Posts

The Aboriginal Industry Is Failing Aboriginal Kids

In March, I warned that the plight of Aboriginal children remains an indictment on governments past and present, while taxpayer funds are being swallowed by a sprawling “Aboriginal industry” of consultants, activists and bureaucrats that delivers little to the communities it claims to serve.

The gap is widening because there are too many people feeding off the system.

Adding yet another commission will only deepen confusion, waste and dependency, instead of delivering the basics children need.

Cut the bureaucracy, stop the hiving-off of funds, celebrate Aboriginal potential, and direct support based on real need, not race, so Aboriginal kids get real outcomes and taxpayers get accountability.

— March | Senate Question Time

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: The plight of Aboriginal children is well documented. We know that from so many people. Senator Pauline Hanson has been raising this issue for around 30 years. Senator Nampijinpa Price has done an exceptional job as well, and Senator Kerrynne Liddle and indeed the minister there. The plight of Aboriginal children is an indictment on parts of our society and especially on the government. I’m not just talking about the Labor government; I’m talking about previous uniparty governments and the Liberal-National coalition. 

I was visiting Badu Island a few years ago in the Torres Strait. A wonderful young councillor stood up and said, ‘While there is a Closing the Gap initiative, the gap will widen, because so many people are feeding off the Closing the Gap campaign that they have become dependent on it.’ I’m talking about the parasites who are pushing some of the Aboriginal industry. They’re white as well as black. The bureaucracy is massive and self-perpetuating. So many of the campaigns are to keep bureaucrats in a job. The bureaucracy is massive, and that means no accountability, and there is the heart of the problem. We now have an Aboriginal industry. 

Basic management shows that this commission will have negative effect. It won’t help. It will hamper and hurt. The aim is to look good, not do good. There are so many things we see every year in the House of Representatives. The Prime Minister—it doesn’t matter who it is, whether Liberal or Labor—and the opposition leader stand up and tell us things about how Closing the Gap is going backwards, and we’ve still got work to do, but it’s all rosy. It’s the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. 

Minister, surely basic management shows that a system that is clogged like the Aboriginal industry is, with so many people feeding off it—consultants, activists, politicians, lawyers, academics—will be only clogged up further. What are your intentions for managing this properly so that it doesn’t clog up the system? 

Senator McCARTHY: Thank you, Senator, for the question. I certainly reject the assertion about ‘Aboriginal industry’ being a negative, Senator Roberts. We have, in fact, just this morning, certainly come together with the Coalition of Peaks—bodies that are clearly defined in the way that they work with local communities on the ground.

You mentioned Badu Island in the Torres Strait. I certainly commend our new convener—the joint convener, with me, on the joint council—and that is Donnella Mills, a Torres Strait Islander woman who is very passionate about wanting to ensure that, on the ground, in terms of local people having local solutions and support, they are supported by community controlled organisations. And those community controlled organisations are accountable, Senator Roberts.

They’re accountable every year, just like any other business in this country that’s provided with either federal or state or territory funds. They are accountable. They’re accountable to the parliaments. And they are certainly accountable to this Senate. That accountability is about transparency, Senator Roberts. So I would just caution you, if I may, around the language that you use that really stereotypes, in a very negative way, the good work that is being done by First Nations organisations and individuals across Australia.

I’ll just take this moment, Temporary Chair, if I may, to acknowledge the commissioner, Commissioner Hunter, in the gallery, and members of the Coalition of Peaks, and those who came this morning for the launch of our latest peak body.

Senator ROBERTS: You mentioned the Coalition of Peaks, Minister. There’s part of the issue. This is a massive bureaucracy. You’ve got to have representatives of the peaks. There’s no audit. And I’m speaking now on behalf of taxpayers, as well as Aboriginal children and Aboriginals. 

I’ve been to every one of the communities, white and black, on Cape York, and I’ve asked: What’s Close the gap? What do they know about Close the gap? What do they think about Close the gap? Some of the communities there don’t even know about Close the gap, because they’re not getting the benefits of the funding that’s coming from the taxpayers; it’s getting hived off by the parasites, white and black—activists, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists, academics, politicians and bureaucrats—along the way. 

