently from other Australians.
The Report says that the Victorian government must establish income streams based on land, water, and other natural resources to benefit self-determination and other First Peoples-led initiatives and to seek access to a portion of government revenues.
Victoria will soon have streets of families treated differently by the state government and local council based purely on how they look.
Living side-by-side, born under the same sun, and yet deemed unequal.
This is what people voted against.
One Nation does not support a bottomless money pit approach to perpetuate a victim mentality for Aboriginals and a permanent guilt trip to be imposed on the rest of Australia.
One Nation supports equitable access to all the benefits available to all Australians which should not discriminate based on a person’s race or faith.
We are all of One Nation.
Revealed! by Senator Malcolm Roberts
What we suspected all along about The Voice to Parliament
This is how you close the gap. It’s what One Nation has always said – treat people based on need not race.
When that happens fundamental needs come out. For people to have purpose they need to be able to contribute and hold a job. For a job you need industry and industry needs basic things: power, water and internet.
The 3,000km Northern Rail link sometimes referred to as the Iron Boomerang would bring all of these fundamental things and allow remote communities to thrive like never before.
This is what is possible when we address needs instead of separating people based on race.
At the recent Senate Estimates, I inquired about the recent turmoil at the Northern Australian Aboriginal Justice Authority (NAAJA), which has seen six CEOs appointed over a two-year period. One of the CEOs was found by the Federal Court to have been unfairly dismissed and chronic staff shortages have led to the suspension of legal representation, leaving approximately 75 Aboriginal individuals unrepresented in court. I questioned how someone with a history of domestic violence could be appointed Chairman of the Board and still remain a Director of the agency. The answer – this individual was elected by the other Directors.
Currently, a grant controller has been appointed to oversee the funds being given to the NAAJA to ensure they are spent appropriately. The grant controller is part of an external firm, adding another layer of bureaucracy to prevent misuse. Refunds of unspent funds are under review and an audit decision is expected by late November. A new Annual General Meeting (AGM) is scheduled for later this year. I asked why the government opposes full audits. Senator McCarthy denied any misuse of funds, though community members claim that money is not reaching the grassroots level. Performance audits will be provided to me on notice.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. I have questions on the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency. Does someone need to come up for that?
Ms Broun: Senator, we have got NIAA and Attorney-General’s Department.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know who to address this to.
Ms Broun: This is Attorney-General’s.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’m told the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, the Northern Territory’s largest Aboriginal legal service, has been in turmoil in recent years. Since late 2022 there have been six CEOs appointed to the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency. That’s in just two years. Its long-standing CEO, Ms Priscilla Atkins, was controversially sacked in February 2023, and she was found in June 2024 by the federal court to have been unfairly dismissed. The agency has suffered a chronic shortage of lawyers and other staff, leading to a suspension of the provision of legal services and almost 75 Aboriginal clients not being represented in court during the staff shortage. They are the figures I have. Minister, is Mr Hugh Woodbury, former CEO and domestic violence perpetrator, still a director of the board of the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency?
Senator McCarthy: Yes, he is. We were asked these questions earlier today—just to let you know.
Senator ROBERTS: How is this man able to be appointed the CEO with such a history, given the prevalence of domestic violence as an issue within the Aboriginal community? We’ve seen Senator Cox and Senator Nampijinpa Price both raising this issue.
Mr Worth: Senator, it is for the membership of NAAJA to appoint board members under their constitution. They are an ASIC organisation registered with the ACNC. The appointment of Mr Woodbury to chair that board was made by the board without the knowledge or permission sought by the NIAA. Subsequent to that, Mr Woodbury has resigned as chairman of the board. He remains as a director of NAAJA as is allowed under the terms of the regulator for that organisation, being the ACNC, under the terms of the Commonwealth’s funding agreement. Given that Mr Woodbury is not directly involved in the management or service delivery in his capacity as a non-executive director, consent from NAAJA is not required from the Commonwealth for him to hold that position.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, it seems pretty unusual for us to be asking the taxpayers of Australia to be giving money to such an entity. What is the state of Commonwealth funding to the agency? There’s been talk of refunds, stopping money, audit and misspent money.
Mr Worth: Since December last year the NIAA has had in place a grant controller managing the funding provided by the NIAA to NAAJA. Under the scope of that arrangement the grant controller reviews the expenditure from NAAJA in relation to those funded programs. When they are satisfied that sufficient evidence has been provided, they release funds to NAAJA. So it’s tightly controlled. All of the standard performance management and performance reporting requirements that exist within our contracts continue. So, again, they need to be meeting both the performance standards and requirements of the contract as well as having the additional scrutiny provided by the grant controller to ensure that there’s clear alignment between the expenditure and the funds that have been provided.
Senator ROBERTS: I missed the earlier part of your answer; I was looking down here. Where does the grant controller, the grant manager, fit in the scheme of things, in the hierarchy?
Mr Worth: The grant controller is an external firm that’s been appointed to manage those funds. They act on behalf of the NIAA, but they are an independent body and they effectively sit in between the NIAA and NAAJA, as I said before, to ensure that NAAJA is applying the funds appropriately in line with the contract.
Senator ROBERTS: So we’ve got the taxpayer giving money to the government, giving money to the NIAA, giving money to the grant controller—the grant manager—who then authorises the money to go to NAAJA.
Mr Worth: To be released—effectively the grant controller acts as a trustee of sorts in terms of just holding and releasing the funds once the evidence has been provided.
Senator ROBERTS: There are a lot of people in the chain. Is the Commonwealth funding of $80 million over five years ending in 2025 still the plan, or is this sum being reviewed?
Ms Harvey: The Attorney-General’s Department is responsible for legal assistance funding. Through the National Legal Assistance Partnership, which is in place from July 2020 until the end of June 2025, we provide funding through to the Northern Territory government that then provides funding through to NAAJA as well as its legal aid commission and other bodies. So that funding is in place until the end of June next year.
Senator ROBERTS: Has this sum been reviewed? It is still in place, but what about the future?
Ms Harvey: Has the funding been reviewed?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Ms Harvey: There has been a broad review of the National Legal Assistance Partnership which was handed down earlier this year, but in terms of the funding to the Northern Territory there are conditions within the National Legal Assistance Partnership that they meet those milestone events and we release the funding to the Northern Territory. They then separately have a contract with NAAJA, for example, which have their own conditions in there.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the Commonwealth still seeking a reimbursement of some unspent funds, as I have been led to believe?
Ms Harvey: The Northern Territory, I think, has been in contact with NAAJA and are working that through, in terms of their unspent funds.
Senator ROBERTS: They’re what?
Ms Harvey: The funding for legal assistance goes through the Northern Territory government, so they have the relationship with NAAJA about that funding including any underspends that there might be.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the amount being sought? Does anyone know?
Ms Bogart: Being sought in underspends?
Senator ROBERTS: Unspent money back.
