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?
From 2GB: One Nation has staged a protest against Welcome to Country. Party members turned their backs during the ceremony.
Listen to the full chat below:
Transcript
Ben Fordham: There’s been some tense scenes on the first day of federal parliament. One Nation has staged a silent protest during a welcome/acknowledgement in the Senate involving Indigenous Australians. Pauline Hanson and three of her party colleagues turned their backs and the One Nation leader says – our whole team has made it clear, we’ve had enough of being told we don’t belong in our own country. Now it’s not the first time Pauline has done this but it is the first time her long time colleague Malcolm Roberts has decided to take part and he’s on the line right now. Malcolm Roberts, good morning to you.
Malcolm ROBERTS: Good morning Ben. How are things?
Ben Fordham: Pretty good. Thank you so much for joining us. So, why did you join in with the protest yesterday?
Malcolm ROBERTS: Well our constituents Ben, across Australia have had a gutful. They’ve had enough of being welcomed to their own country and secondly and very importantly, we care for Aboriginals and what’s happening with these token services, token ceremonies is that they’re ignoring the real plight of Aboriginals which is real and we care about that. And we just listen to our constituents and our constituents have said both those messages.
Ben Fordham: Any reactions from some of your parliamentary colleagues in there? From the other parties?
Malcolm ROBERTS: No. No, not at all. They probably didn’t even realise it had happened.
Ben Fordham: I reckon there is a time and a place for these things and if there was a time and if there was a place it would be on the opening day of parliament, but you’ve obviously got a stronger view than me. You don’t think there’s any time, any place to have an Indigenous acknowledgement?
Malcolm ROBERTS: Not an acknowledgement of country Ben. I went to Yarralumba, the Governor-General’s residence on Sunday for a family day and we got a lecture, the Governor-General handed it over to the Indigenous – the aboriginal person and we got a lecture for ten minutes and the fact is that our sovereignty, there was never any sovereignty that had to be ceded. And then on Tuesday, we got four times a welcome to country or acknowledgement of country. The Ecumenical Church Service in the church started with that acknowledgement of country and then we had a welcome to country event and then we had the Governor-General opening parliament giving a welcoming ceremony and then we had the start of the Senate and that’s when we said “that’s enough, that’s it, we’ve had enough” and the President was appointed and she started the Senate with a welcome to country or acknowledgement of country. And Ben it gets ridiculous. I was at a conference in Mackay in Central Queensland and we had a speaker on a video tele-conference – she gave an acknowledge to the people of Canberra and to the people of Mackay. I mean this is crazy!
Ben Fordham: We revealed just on Monday that a daycare centre in Sydney where toddlers are being told they have to do a acknowledgement or a welcome at the start of the day.
Malcolm ROBERTS: Yeah it’s just – it perpetuates division and diverts the real care away from needy and deserving aboriginals Ben. But it also fractures and indoctrinates people. There’s plenty to celebrate in every culture but we don’t have to be welcomed to our own country every day and especially in Kindy. Come on!
Ben Fordham: Is this something that you’re going to be doing again in the future?
Malcolm ROBERTS: Yes. Every day.
Ben Fordham: What, do they do it every day though? Is there a welcome or acknowledgement at the start of every day?
Malcolm ROBERTS: Yes, there is. In the Senate …
Ben Fordham: Every day?
Malcolm ROBERTS: Every day, mate. That’s what I’m talking about. Every day. It start with an acknowledgement to country and then we go onto the prayers. And then we get on with business. So, it’s not needed. We’ve got three flags in the Senate …
Ben Fordham: So there were calls about a year or so ago for people to boo during welcome to country ceremonies at the AFL and I came out at the time and said absolutely not. I mean you’ve got to think about the poor person whose been given the responsibility of getting up there and doing the welcome. It’s not their call that they’re doing it and it’s not fair to do that to people so this is a silent protest and Malcolm Roberts is saying that they do the acknowledgment at the start of every single sitting day and that’s what we’re talking about when we’re saying this is overdone, it’s an overload, which is why some people are saying “enough is enough”.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/522205785_1351917766502774_40356281373863499_n.jpg?fit=512%2C640&ssl=1640512Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-24 10:41:142025-07-24 11:49:02One Nation Turns Its Back on ‘Welcome to Country’
I travelled to Alice Springs to talk about actually supporting Australians in remote communities, not dividing us on race like the PM tried to do with his voice referendum.
One Nation will abolish the racially divisive indigenous departments that costs tens of billions a year and hasn’t closed the gap one bit.
Here’s what we’ll do instead.
The Northern Rail link is a 3,000 km proposal across the entire top of Australia.
The important part for remote communities is what will run right next door to that rail line: high speed internet, electricity and a water pipeline.
Those three essential utilities will allow us to turbocharge central Australia, for everyone who lives remotely.
Instead of handouts – One Nation will build real infrastructure that will allow remote Australia to make themselves richer. The best form of welfare is a job – we’ll build the infrastructure to create those jobs in rural Australia, based on need not race.
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