How is this additional bureaucratic load, this additional constipating layer in the middle, going to strengthen coordination across government? It’s adding more people into the middle of this government mess. As I said, it’s not just your mess; it’s previous governments’ messes as well. 

Then these are going to be ‘advising the Commonwealth’—this is from your own bill. ‘Advising the Commonwealth’? How many more people do you need to get advice from? This is getting ridiculous! People across the country, especially Aboriginal people, are laughing at this. Some of them are crying at it. 

And then there’s the third activity: ‘undertaking and commissioning research into systemic issues and barriers’. There’s no doubt there are systemic issues and barriers. We can see them. Why do you need yet another group of researchers? This is just going to confuse the mess again. 

Then there’s ‘providing and commissioning educational programs’. Children won’t know which way is up, they’ll have so many different messages from so many different bureaucrats—so many different parasites. 

Next there’s ‘undertaking public advocacy’ to promote the rights and interests of children and young people. We’ve got so many people in parliament doing that. We’ve got so many people outside parliament doing that. You’ve got so many bureaucrats, tripping over each other, doing that. 

They’re ‘to amplify their voices and strengths’. Oh, really? Really? It’s not working so far. The nanny state is not working so far. 

As to engaging with children: how many more people are going to engage with children? These kids will have their heads spinning. What about basic needs? Get to the core of the problem. There are, clearly, crucial human needs, and they’re being bypassed by these people looking after their own administrative jobs. I also remain concerned about two things. One is that this is a divisive piece of proposed law that is defined by race. It draws distinctions and promotes divisions by race, which makes it racist. It overtly continues and entrenches the them-versus-us mentality that prevails in conjunction with the patronising mentality of victimhood status. 

In Aboriginals—and you’re an example of this, Minister—we have four per cent of Australians who are Aboriginal; we have 11 per cent of parliamentarians who are Aboriginal. Aboriginals have high potential, but so many are being locked into victimhood. Surely what we need to do is free up Aboriginals to fulfil their enormous potential. They’re leading in the NRL, the AFL, business, sport, academics and science, and yet some of the communities are terrible. I think we need to start celebrating Aboriginals rather than locking some victims— 

Senator Waters: Stop calling them parasites, then. What about all the taxpayer money you’re defrauding? You talk about parasites. You lie, you steal— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll take that interjection from Senator Waters. I’ll make it very clear: she misrepresented me then, because I am not calling Aboriginals parasites. I’m calling Aboriginals fantastic human beings with huge potential. I’m calling them parasites in the bureaucracy—the activists, the lawyers, the administrators, the bureaucrats, the consultants, the academics—who are living off the money that’s going from taxpayers to the Aboriginal industry. That’s what I’m talking about. This is just going to add more complexity and more bureaucracy. 

One Nation policy is to get rid of the Aboriginal industry, to save $15 billion, and instead provide real care through government grants based on real needs, regardless of skin colour. This bill has an aim, I believe, to look good, not to do good. In trying to look good, you do a lot of harm. You just add more to the constipating layer of bureaucrats. Minister, isn’t this an option to start celebrating Aboriginals, rather than casting them as victims, and to start giving grants based upon real needs? Isn’t that what’s really needed here?

Senator McCARTHY: Senator Roberts, firstly, I agree that we should celebrate First Nations culture in this country. I agree that there are many outstanding athletes, as we saw with the Rabbitohs recently and the great score trier that everybody roamed the field on with AJ. But there are many, many others, whether they’re athletes or otherwise. There are professionals in business, in the sciences and in our schools. We’ve even got our young woman here from Yirrkala, who’s doing very well— Siana, I’m watching you as a bit of a trailblazer for us.

You’re right that we should celebrate First Nations people and culture, Senator Roberts. But that’s probably about as far as our similarities might go, because I certainly reject the assertion that there is no accountability or transparency. As I said in my previous response to you, every organisation that is receiving funding does get audited, whether it’s from the Australian National Audit Office or having to provide their annual reports to this parliament.