Ms Bogart: The Northern Territory government is responsible for that under their grant agreement, and they’re working that through with NAAJA. I think they’re in a negotiation about what that amount looks like.
Senator ROBERTS: So that’s been given to the Northern Territory government, another entity in the chain, and that’s been given to NAAJA, and NAAJA and the Northern Territory government are now haggling over the unspent money. Is that right?
Ms Bogart: They’re working through the amount and what, if any, can be retrieved back by the Northern Territory government.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what has been the outcome of audits of the agency?
CHAIR: I’ll need to rotate the call, Senator Roberts.
Senator McCarthy: I’ll refer to Mr Worth.
Mr Worth: The audit is currently being finalised, so at this stage there is no outcome. We’re looking to have it finalised by the end of the year.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you tell me about the nature of the audits: the scope, the purpose, the deadlines?
Mr Worth: The scope itself, yes. The auditor is reviewing expenditure for the 2022-23 financial year, both the application of funds received for the 2022-23 financial year through the national legal services funding as provided by the Northern Territory government as well as the NIAA funding.
Senator ROBERTS: Was that after Ms Priscilla Atkins was controversially sacked?
Mr Worth: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
*BREAK*
Senator ROBERTS: Back to the NAAJA, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency—I don’t know how you get your head around all these acronyms!—specifically, what is the nature of the current governance of the agency?
Mr Worth: Are you seeking the current status of NAAJA’s governance?
Senator ROBERTS: Governance, yes.
Mr Worth: We are in regular contact with NAAJA. We have received advice from them that they are looking to hold an annual general meeting later this month, on 27 November, in order to elect new board members.
Ms Bellenger: But they are registered with ASIC, and ACNC is their regulation body.
Senator ROBERTS: Who are the voters?
Mr Worth: The members of NAAJA.
Ms Bellenger: The members.
Senator ROBERTS: Is service delivery meeting the needs of the community? As I understand it, it’s suspended at the moment. And is legal representation in court meeting the needs of accused people and in accord with the contract with the Commonwealth Attorney-General?
Ms Harvey: Throughout the time that we have been working with NAAJA coming out of the kinds of issues that they have been having for nearly two years, service delivery has been a really key focus of ours and so we have tracked it really carefully. We understand NAAJA is now back at full service delivery. For example, I mentioned we were advised by NAAJA in October this year that there are no Aboriginal people going unrepresented in criminal proceedings in the Northern Territory except by choice. I think that is a very strong indication of the service delivery having resumed.
Senator ROBERTS: So there was a suspension of the services and they have been resumed?
Ms Harvey: Yes. Toward November last year, I think, there was a temporary suspension of some services. They rebuilt through the end of last year and over the start of this year, and I think it was maybe April—
Ms Bogart: First of April.
Ms Harvey: First of April this year they recommenced full service delivery.
Senator ROBERTS: How long were they suspended? Six months? Twelve months?
Ms Bogart: November to April, so about six months.
Senator ROBERTS: Six months, right. Minister, community members in Queensland tell me that taxpayer funds are not reaching the communities. That’s in the Torres Strait, that’s in Cape York, that’s in southern Queensland. Why does the government oppose full audits of Aboriginal agencies and why, in essence, does the government keep feeding the white and black Aboriginal industry of activists, consultants, academics, lawyers, bureaucrats, politicians and others who are effectively barons while ignoring the plight of Aboriginal people in communities who are not getting what they are entitled to? They’re not getting the support they deserve and need.
Senator McCarthy: Thank you, Senator Roberts. If I could just ask for a breakdown of the particular agencies or departments that they’re not receiving, because there are health departments going out, there are educational departments going out—
Senator ROBERTS: They’re saying in general.
Senator McCarthy: Well, they’re taxpayer funds.
Senator ROBERTS: The money is being hived off to the barons in the white and black Aboriginal industry.
Senator McCarthy: Alright. If you’d like to give us examples that you have specifically, Senator Roberts, but I do know that taxpayer funding goes right across Queensland—federal government funds as well as state funds.
Senator ROBERTS: So why won’t you do audits?
Senator McCarthy: There are audits. The ANAO does its audits with respective organisations, certainly with the land councils that you’re referring to. Questions around audits for land councils actually do occur.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding, Minister, is that the ANAO does not do audits. It does scoping assessments, not comprehensive audits. They identify areas of weakness, but they do not do comprehensive audits.
Senator McCarthy: That is not correct, Senator Roberts, but perhaps I need to refer to those who work in the area. Mr Worth?
Mr Worth: The ANAO undertakes two kinds of audits on Commonwealth entities. The first ones are financial statement audits, which might be pointing towards the ones you’re talking about with how funds are received and applied through the departments—or agencies, I should call them. The second ones are the performance audits, which are the ones that look at how effective operations, governance arrangements and things like that are and make the recommendations on their findings on those. So there are the two different types of audit.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I have a list on notice, please, of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agencies that have been audited in the last five years?
Mr Worth: Absolutely.
Senator ROBERTS: The agency, the scope of the audit and the date.
The 2024 NAPLAN results revealed that in the Northern Territory, students in Year 9 performed worse than when they were in Year 3. My question to Senator McCarthy, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, focused on why Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory are falling behind as they progress through school.
Despite billions spent by successive Liberal and Labor Governments on Aboriginal education, the results are disappointing. It is clear that an audit of spending into the Aboriginal industry, as proposed by One Nation, is necessary to determine where the funds are going and why they are not reaching the children who need them most.
The 2024 NAPLAN results highlight a concerning issue: the academic performance of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory is alarmingly poor. An overwhelming 90% of these students require additional assistance, meaning they are testing below the expected standard—twice the national average.
Even more troubling is the trend where Aboriginal students performed better in Year 3 compared to Year 9 – this suggests that the longer Aboriginal students spend in the school system in the Northern Territory, their education outcomes deteriorate.
One Nation has frequently sought an inquiry into the allocation of funds for Aboriginal Affairs and where it is being spent – clearly it is not on education. Although the Minister isn’t accountable for what has gone on in the past, she is responsible for any actions taken going forward.
Transcript | Question Time
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. The 2024 NAPLAN results are out and call into question the entire education process for Aboriginal Australians in the Northern Territory. These children, to whom our nation owes a duty of care, recorded worse NAPLAN scores in year 9 than in year 3. Minister, please explain why Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory go backwards the longer they stay in school?