I certainly have many statutory bodies whose reports have to be delivered to the Senate. That is accountability, Senator Roberts. That is where we differ. You keep asking for audits. Well, audits actually happen as an annual event for organisations, and those organisations that are not doing well obviously get picked up in this as well. Like non-Indigenous organisations and businesses, there are some across the country that don’t do well, and they need extra support to get them back on their feet or, like many, they go out of business.

The accountability structure is there in terms of the audits, and, as I said, I agree with you in terms of the celebration of First Nations people, but the way we do that is also about lifting families. This is why this bill is incredibly important. It’s important because we are listening to what the communities have been asking for for a long time. I might walk you through just a bit of that history. The Bringing them home report in 1997 actually raised this back then, and we’ve had subsequent organisations through the Coalition of Peaks.

There are 70 organisations who’ve given guidance on this. I would not dismiss—and I am sure you, as a senator for Queensland, would not dismiss—those who come to us to give advice. That’s what this parliament asks for in terms of the Coalition of Peaks and the agreement that we’ve signed with every state and territory to that Closing the Gap agreement. We’ve got organisations like SNAICC, which cares for the children. We’ve got VACCA, the Victorian Aboriginal Child and Community Agency, and the Korrie Youth Counsel.

All these organisations have come forward to say there needs to be this national commissioner. There needs to be a role where the national First Nations commissioner is there for the children who are being taken away, who are in out-of-home care. We’ve seen those figures rise staggeringly, especially in states like Victoria. Having the ability for the national children’s commissioner to work with each state and territory and to inform this parliament is absolutely critical. Senator Roberts, there are some things we kind of see a bit of similarity on, but probably most not.

But I do appreciate your interest. You have shown that at estimates as well in the questions that you’ve raised around communities. I would urge you and your party to get behind this bill. What Commissioner Hunter will be able to do is know that she has the support of this parliament behind her to work with our kids across the country.

/0 Comments/by

Is the Gap Closed?

,

During this session I pressed Commissioner Kiss on waste, duplication and middle-man costs in the Aboriginal industry.

She acknowledged the funding failures, yet still joined the chair and other senators in pushing back on my questioning – proving that even when everyone admits the money isn’t reaching communities or Closing the Gap targets, they resist being held accountable.

My point was clear: money is being poured in, yet outcomes are worsening, accountability is missing, and real on-the-ground help is being smothered by bureaucracy.

How much taxpayer money will this government burn before the Gap Closes?

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing, Ms Kiss. You recently made comments warning of the dangers of right-wing parties. Apparently that was after the resounding One Nation win in the Farrer by-election. Is that correct?  

Ms Kiss: I’m not sure what you’re referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: After the resounding One Nation win in the Farrer by-election, you made comments warning of the dangers of right-wing parties.  

Ms Kiss: I don’t recall using that language at all. Can you clarify what you’re talking about?  

Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s all I’ve got here. What benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders would such a statement bring?  

Ms Kiss: Again, I’m not clear what you’re referring to. So, if you could, give me some clarity around where I might have used that language. I don’t recall using that language.  

Senator ROBERTS: You didn’t use it?  

Ms Kiss: Not that I can recall.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What are your thoughts on the Aboriginal industry—that is, what’s referred to as the Aboriginal industry, the lawyers, the politicians, the public servants, the bureaucrats, the contractors, the academics and the activists living off the money allocated to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders living in poverty despite receiving welfare payments the same as other Australians in need? The money is being allocated, but it’s not getting to where it needs to be. What are your thoughts on that? 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, that sounds an awful lot like you’re asking the commissioner for an opinion. That’s not—  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have an opinion?  

Ms Kiss: I do have an opinion, but it’s not my role to share my opinion.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that that’s happening?  