Senator McCarthy: Thank you, Senator, for your question, and thank you for joining me this week when I reached out across the aisle to all parliamentarians from every party to try and close the gap in many of these areas, including education and educational attainment. Clearly, that’s one of the things that we’ve tried to do, in terms of the Northern Territory. For example, just recently Minister Jason Clare came to the Northern Territory to work with the NTG on an agreement to boost education funding for all public schools across the Northern Territory—and I know that he’s also trying to reach out to all the states across the country. We certainly are very disappointed in terms of the NAPLAN results. One of the things I know is that, in regard to Alice Springs, for example, getting the kids to school is our biggest challenge. We’ve seen how we’ve had many difficulties with this in Central Australia in particular—but they are mirrored across many of our regions, even in your state of Queensland—where we need to work harder in terms of getting First Nations people even to school, let alone trying to pass the simple examination at such a young age, with NAPLAN. I commend the education minister for the work that he’s doing in the space, Senator Roberts. I know we have a long way to go, but we are certainly trying to do that in terms of our work in the Northern Territory.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: The percentage of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory who NAPLAN classified as needing further assistance was 90 per cent—90 per cent. In Queensland it’s only 56 per cent, and Queensland is a standout failure in this round of NAPLAN. Minister, can you assure the Senate that every cent of federal government money dedicated to the education of our Aboriginal community is spent appropriately?
Senator McCarthy: Thank you for the question, Senator. I can certainly assure the Senate that I will be working very hard, across party lines, in the role that I now have as Minister for Indigenous Australians. I do want to see a great improvement in the lives of First Nations people but in particular of our children. I certainly will do that, Senator Roberts, and I’m more than happy to keep working with you in terms of the issues that are going on in Queensland. Can I just point out again, though, with regard to the funding that we are providing, that, as I said, two weeks ago Minister Clare signed an historic school funding agreement. Under the agreement the Australian government will invest an additional estimated $736.7 million from 2025 to 2029 in Northern Territory public schools. I’m certainly happy to look at further information in regard to Queensland.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: The Greens are assisting this government in suppressing any inquiry into federal government assistance given to the Aboriginal community. We heard Senator Cox’s comments in the chamber yesterday on many topics, including native title. Minister, if you continue to block an inquiry into and audit of the use of funds given to the Aboriginal community, how can you assure the Senate that there’s no corruption, waste and cronyism occurring?
The PRESIDENT: Minister Wong?
Senator Wong: Can I just ask for consideration of whether that’s an appropriate supplementary to a question about NAPLAN results in the Northern Territory?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, I remind the chamber that Senator Roberts’s second question did go to funding, so it does flow from the first supplementary. Minister.
Senator McCarthy: Thank you, Senator Roberts. Can I firstly say, in regard to comments around Senator Cox, that Senator Cox is very dedicated to working to improve the lives of First Nations people so I would caution any slur against her work in that space. What I would say, though, Senator Roberts, is that the government has invested more than $110 million in initiatives to support First Nations children, students and organisations. We are committed to strengthening the formal partnership arrangements, in line with the Closing the Gap priority reforms. Senator Roberts, you met with the co-chair of the joint council—and that was Pat Turner—in reaffirming that commitment, and I look forward to working with you and others on that.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: The question was one of irrelevance before Senator McCarthy sat down. I asked: how can you assure the Senate—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, firstly, that’s a debating point and, secondly, the minister has finished her answer.
Transcript | Take Note
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer by the Minister for Indigenous Australians (Senator McCarthy) to a question without notice I asked today relating to NAPLAN testing in the Northern Territory.
I thank the minister for her clear answers. In reviewing the results from this year’s NAPLAN this morning, one thing stood out: the results showing 90 per cent of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory were classified as ‘requiring further assistance’. That is double the national average. Even more troubling were the results showing Aboriginal students tested more positively in year 3 than they did in year 9. This means the longer an Aboriginal student spends in school in the Northern Territory, the worse their educational outcomes become. Clearly, the education system is failing Aboriginal children. The reason why is not understood, yet this problem has existed for years. The minister can’t be held responsible for the result of this NAPLAN. The poor result is a collective failure of the parliament.
This year, the federal government will spend $5 billion directly on Aboriginal programs. Inquiry into the continued failure in the provision of services to the Aboriginal community is being blocked through actions of Aboriginal industry lobbyists here in this chamber. Those in this chamber who exploit and perpetuate disadvantage for political gain have voted down repeated attempts from Senators Hanson, Nampijinpa Price and Kerrynne Liddle to understand how so much money could achieve so little benefit.
One Nation’s reward for caring about Aboriginal welfare was for Senators Cox and Ayres to, last night, call One Nation racist and use other labels. It’s not racist to want every Australian child to have access to education no matter the circumstances of their birth. It’s not racist to make sure every cent we send to these communities is spent for the benefit of the community. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest and the fearful. Labels are the resort of those lacking data and logical argument.
I look forward to working with Senator McCarthy, one day, to achieve better outcomes for Aboriginal communities, and, in this chamber, I look forward to less name calling and more constructive dialogue, meaningful dialogue for the people who we are supposed to represent. Question agreed to.
My office receives many calls from Australians worried about increasing Aboriginal land claims, especially under the Queensland Aboriginal Land Act 1991. Native Title Claims require Tribunal approval and come in two forms: Non-exclusive Title – allows cultural activities and access but doesn’t permit exclusion or sale and Exclusive Title – allows exclusion and some leasing but not sale. There must be community consultation.
The Queensland Aboriginal Land Act 1991 enables conversion of Crown land or non-exclusive native title land into inalienable freehold land for Aboriginal corporations, bypassing Native Title Act requirements. This method is affecting 15 Queensland townships and is being conducted secretly. There is no requirement for formal community consultation. This practice needs to stop as it unfairly benefits claimants based on race.
Transcript | Question Time
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. Is your Labor government supporting the Queensland state Labor government to secretly give away freehold land to Aboriginal corporations, with little or no community consultation beforehand, under the Queensland state Aboriginal Land Act?
Senator MCCARTHY: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for the question. The answer is no. There are no secret deals going on; there’s no secretiveness in any of this. This is obviously a decision of the Queensland government in terms of what is going on in Queensland in regard to land. I’d just like to remind the Senate that native title recognises that First Nations people have traditional rights and interests to land and waters. We’ve had native title legislation in Australia for 30 years, and it continues to work to create jobs and improve lives.
Of course, there’s always room to improve, Senator Roberts. In June, we announced that the Australian Law Reform Commission is undertaking an inquiry into the future acts regime in the Native Title Act 1993. The review will investigate any inequality or unfairness or weaknesses in the regime, which governs how development projects can occur on land subject to native title.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Do you support the secret attack on 15 Queensland towns currently under attack in this way, including Augathella, Boonooroo, Croydon, Duchess, Eurong, Happy Valley, Laura, Maryborough, Mount Isa, Rainbow Beach, River Heads, Roma, Thargomindah, Theodore and Toobeah?