Ms Kiss: I can speak to the fact that we know that there is a fair amount of financial allocation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services and supports. I’m not sure what you’re referring to in terms of welfare support, but I do have concerns about the fact that funding that’s being allocated to our communities and to our organisations and to government agencies is not actually meeting the needs of our communities. That’s evident in the Closing the Gap targets.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. We’re agreed. Are you aware that often more than half the grant money is eaten up by salaries and other middleman costs before getting to the people the grant was supposed to assist?  

Ms Kiss: The indication of that has been presented in Productivity Commission reports and Indigenous expenditure reports, so, yes, I am aware that there is consideration of that.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m struggling to see the connection between your questions and the role of Commissioner Kiss.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think we’ll see it fairly soon.  

CHAIR: Okay, I’m looking forward to that. That would be helpful.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that most assaults upon Aboriginal women in the Northern Territory and in Western Australia are committed by Aboriginal men?  

Senator COX: No, they’re not.  

Ms Kiss: I’m not sure that those statistics are necessarily accurate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Why does nobody comment that the large proportion of incarcerated Aboriginal people are in jail because they committed crimes warranting a jail sentence from a magistrate or judge? That’s called social justice.  

Ms Kiss: I can’t make comment on that, Senator. That’s not a question for me. 

CHAIR: Again, it’s asking the commissioner for her opinion.  

Ms Kiss: Senator, I don’t make the decisions about who goes to jail and how they’re sentenced. Sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, when will this government learn that throwing money around is not the solution? These people are living in misery, in poverty, and throwing more money at them and throwing it to the activists and the parasites in between is not being effective. It’s quite clear. Social justice includes people accepting responsibility for their own actions and genuine help on the ground. What is your government going to do about closing the gap, because it’s widening now?  

Senator Green: Thanks for the question, Senator. I reject the language in your question. Yesterday, in front of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, the National Indigenous Australians Agency appeared and gave a lot of evidence about all of the work that we are doing to improve outcomes and close the gap. Our government is committed to that. The Prime Minister gave a statement to acknowledge the Closing the gap reports. We acknowledge that not enough is being done and more needs to be done, and that’s why we’ve made significant investments in the budget. I want to thank the commissioner for the work that she does in highlighting not just to governments around the country but to everyone in the country how important it is that we do close the gap, not just for the people who are living these lives right now but for future generations of Australians.  

/0 Comments/by

Bureaucrats Swallowing Vulnerable Funds

,

Bureaucracy shouldn’t be swallowing up funds meant for our most vulnerable communities.

I recently questioned the NIAA at Senate Estimates on the ongoing failures of the Closing the Gap initiative. Case in point: out of a recent $40M grant for the Alice Springs Camp, roughly half was chewed up by administrative salaries rather than direct aid.

When pushed for a genuine, independent external audit to see where the money is actually going, the NIAA pointed to internal reviews. ANAO does not conduct the deep financial audits required here. This is just the department monitoring itself.

Worse still, when asked if basic welfare payments are enough to survive on in remote areas, the NIAA directed me to the Department of Social Services.

How can we close the gap if the leading agency refuses to look at the actual baseline standard of living?

A One Nation government will demand transparency and independent audits, ensuring that funding goes to people that need it – not middlemen.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS:  Thank you all for appearing again. Good morning, Minister. One of the ongoing tragedies is the failure of the Closing the Gap concept when there are so many people whose vested interests lie in ensuring the gap will never close. Why is so much grant money wasted on enriching middlemen and middlewomen and only a proportion of the grant money ends up with those who the grant was intended to benefit? This is the flaw in the existing grant models where only a fraction is actually spent on the purpose. An example of this relates to grant money allocated to support those Australians living in the Alice Springs camp. Recently, a grant of more than $40 million was made, but half of that was used for salaries, with less than half going to direct assistance. Is this acceptable, Minister?  

Senator McCarthy:  We have gone through the breakdown of the funding for Tangentyere in terms of the town camps, Senator. I will ask Ms Bellenger to go through that again with you.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Thank you.  