Senator MCCARTHY: Senator Roberts, I responded in my first answer in regard to the beginning of your question, but I will remind you and One Nation of this, because I have looked at the press releases that you’ve put out. In fact, regarding Senator Hanson’s press release ‘Toobeah community still ignored while arrogant Indigenous corporation plans takeover’, I note that One Nation put in there: One Nation is the only party contesting the state election with a policy that Queensland belongs to all Queenslanders. Let me remind you, One Nation: the Yuggera people are Queenslanders; the Kalkadoon people are Queenslanders; the Yidinji people are Queenslanders; the Gunggari people are Queenslanders. So, while you might want to electioneer for the Queensland election, can I just point out that there is no secrecy here and you degrade this Senate by running down Aboriginal people.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Are you concerned that the city of Mt Isa, capital of north-west Queensland, with all its mineral wealth, is subject to Aboriginal corporation claims based on race and greed and made with no real consultation, when these resources should be available for all Australians?
Senator MCCARTHY: Come on, Senator Roberts. You can do much better than that. Let’s list the debate here. Let’s not isolate any community based on what you’ve just said. I think it’s disgraceful to actually allege that First Nations people are not a part of this country and don’t deserve to be involved in the economic benefits to this country—
The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: President, it’s a matter of imputation. We do not allege that the Aboriginal people are not part of this country. I ask—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, that’s a debating point. Minister McCarthy, please continue.
Senator MCCARTHY: I would say that, in terms of the people of Mt Isa, I would encourage the First Nations people there—the Kalkadoon people—and all people who live in Mt Isa to work together for the benefit of that community.
Transcript | Take Note
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Indigenous Australians (Senator McCarthy) to a question without notice I asked today relating to native title.
My office has received many calls from Australians concerned about Aboriginal land claims becoming more numerous and related to widespread fear in the community. Some concerns relate to the more frequently occurring native title claims. Recently, I’ve become more aware of claims based on the Queensland state Aboriginal Land Act 1991.
For native title claims to take effect, a tribunal needs to determine and formally finalise them. A determined native title may be in two forms. Non-exclusive title is the most common form. It means that the native title holder is entitled to enter and share access to the land and is entitled to carry out cultural activities including camping, fishing, hunting and ceremonial activities. The native title holder is not able to exclude others from entering the land or to lease, sell or impose fees. Exclusive title is less common and means that the native title holder can enter the land and exclude others and can use the land for cultural purposes. They’re not able to sell the land and may lease it out for commercial or other purposes. More than 50 per cent of the Australian mainland is now under native title.
A lesser-known form of Aboriginal land claim can be made pursuant to the Queensland state Aboriginal Land Act 1991. Under this act, the state government may give away Crown land or convert non-exclusive native title land into inalienable freehold land to an Aboriginal corporation. This would allow the title holder to do anything with the land except sell it. They could exclude others from accessing Aboriginal land. This process bypasses all requirements of the Native Title Act. Requirements to consult are more limited than those under the Native Title Act. That requires more open disclosure. There are currently 15 Queensland townships under attack using this method, which is often stealthy and secretive. This practice must stop as it’s creating advantages based purely on race. Whose town is next?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/6JK_TQEYYQQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-09-05 16:46:462024-09-10 08:27:47Concerns Mount Over Increasing Aboriginal Land Claims
I support referring the native title system to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee because it’s hurting mainland Aboriginals. The current system is racist and is locking up land, preventing Aboriginals, especially in remote areas, from benefiting. Since the Native Title Act of 1993, 54% of Australia’s land has come under determinations of the Native Title Tribunal, yet Native Title offers no practical benefits to Aboriginal people. Instead, it empowers a few wealthy community barons – both Aboriginal and non Aboriginal (the Aboriginal Industry) and fails to meet the needs of individuals like Bruce Gibson, an Aboriginal leader who cannot own land in his community or use it to advance his business. Aboriginal people cannot use the land to build homes or support businesses, unlike non-Aboriginal Australians.
The Mabo decision, which was originally about land rights on Murray Island in the Torres Strait, recognised a system of land title that was passed down through generations, effectively preventing those without title from claiming the land. This system existed in the Torres Strait but did not exist on the mainland. The Mabo decision should not have been extended beyond this context, however it wasn’t the High Court that extended it; it was the Labor Party under Paul Keating that did so, creating something that was not grounded in reality.
We need to review the Native Title Act, introduce sunset clauses, and stop closing landmarks based on obsolete practices. It’s time to rethink the native title regime for the benefit of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, AND all Australians. This system is failing them, just like the Closing the Gap program.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (18:36): I support the referral of the native title system to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee because the native title system is currently hurting mainland Aboriginals. In practice, native title is racist against Aboriginal people. I also support the reference because I support Australia and all Australians—one united nation, one nation.
Since the introduction of the Native Title Act into Australian law in 1993, more than 50 per cent of the Australian land mass has come under determinations of the Native Title Tribunal—54 per cent, to be precise. The legislation, though, is not a true reflection of what was in fact determined in the High Court, which considered the unique circumstances of Mr Eddie Mabo’s family and the situation on Murray Island in the Torres Strait. The Native Title Act, when drafted, relied significantly on United Nations declarations, which were mentioned six times in a 2½ page preamble. That’s what it’s all about—United Nations declarations and other agreements related to the rights of Indigenous peoples. Locking up land from private ownership is on the UN agenda.
What is not so well understood is the total failure of the Native Title Act to provide practical benefits to the lives of Aboriginal people living in remote areas of Australia. That’s why it is racist. It is hurting and holding back Aboriginals, especially those in remote areas of Australia. Less well known is that some native title claims grant exclusive rights which may allow the native title holder to exclude non-Aboriginals from accessing the land—fact.
This may prevent other Australians accessing beaches and landmarks of significance unless they pay for the privilege. More symbolic than practical, the act has effectively locked up large tracts of land from the use or benefit of individual Aboriginal people. It’s locked them out. The only ones who have benefited under the act are those wealthy community barons, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, who are part of the white and black Aboriginal industry and rip off needy Aboriginals. Instead, they divert much of the billions of dollars in Aboriginal funding to themselves, sucking it up and keeping it from the people in the communities. Those who benefit are the white and black Aboriginal academics, activists, Aboriginal community leaders, shonky lawyers and dodgy Aboriginal corporations, who do nothing to help individual Aboriginals.
I’ve travelled widely through Aboriginal communities across Queensland, including every Cape York community—sometimes three times through a community. I’ve been to all of the communities at least twice. When we were in Cape York, we met with local community leader Mr Bruce Gibson, for example. He’s one of many. He shared his views on native title and its impact on his community. And, by the way, we hear these comments from Aboriginal elders in other parts of Queensland as well, in communities like Gympie and Maryborough—mainstream communities. Anyway, getting back to Mr Bruce Gibson, he said that native title was important for the recognition of the Indigenous perspective of their relationship with the land and for recognising that Aboriginal people were the first inhabitants of Australia and that they had inherent rights to the land.
That’s fine. His view was that the Native Title Act was not providing Aboriginal people—and, remember, Mr Gibson is an Aboriginal from an Aboriginal community and a fine man—with something tangible, because they could not use native title to advance any individual interests. It’s racist, because white people in this country can go and buy land. They can use that as collateral for a business loan or for building their own family house. Aboriginal people in communities cannot. The land is locked up and given to the barons of the community. Land under native title cannot be mortgaged to help build a home or be used as collateral to support a business loan. The land is essentially locked up and not used to support small projects or family homes. It’s racist. It hurts Aboriginals.