Ms Bellenger:  As we outlined earlier in the session, Tangentyere receives 18 activities funded through the NIAA. If all of those activities are successfully delivered, they will receive around $20.3 million. That does depend on the successful delivery of all of those programs.  

Senator ROBERTS:  That didn’t answer my question but let’s move on. Does half the grants going in salaries explain why so much money is spent on Closing the Gap, yet the gap keeps getting bigger? Let’s face it, it gets bigger every year.  

Ms Bellenger:  There is money spent on salaries through the NIAA grants, and they are for the services that are directly provided and are almost entirely filled with First Nations local people. I would argue that a job in the first instance supports—but then the services that are provided to people are also the primary outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Thank you. When will a genuine audit of expenditure and outcomes be done on the effectiveness and the value-for-money basis of all Indigenous grants and NIAA programs over the last five years? 

Ms Guivarra:  We have rigorous monitoring of our own grants through internal assessment processes, and this occurs every year. We monitor for the effectiveness and efficiency and value for money, which is required under the PGPA Act, with all of our investments. You would have seen over a number of years now that the NIAA’s funding has been directed more and more to our engagement with community-controlled organisations being responsible for the provision of our services to communities so that there is a greater connection to what it is that is going to be required to make change for those communities, because now essentially many more of our grants are being delivered through community-controlled organisations.  

Senator ROBERTS:  When will we see a third-party independent audit.  

Ms Guivarra:  We have a number of different accountability mechanisms as a Commonwealth executive agency as it is. We have regular performance audits by the Australian National Audit Office that we’re required to do. I will get our group manager for integrity to go through a little of some of the more recent ANAO audits that we have had.  

Mr Worth:  The assurance mechanisms in place for our funding and how it’s spent, and the value delivered, are multilayered. Within the agency itself we have requirements through all of our funding agreements for providers to report against KPIs in terms of their service delivery. Each time those reports are received, they’re reviewed by the teams. It’s checked off against their own experience, checking with community and visiting the providers themselves to sight those services. With the financials themselves, each time an acquittal is required, staff within the NIAA review the acquittal—that is, the funding claim being made by the provider against that—and they check that it’s in line with the contract and that likewise it’s supported by the performance reports. Then, as Ms Guivarra mentioned, the ANAO, in terms of independent audit, conducts audits of our own—  

Senator ROBERTS:  The ANAO told me a couple of times that they don’t do detailed, comprehensive audits. What you’re talking about is monitoring yourself. I want to know when an independent external audit will be done.  

Mr Worth:  The ANAO conducts two types of audits. One is of the actual processes and the way that we operate in order to ensure that the key risks that the Commonwealth is exposed to through our operations are being properly managed through our processes and controls and so on. When it comes to individual audits, the requirement for any audited accounts from providers varies according to the assessed risk for that particular provider. We do require some providers to have their accounts audited independently, and those are checked and received. However, it’s not always the case. As I said before, we do full checks of the acquittal claims made by our own staff. Of course that’s independent from those making the claims who are the providers. So there are a large number of checks and balances in place. There are, where required, given our risk assessments, independent audits required of some providers. On top of that, our own processes and our own approach to risk management is subject to audit by the ANAO.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Thank you. Do most adult Indigenous people living in remote areas, if not working, receive a fortnightly welfare payment?  

Ms Guivarra:  I would say, Senator, there is an Australian requirement that, after a certain period of time, if you are not working you are entitled to a payment. Yes.   

CHAIR:  That’s all Australians.  

Ms Guivarra:  That’s all Australians, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS:  So I’m guessing you’re saying yes. Is that likely to be the same or more than that received by non-Indigenous recipients?  

Senator THORPE:  We get triple! Didn’t you know that!  

Ms Guivarra:  I would say there’s no difference in treatment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from other Australians.   

Senator ROBERTS:  Is the payment enough to live on?   

Senator WHITEAKER:  Chair, I’m not sure this agency’s responsible for the payments to which the senator is—  

Ms Guivarra:  We are not. Our responsibilities are for the programs and policies that we administer. If it’s in relation to the social security system, then I would suggest you direct those questions to the Department of Social Services.   

CHAIR:  To ensure you get the accurate answers to your questions, Senator Roberts, we would direct you to them. This is your last question before we rotate.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Where does the money go? Is the payment enough to live on? Surely that’s part of your remit. What proportion goes in rent? Why is the attendance at school so low? What is being done to fix it?   

CHAIR:  That’s an awful lot of issues in one sentence, Senator—  

Senator ROBERTS:  I want to know what they’re doing.  

CHAIR:  many of them not related to this department, although that’s not to go to the relevance of your question. But you’re probably going to need to break it down a little for the officers to appropriately respond.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Thank you. Is the payment enough to live on? Where does the money go, and specifically rent?  

Ms Guivarra:  I think a lot of the issues that you are raising are not within the remit of this agency. As I said, if it’s in relation to social security payments of any sort, it is actually the Department of Social Services who would be able to provide that. My understanding is they are on next Wednesday.   

CHAIR:  Senator Roberts, on that—  

Senator ROBERTS:  I would have thought you would know how these things—  

CHAIR:  Senator Roberts, can I just clarify a piece for you there. ‘Is it enough to live on’—you could ask that about anybody in Australia. You would have to look to the social security people about how it’s assessed. In terms of housing, this agency does not have a breakdown of how people spend any money they may receive in welfare payments.  

Senator ROBERTS:  How do you assess whether or not people are living satisfactorily?   

Senator THORPE:  How do you spend your money?   

CHAIR:  Yes, exactly.   

Senator THORPE:  How do you spend your money, Malcolm?   

Senator ROBERTS:  I’m not being questioned here.   

Senator THORPE:  Well, you should be.   

Ms Guivarra:  It is not our job to monitor the personal payments or spending habits of individuals. Our role is to administer the programs and policies that we are responsible for.   

Senator ROBERTS:  Do you assess the standard of living?  

CHAIR:  Senator Roberts, we are going to rotate the call, so I will give you one final question.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Do you assess standard of living and what’s needed to upgrade—to close the gap?   

Ms Guivarra:  We are in constant contact with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities around the country for pressure points for their own cost of living. It is why there is a lot of focus and attention on what is happening in remote communities across the country. You were not present previously when the minister referred to the work that she has been undertaking with the Coalition of the Peaks in regard to the monitoring of the current fuel crisis, where we have, obviously, been in contact with community controlled organisations about the cost of service delivery to remote communities across the country. So those types of issues, in terms of how we understand the impact of the cost of living for remote communities—there are various mechanisms by which we do that all of the time.   

Senator ROBERTS:  Thanks, Chair. 

/1 Comment/by

Where is Our Flag?

,

During this Estimates session, I questioned why the National Australia Day Council’s website and their 2024-25 report seem to treat our flag as an afterthought. The report is full of glossy photos, yet the Australian flag is almost entirely absent, appearing only incidentally.

Is this a government directive to ignore our flag, or is the Council doing this on its own?

I noted that there has been a massive 120% increase in the Council’s grant budget, jumping from $4.5 million to $10 million. While the government claims this supports local events, I pointed out that this funding is being directed toward “reflective” activities like truth-telling workshops and smoking ceremonies.

I expressed concern that major events, such as the flag-raising in Sydney, emphasise Indigenous flags while the presence of the Australian flag remains unclear or secondary.

I confronted Minister Wong directly on whether the ALP government has “declared war” on our Western heritage. I wanted to know if this administration is ashamed of our history, as their actions suggest a move away from the traditional celebration of our nation.

The government’s response was to hide behind the “independence” of the Council, though they admitted to supporting these funding shifts.

I asked if they were ashamed of our heritage and the Minister responded with a simple “no,” – however their actions on the ground tell a different story.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

CHAIR: We are now going to rotate the call. I will go to Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending again. Good afternoon. Minister, national identity is important. I’m sure you’d agree. It’s one of the core issues for any country: national identity. Could you please explain why the website for the National Australia Day Council does not show the Australian flag? Does the government or the Prime Minister believe the Australian flag is not appropriate to the celebration of Australia Day?  