This would seem contrary to the effective intention of the legislators. If the act is supposed to benefit hardworking Australian Aboriginals, it’s failing, just as the Closing the Gap program has failed. Because the land is not freehold, nobody is able to work towards owning their own home, and the property is now locked away out of reach. The Commonwealth government can reclaim land and convert it to freehold, and some compensation is then paid to the traditional owners. Yet this does not benefit any individuals. With individual landownership prevented, there is little incentive to work towards beneficial community or personal goals.
Bruce Gibson said that he wished to own his own place in his community. He cannot. Why? Because he’s Aboriginal on an Aboriginal community. That’s why. Native title doesn’t look after him. He wishes to build up and expand his small business as a shop owner, yet he cannot buy the premises. He must hope that he can lease the shop from the local traditional owners, if he says the right things. These comments were echoed across the Cape, from constituents to council mayors and council members. It was universal—every community. There was not one person to whom we spoke who had a good thing to say about native title other than it providing some recognition to them as First Australians. That’s why native title is racist. It hurts Aboriginals.
Coming back to the Mabo decision, the Mabo decision was based correctly on Mr Mabo’s island in the Torres Strait Islands—Murray Island, I think it is. But that was because there was a system of handing down title of land to succeeding generations. It was a means of keeping people who didn’t hold title to the land out of their land. That system was in the Torres Strait. It was not on the mainland. There was no system of land tenure on the mainland. That Mabo decision should not have been extended. It wasn’t extended by the High Court. It was extended by the Labor Party under Paul Keating. They made that up, and it’s a falsity.
I want to go to some key points that I’ve made in notes. With native title, there are no individual needs being met—no universal human needs. It’s just a feel-good policy to make a few people in the inner-city areas think we’ve handed land back to the Aboriginals, when we never took it, and it hasn’t been handed back. It’s been taken off whoever had it. It provides enormous uncertainty regarding development, which is holding back Aboriginal communities. There’s confusion between native title and the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 in Queensland. They’re two separate issues. They’re both taking up land in Queensland.
There are many uncertainties in claims of native title, like two families claiming the same land. In some cases, one family from interstate is granted the land when the local Aboriginal people are denied the land. It’s rife with these kinds of false claims. Look at Toobeah. Look at Deebing Creek near Ipswich. That hurts the Aboriginals. It also deflects and hides from Aboriginals’ core problems, and they have got problems in remote communities, not in all remote communities—they’re different; they vary—but there are problems. But they’re not being fixed by the white and black Aboriginal industry. The problems are being exacerbated exactly as Senator Hanson mentioned.
Let me tell you a story about my first time as a senator. I was walking up to the One Nation office in Brisbane, and three Aboriginal people approached me. I talked to them, and they said they were from the Northern Territory. I said, ‘What are you doing here then?’ They said: ‘We’ve come to see Senator Hanson because she’s the only one who understands our problems and the only one with the guts to tell the truth. She’s the only one.’ These are Aboriginal people from the Northern Territory who came down from the Territory to Brisbane to see Senator Hanson because she’s the only one who gets it and she’s the only one who understands.
There’s a flow-on from the guilt and grievance industry, the white and black Aboriginal industry that I mentioned, that’s hurting and suppressing Aboriginals, entrenching dependence and entrenching victimhood. The Aboriginal people are wonderful people, essentially salt of the Earth. Why are we keeping them down? Why are we suppressing them under a blanket of bureaucracy?
We need sunset clauses on native title applications, just like the Queensland Aboriginal Land Act of 1991. It had a sunset clause that came into force in 2006. We need a moratorium on native title allocations. We need to review the Native Title Act, and that’s why I support this reference. We need to reverse the closing of landmarks. Prominent Aboriginals in this country have admitted that the closing of landmarks is based on obsolete practices. The closing of Mount Warning was strongly opposed by an Aboriginal elder, a woman, but her voice was not heard. It was suppressed. Mr Marc Hendrix is doing a marvellous job of publicising the truth about Mount Warning’s closure. It was a bunch of gutless bureaucrats and politicians from the New South Wales state government that succeeded to rubbish. It succeeded to the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull, and it was spread by a small, tiny group and opposed by Aboriginals, including elders. Wise females were just ignored, just buried. The One Nation MPs, I’m sure, will review the Aboriginal Land Act of 1991 in Queensland, and also we need a review of the Native Title Act.
I’m going to make some comments about Senator Ayres. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest and the fearful. Senator Ayres put together not one single coherent point, just a lot of labels and lies. That was all we got from Senator Ayres. He retreated. He put forward no arguments. It was all just hollow words. Pauline Hanson is known for her love of Australia and her love of Australians, regardless of skin colour. Let me tell you a story from when we first came to Canberra in the Senate in 2016. We went to the Griffith Vietnamese Restaurant, where a lot of politicians have gone over the years and written on the walls. We couldn’t get out of the place because the Vietnamese people, the other Asian people, wanted autographs with Senator Hanson. Why? Because she protects the country. She protects the country and makes sure we keep our values in this country. That’s why Asian people, Indian people, Chinese people and Middle Eastern people come to this country—because they like the values of this country. We have got to protect that. These concerns about native title are echoed right across Queensland and in other parts, including across the Territory as well. We know from prominent Aboriginals that they agree with Senator Hanson and with me. It’s way over time for this native title regime to be reconsidered, and I recommend its referral to this committee for the benefit of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and for the benefit of all Australians. Thank you.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/C1ht4Xryi5s/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-19 19:14:072024-08-19 19:14:12The Current Native Title System Fails Aboriginals
One Nation advocates for a thorough review of the entire native title system and proposes a sunset clause on native title claims. The current situation is out of hand and sidelines the most crucial stakeholders—the Australian people—from any meaningful consultation in these processes.
Currently, over half of Australia is subject to native title claims, yet less than three percent of Australians have had a voice in this matter. The vast majority of us are excluded from participating in the process.
While state governments, councils, and the Federal Court are involved, they rarely reflect community views because they do not seek our input. This pattern mirrors the lead-up to the Voice referendum, where extensive consultation, funded by taxpayers, occurred solely with Indigenous groups, neglecting the broader Australian population. It was this approach that contributed significantly to the Voice’s failure, costing taxpayers a staggering $450 million. Native title claims are similarly determined within a closed circle, deliberately excluding the majority of Australians, including those whom the native title system purportedly aims to benefit.
During my visits to remote communities in Cape York and the Northern Territory, a consistent grievance I’ve heard from Aboriginal Australians across these regions is their inability to obtain land title, while unaccountable land councils operate like robber barons, establishing their own fiefdoms. This sentiment was reiterated by Aboriginal elders who sought me out during recent visits to Maryborough and Gympie.
There’s a hidden agenda at play here. The preamble of the Native Title Act is filled with references to United Nations policies and declarations. This raises questions about whether the Act is serving the UN agenda of undermining private land ownership and restricting land use. Unfortunately, local Aboriginals are denied the opportunity to own land outright under native title and hinders their ability to live on, invest in, develop, farm, or leverage it for business loans.
Native title prevents Aboriginals from enjoying the same land use rights as other Australians, prolonging inequality rather than closing the gap. Land ownership on mainland Australia did not exist when the British colonists arrived, nor was there recognition of individual land rights or inheritance. The Mabo decision was based on this distinction. It was the Labor native title legislation that extended this to mainland Australia — incorrectly. This framework introduces race-based rights, perpetuating racial discrimination in Australia, which contradicts the principles of equality.
The lack of action by Labor, Liberals and Nationals to review and rectify these issues underscores a failure of democratic governance, which should prioritise serving and representing the people, not controlling them.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The Native Title system in Australia is critically flawed and perpetuates discrimination. A new claim has been lodged by the Woppaburra people for exclusive use over an additional 2,249 acres of Great Keppel Island, despite a prior Federal Court ruling extinguishing Native Title over significant portions of the island, with the effect of potentially closing Great Keppel Island to non-Aboriginal Australians. This situation exemplifies why there is urgent need for a thorough overhaul of Native Title laws to prevent misuse and ensure equal treatment for all Australians regardless of race
I rise to speak about the racial divisions that continue to be perpetrated by the Liberal-Labor uniparty and their toxic native title system. One Nation ‘s candidate for the Queensland seat of Keppel, James Ashby, is doing a wonderful job holding the Miles Labor government accountable for its failure to meet $30 million worth of commitments to Great Keppel Island. Further, James Ashby deserves credit for exposing the latest native title claim on the island on the weekend. This claim, if successful, would mean that 84 per cent of Great Keppel Island would be excluded from non-indigenous Australians. One of the jewels of Central Queensland and an Australian tourism icon could effectively be closed off for all time from the Australian people, from local businesses and from international visitors.
This isn’t the first time an Indigenous group has tried to close off Great Keppel Island from the rest of us by using a divisive native title claim. In 2021 the Federal Court denied a native title claim over the Great Keppel Island leases held by Tower Holdings because of pre-existing infrastructure of commercial value. One Nation calls on this latest claim to be thrown out, too, and for the Miles Labor government to honour its $30 million promise to clean up and restore Great Keppel Island. Yet we must go much further than that. We’re calling for a comprehensive review of the entire native title system and a sunset clause on native title claims, because it’s getting out of hand and it’s excluding from any consultation on these processes the most important stakeholders of all: the Australian people.
More than 50 per cent of Australia is now under native title claim, yet fewer than three per cent of Australians have had any say in it. The rest of us are excluded from the process. While state governments, councils and the Federal Court get a say, they almost never represent community views, because they don’t ask us for our views. We’re not asked, because they don’t want to hear our views. This is what happened in the lead-up to the Voice referendum. There was a lot of consultation, costing a lot of taxpayer money, but only with Indigenous groups. There was none for the rest of Australia. It’s one of the main reasons it was such a spectacular $450 million failure, a flop. Consultation was undertaken in an echo chamber where dissent was absent, where dissent was chastised, where dissent was suppressed. Native title claims are resolved in this sort of bubble as well—a bubble from which most Australians are always excluded, deliberately. Even those people who are specifically intended to benefit from native title are excluded from those benefits.
I often visit remote communities in Cape York and the Northern Territory, and the No. 1 complaint from Aboriginal Australians right across Cape York and the communities I visited in the Northern Territory is the inability of Aboriginals to get land title while unaccountable land councils act as robber barons building fiefdoms. This was expressed to me again by Aboriginal elders who’d heard I was visiting Maryborough and Gympie last week and came to see me and attended a forum I hosted. There’s another agenda going on in the background. The Native Title Act’s preamble is littered with references to the United Nations policy and declarations. Why is this so? It fits with the UN agenda of attacking private land ownership and locking the land away from use. Unfortunately for local Aboriginals, they’re denied the opportunity of actually owning their piece of Australia by buying it to live on, to invest, to build, to develop, to farm or to use as collateral for a business loan to set up a business.
Native title holds Aboriginals back from doing what all other Australians can do with land. It works to maintain the gap, not close it. When British colonists arrived there was no form of landownership on the mainland. There was no recognition of individual landownership, security or passing the land onto heirs. Land title existed only in limited form, in some Torres Strait Islands. The Mabo decision was based on this distinction. It was the Labor native title legislation that extended this to the mainland of Australia—incorrectly. Native title perpetuates racial discrimination in Australia by creating rights based on race. This is wrong and must be reversed. The whole concept is consistent with Labor’s policy of waste and arrogance and disdain for Aboriginals and all Australians as part of a global agenda.
Labor is one part of the uniparty. The Liberals and Nationals have done nothing to review this act to fix things for all Australians. Democratic government is supposed to work for the people and serve the people. Instead, in recent decades the uniparty governments have worked to control the people. They push a global agenda to control people and steal property and transfer wealth to the party’s corporate globalist masters. We need a comprehensive review of native title urgently so that we can get back to helping Aboriginals get some land.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/00nyp1Gv3Rs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-07-11 16:38:322024-07-11 17:06:07A Thorough Review of the Native Title System is Critical
At the recent Senate Estimates, I asked Senator McCarthy about her knowledge of the extensive achievements of Indigenous peoples, to which she affirmed her awareness. However, she was unable to explain why the gap remained despite the billions of dollars being spent to achieve this. Senator McCarthy declined to commit to an audit, despite it being evident that the numerous Indigenous agencies were the cause not the solution to the issue.
Senator McCarthy showed no interest in discussing the substantial funds spent by the NIAA in contracts that seemed to make some individuals wealthy yet did not assist in closing the gap efforts. Once more, I called for a proper and thorough audit and review of the massive spending that failed to improve the quality of life for Aboriginal communities.
I reiterated the necessity for funds to be directly paid to communities, bypassing agencies that have essentially become part of the Aboriginal industry, draining much needed resources from Aboriginal communities.
Transcript | Session 1
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you agree with the reality that Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are hugely talented? They are top in NRL, AFL, arts, business, science and sports; and, in politics, there is a higher proportion of Aboriginals in federal parliament than across Australia.
Senator McCarthy: I do.
Senator ROBERTS: I thought you would; I was hoping you would. I have driven to all Cape York communities twice, and some three times. I’ve flown or boated into Torres Strait Island communities. Minister, do you agree that people in communities care for each other?
Senator McCarthy: I do. Chair, could I ask about the relevance of this to the budget questioning?