Senator Wong: Which website, sorry?  

Senator ROBERTS: The National Australia Day Council.  

Senator Wong: I think they appear separately, Senator. I’m not trying to be difficult.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that, but you’re overseeing them.  

Senator Wong: Am I?  

Senator ROBERTS: Your government is.  

CHAIR: I don’t believe they’ve been requesting the Australian flag.  

Senator ROBERTS: I want to know what the government’s attitude is.  

Mr Walter: Senator, the National Australia Day Council is a Commonwealth company, and they make their own decisions about their website. I haven’t looked at their website recently, but I can do that. But they’re an independent body. There’s an independent council that’s appointed that manages the secretariat and the company, so those decisions are a matter for it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s continue. The 2024-25 report by the National Australia Day Council has lots of glossy pages full of photos of the world that matters to them. No Australian flags are treated as a photo illustration. Three are seen in incidental shots. Is the National Australia Day Council acting on a government instruction to ignore that we have a national flag, or are they doing so on their own initiative?  

Mr Walter: As I said, Senator, the National Australia Day Council is a company. It’s an independent company set up under Commonwealth company legislation. It makes its own decisions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand the National Australia Day Council budget for grants has risen from $4½ million in 2025, last year, to $10 million in 2026—a 120 per cent increase, more than double. This covers 849 grants in the amounts of $2,000 and 869 grants of $10,000 for larger events and a special rate for Aboriginal groups of up to $15,000. Are you aware, is this correct and do you condone it?  

Mr Walter: The government absolutely supports the grants process. Funding has been provided over many years for a grants program for the National Australia Day Council. What those grants are used for is to host Australia Day events. That’s the purpose of the grants. They’re provided largely to local government instrumentalities to support their holding of Australia Day functions—functions in support of Australia Day. So, yes, the government does support that program.  

Senator ROBERTS: This funding included funding for smoking ceremonies, truth-telling workshops and cultural performances and multicultural events. Direct National Australia Day Council examples include capital city events like Sydney’s flag-raising with Indigenous flags. Did those flag-raising events include the Australian flag?  

Mr Walter: I’d have to take that on notice. I assume so, but I would have to take it on notice. I didn’t attend the events, but I would presume they did, yes. They’re for Australia Day.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question on this topic before switching briefly. I understand Minister Gorman required the National Australia Day Council to conduct these events—Minister Gorman; that’s my understanding—which he calls reflective. Minister, has the ALP government declared war on our Western heritage and flag? Are you, as a government, ashamed of our heritage?  

Senator Wong: No and no.  

/by

Political Extremism and the Public Purse

,

I raised with Creative Australia the “rumoured” $800,000 grant to Sara M. Saleh. While the CEO, Mr. Collette, could not confirm this specific figure, he did clarify that artist Khaled Sabsabi, whose political views have been a point of contention, has received over $800,000 from the agency over the last 20 years, including his current representation of Australia at the Venice Biennale.

I questioned why a commercial entity like APRA, with record revenues of $740 million, requires $4.3 million in taxpayer-funded grants. This raises the question: should public money subsidise the talent development of a profitable private firm? We must ask if these funds are supporting growth or simply replacing private capital.

I also sought clarity on the accounting for Aboriginal arts programs. It was confirmed that approximately $32.1 million is dedicated to First Nations creative practice out of a total grant pool of $285 million.

Several questions have been put on notice. I will wait for the exact figures on overseas spending, recent grants to Mr. Sabsabi, and the specific KPIs from their annual report to ensure that “investment” isn’t just a buzzword for unchecked spending.

My focus remains on ensuring that government funding serves the Australian public effectively and stays clear of political extremism.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. My first question is on behalf of a constituent, who provided it, actually. It is a fact check on social media reports that Sara M Saleh, a Palestinian Australian writer, activist and human rights lawyer, has received an $800,000 grant from Creative Australia. We can’t find anything on your website, and it’s a larger grant than usual. Do you have any information on this?  