Senator ROBERTS: I am getting to that now. Thank you, Minister. An overwhelming majority of Australians in every jurisdiction, except this Australian Capital Territory ivory tower, disconnected as it is from Australians, voted in the Voice referendum that Aboriginals and islanders already have plenty of voices, in addition to the voices of the fine Aboriginal senators in this room. I note that all of them are women.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I am struggling to identify the relevance of this question to estimates.
Senator ROBERTS: Aboriginals and islanders have many other voices. Minister, these include registered Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations, 3,521, including 243 native title bodies; 12,966 charities and not-for-profit commissions providing aid to Aboriginals; land councils, 48, not including state land councils; regional councils, 35; Aboriginal—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you will need to come to a question because you have gone through so much information and opinion that it will be impossible to discern what the question is. Refrain from making a lengthy statement with excessive commentary, and try and put your question. Thank you, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, can you consider the possibility that this morass of bodies, often with overlapping, disjointed responsibility, is part of the core problem, not the solution?
Senator McCarthy: No, I don’t, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: I hope you agree that patronising paternalism and top-down approaches fail to get buy-in of people on the ground, Minister. Isn’t that why such approaches fail, top-down?
Senator McCarthy: I will say that your question is quite patronising and top-down, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Failing to get buy-in, top-down approaches fail to get accountability. Is that correct?
Senator McCarthy: I’ve answered your question. Your questions are very patronising. There is no question here that is related to the budget, Chair.
Senator ROBERTS: The Closing the Gap annual report is very clear. There is the total failure in closing the gap, with only four of 17 targets being met, or goals achieved, and some actually worsening. I’m sure you would acknowledge that symbolic gestures and overreach promises have not achieved better outcomes for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders.
Senator McCarthy: I reject the assertion that symbolism is not important, Senator Roberts. I come from a very strong people, of the Yanyuwa Garrwa people. We’re enormously proud not only of our language but of our history and our current status as artists, dancers and singers. In fact, we have the Malandarri Festival coming up. We celebrate culture and symbolism every day, every year; so I reject your question.
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps I didn’t explain my question clearly enough.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I couldn’t discern a question, apart from the commentary in it. Please come to your question.
Senator ROBERTS: My question was about acknowledging that symbolic gestures are not closing the gap. When I have travelled across communities in Far North Queensland and in the Northern Territory, listening to local Aboriginal people, I found that they know the solution. I was told that there are many people who relied on keeping the gap wide because those people were working the system and their livelihood depended on the ongoing failure of Closing the Gap programs. I recall a Badu Island councillor—I might have told you this before, Minister—who told us that the Closing the Gap campaign ensures that money continues to go into the pockets of consultants, activists, lawyers, bureaucrats, contractors, politicians, academics and advocates, rorting the system of Aboriginal welfare grants and programs to entrench the gap. This hurts the people in the communities. That’s my real concern here—the people in the communities. The Aboriginal industry depends on the gap being maintained, not closed. Minister, are you aware of this?
Senator McCarthy: Senator Roberts, I will say this to you: the whole point behind Closing the Gap is so that the Australian parliament and the Australian community can be aware of the discrepancies between the life expectancy of First Nations people and non-Indigenous Australians, and the unemployment gap, the education gap and the employment gap. That is the whole point of Closing the Gap. There are many levels and many layers of that. The important one that you are a part of is the institution that you are sitting in right now, and that is to hold to account whether Closing the Gap is working or not and whether the gaps can be filled in different ways. Your representation of Queensland as a senator is part of that. Your questions in this Senate estimates hearing to the relevant departments are absolutely critical. I reject outright that Closing the Gap in itself, in terms of our work with the peak organisations, is irrelevant. It is very relevant. It is an imperfect structure, but it is one that is trying to do its best in terms of trying to improve the lives of First Nations people in our country in a collective and transparent way, and it is one that is held highly by this institution called the Australian parliament.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I treat my constituents the same, regardless of their background. I listen to them. Many people of Aboriginal descent are telling me that the system is failing; that the Closing the Gap system, the morass of agencies, is actually hindering the closing of the gap.
Senator McCarthy: Senator, you are here at Senate estimates to ask those very agencies those very questions. You may have an opinion dedicated—
Senator ROBERTS: No, it’s not my opinion; I’m telling you my constituents’ opinions.
Senator McCarthy: You may have a view as a result of your constituents, but your question as to what is happening can go directly to an agency. What is the question that constituent is asking you to ask?
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this government has continually refused to authorise an audit of government spending in this sector. The morass of agencies is doing more damage than—
Senator McCarthy: So those are the words of your constituent: the ‘morass’ and the ‘damage’?
Senator ROBERTS: What is being hidden? Why won’t you conduct an audit of these agencies to help the people in the communities?
Senator McCarthy: We have the Australian National Audit Office. In this institution, high levels of audits are constantly taking place. This Senate estimates process, whether you understand it or not, is another form, and a very important form, of transparency and accountability. You have every agency before you. The minister is trying not to speak to enable you the opportunity to directly ask the questions of the agencies. You have the power to represent your constituency and, Senator Roberts, in the couple of minutes in which you are asking these questions, you are failing to do that.
Senator ROBERTS: That may be your opinion, Minister. Let me tell you that in my questioning of the Australian National Audit Office, they don’t do specific audits; they do overall audits of processes, and that’s it.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, come to your question.
Senator ROBERTS: I am just answering the minister. Will this government accept the recommendations of the Productivity Commission to move away from bureaucracy at a high level; in other words, from making uninformed decisions from an ivory tower, and do an audit?
Senator McCarthy: It depends on the Productivity Commission report you are referring to, Senator Roberts. The Productivity Commission is there to give advice on how processes occur. The most recent productivity commission that I recall was on a First Nations area and collaboration, and the voices of First Nations people that need to be heard. The Australian people rejected that at the referendum. We have to ensure that the status quo is better.
Senator ROBERTS: When will this group accept the advice from grassroots Indigenous groups such as Western Australia’s Empowered Communities and its chair Mr Ian Trust as to what works and what does not work based on real life experiences and successes? When will it get away from the top-down, patronising, paternalistic approach of so many agencies and get down to what people need?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you are putting lengthy statements and commentary into questions.
Senator ROBERTS: When will you start addressing the needs of people in the communities?
Senator McCarthy: Senator Roberts, you said as much in your preamble. You have a responsibility to ask questions of the agencies here—
Senator ROBERTS: And the government.
Senator McCarthy: And the government. You used the example of an individual from far Western Australia, but you didn’t state the purpose behind what they raised. Senator, if you really wanted to improve the lives of First Nations people you would ask questions diligently, and you would do so with the agencies that are relevant to that question.
CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: I have faith; why doesn’t the government have faith in Aboriginal—
Transcript | Session 2
Senator ROBERTS:Thank you, Chair. How much money did the NIAA spend on the doomed voice referendum?
Dr Gordon: Good afternoon, Senator Roberts, I don’t have that exact figure with me, but we’ll be able to get that quickly this afternoon to you.
Senator ROBERTS:If not, I’ll put it on notice. What difference would that money have made if provided directly to local Aboriginal communities to spend on their decisions and actually make a difference?
Ms Guivarra: Senator, although we don’t have the figures with us, you may be aware from previous testimony at other hearings that the majority of the expenditure on the referendum was actually with the Australian Electoral Commission. NIAA received a very small proportion of funding for issues associated with the referendum working group meetings and a civics and awareness campaign. Really, as I said, it was a very small proportion of the overall expenditure on the referendum.
Senator ROBERTS: My concerns are not only with the amount of money spent but with the effectiveness of it. That’s why I asked the question about whether it would be better spent with the communities. Let’s continue. Looking at NIAA figures obtained through freedom of information—seeking moneys that NIAA spent—why are such large amounts provided to particular contractors? Barpa Construction Services has received almost $613 million.
Ms Guivarra: Senator, are you referring to overall expenditure under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, not related to the referendum?
Senator ROBERTS: No, overall money that NIAA has spent. I think the previous man said something like 1,200 grants or 2,000 grants.
Mr Dexter: Senator, I think you might be referring to some information that was released under FOI to do with the Indigenous Procurement Policy over the last several months. The Indigenous Procurement Policy is a whole-of-Commonwealth policy that provides preferential procurement practices for registered Indigenous businesses. Barpa Construction did ring a bell with me as one of the businesses that were released as receiving a certain amount of money.
Senator ROBERTS:$613 million, I’m told.
Mr Dexter: I believe that was an amount that Barpa has received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy, which is not necessarily—in fact it’s Indigenous Advancement Strategy money. It’s a collection. The Indigenous Procurement Policy and the reporting under it is a collection of all of the contracts that organisation has received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy.
Senator ROBERTS:Do you know what they were paid for? If it’s outside your accountability, that’s fine.
Mr Dexter: No, Senator, I wouldn’t know. That that would need to be directed to the agency that engaged them.
Senator ROBERTS:What about Evolve FM Proprietary Limited, which received almost $497 million?
Mr Dexter: That would be in the same category, Senator. There were a number of FOI requests that were made recently which were asking for the aggregate amounts that Indigenous businesses had received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy over the life of the policy. The Indigenous Procurement Policy is a policy that’s been in place since 2015. It’s resulted in about $9.5 billion going to Indigenous businesses over that period of time. I think one of the questions that we got under the FOI was: ‘What are the top 100 businesses that have received money through that policy?’ Evolve and Barpa were both on that list.
Senator ROBERTS:What about PricewaterhouseCoopers, disgraced consultants, who’ve received almost $50 million?
Mr Dexter: I’d need to check, Senator, but I would hazard a guess that it was not PricewaterhouseCoopers itself but rather PwC’s Indigenous Consulting, which is a separate entity.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you check on both those items, please.
Mr Dexter: I’d be happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: What was the total amount of NIAA money spent over the eight-year period to companies providing contract services?
Ms Guivarra: We’ll have to get some other colleagues up for that, Senator.
Ms Broun: Senator, could you repeat that question?
Senator ROBERTS:What was the total amount that NIAA spent over that eight-year period to companies providing contract services? That’s the eight years to January 2024.
Ms Jackson: I don’t know if we’ve got the eight-year amounts with us. We’d have the last couple of years, which we can go into if you like, but otherwise we can take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS:Take it on notice, thank you. Presumably it’s several millions of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars. With that kind of money and other moneys being injected into Aboriginal wellbeing, why is the gap not being closed?
Ms Broun: Senator, clearly the evidence is that there are gaps in outcomes for First Nations people. Closing the Gap is designed and has been designed with our partners, particularly the Coalition of Peaks but all states and territories, to address those gaps. I’m a bit confused by your question in terms of ‘there’s some spending here, so that would have changed the outcomes over there’, because obviously there are different outcomes depending on different areas of government as well. I’d like to be a bit more specific about your question.
Senator ROBERTS:I’m concerned that there’s a huge amount of money being spent, and it’s going through agencies, but it’s not closing the gap. Why isn’t it closing the gap?
Ms Guivarra: Senator, the majority of your questions are related to what we’ve done under the Indigenous Procurement Policy. The original intention of the Indigenous Procurement Policy obviously was to support Indigenous businesses, because we know that in fact Indigenous businesses also have a higher employment rate for Indigenous people as well, First Nations people. As Mr Dexter has said, we’ve had a lot of success with that—over 65,000 contracts with a total value of $9.5 billion worth of business going to First Nations businesses as a result of that Indigenous Procurement Policy.
Ms Broun: You may be aware that in fact the assistant minister launched a review of the Indigenous Procurement Policy back in December. We opened up a consultation process for that review. It closed, I think, around March of this year. We’re going to take the learnings from all of that and see what further improvements we can make to continue what, I think, has been a success story just in relation to the generation of Indigenous business and creation of Indigenous employment.
CHAIR:Last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS:You’re telling me there’s been a review of money given to Indigenous businesses. What I would like to know is: is there a review being conducted, or any idea of a review to be conducted, on spending of all kinds? Could that money instead be going directly to the communities to develop accountability and autonomy? Communities are screaming out for autonomy.
Ms Guivarra: Senator, as I indicated, in fact this review and consultation was really to see how we can further strengthen the Indigenous Procurement Policy because, as I mentioned, it has been very successful in awarding business to First Nations businesses and creating employment opportunities for First Nations people.
Senator ROBERTS:Thank you. I acknowledged that and said: can you extend it to a review of all spending? And specifically can you send the money directly to the communities and bypass the agencies?
Ms Guivarra: The money associated with the Indigenous Procurement Policy is basically services contracted across all of government. Then it’s for each agency to decide whether they’re seeking to procure services from businesses, including First Nations businesses. The Indigenous Procurement Policy has a mandatory set-aside for First Nations businesses as part of that policy, which applies across government agencies. There has been interest in the community more broadly about what can be done to further to enhance that particular policy, and that’s the purpose of the review.
CHAIR:Last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS:Chair, I acknowledged that twice. But what I’d like to know is: is there any consideration being given to reviewing expenditure across NIAA, not just on procurement?
Ms Broun: Senator, obviously spending on Indigenous outcomes—and this is why we have cross-portfolio here—cuts across all of government to deliver outcomes in specific portfolio areas and specific policy areas. In NIAA we have the IAS, a large part of which has been employment services. Another part is ranger services. To your point, that goes particularly to communities on the ground, so it is focused on those sorts of things. Then there are a whole range of other programs that are supplementary to mainstream funding. But these are services that citizens are entitled to. It depends how you quantify the spending, but the different programs are there to deliver different outcomes for Indigenous people. We could go into the programs that are specifically designed with community and go directly to community, because there are a lot of those sorts of programs as well. They’re not all being delivered through departments, but on the ground as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. We’ll continue this in the future.