Mr Collette: I don’t have specific information. If you let me speculate for one moment, I think that, if it were a grant of that size, I would be aware of it. But we will have to take that on notice to check it.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please.  

Mr Collette: You have to remember that we give about 3,700 grants and contracts a year.  

Senator ROBERTS: In reviewing your grants, we can see a lot that appear to be for the purpose of sending Australians overseas. My question is not criticism at this point. Please explain how much was spent sending artists or students overseas and what the cost benefit for taxpayers was.  

Mr Collette: I will have to take that on notice and get you the final figure. But, yes, we do invest in programs to send artists overseas. That is done for the best possible reasons: to support their careers and to make sure that great Australian storytelling and music making are experienced overseas. I’d ask you to keep this in mind, particularly in the fields of literature and contemporary music: we are a relatively small English-speaking market competing increasingly against very large English-speaking markets. Since the establishment of Revive, in particular, we’ve doubled down on supporting Australian artists to establish their careers overseas. We are at a particular moment now in contemporary music, for example, where we find that Australians have never listened to more music, because of streaming services, but that the Australian artists they are listening to constitute only about eight per cent of that. So we have a big challenge ahead of us. The way we are working in contemporary music, in particular, is through matched and incentive grants, which I think is a great development in Creative Australia. We have a very strong eye on export. We will co-invest in an artist and a career with a record label with other forms of matched funding that are trying to break this artist overseas.  

Senator ROBERTS: Khaled Sabsabi and his extremist political views have been an issue for Creative Australia. First, he was our Venice Biennale selection, then he wasn’t, then he is again—perhaps—then he had a large grant, then it was a $100,000 ‘sorry’ grant. Can you provide us the latest on Khaled Sabsabi, please? What sort of money is he being given? Is he representing us in any way?  

Mr Collette: He’s representing us, I’m very pleased to say, at the Venice Biennale, which opens in May this year. You’re aware of the history. We recommissioned Khaled Sabsabi as the artist and Michael Dagostino as his curator. We have worked very closely, as we do with all our Venice artists, to support the development of their work.  

Senator ROBERTS: How much money has he received from Creative Australia?  

Mr Collette: All up, we believe he’s received slightly in excess of $800,000 over a 20-year period. That includes his commissions for Venice.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about the last 12 months?  

Mr Collette: In the last 12 months he’s received—I’m trying to get the dates right in my head—his commission for Venice and he’s also applied for, competitively, and received a grant. Actually, more accurately, I think the South Australian gallery did to ensure that the work he does in Venice is able to be brought home so that Australians get to enjoy the work as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: What would that total in the last 12 months?  

Mr Collette: To get you an exact number, I’d have to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. Moving on, I note your continued strong spending on orchestras, theatre and dance. Thank you for that. This question goes to accounting, not to Australian values. You list the Australian Cultural Fund at $13.5 million, which includes several programs for First Nations. Then you have a line item for First Nations of $15.6 million. Is this figure the total spend for dedicated First Nations and Aboriginal arts programs or just an element of it? If not, what was the total spend on Aboriginal grants?  

Mr Collette: We can get you that number. I think the number you are alluding to—the $15 million—under Revive we established a dedicated First Nations fund with its own First Nations board that has decision-making rights over the spending of those funds.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you give money to the board and they disburse it?  

Mr Collette: Yes. We had that fund, and the First Nations board, appointed by the minister, has decision making rights on how that fund is invested. What I’m trying to get for you is the total—I think the total for 2024- 25 invested in First Nation creative practice and arts was $32.1 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: To give the figure context, for those new to the subject, this is out of a total spent on grants of $285 million—correct?  

Mr Collette: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: And about $74 million for orchestras, including regional.  

Mr Collette: As a part of the creative sector, the orchestras constitute our biggest area of funding. That is as part of the National Partnership Framework. Importantly, that is an understanding of co-investment with all the states and territories as well. We fund each of the state orchestras, plus the territory orchestras. We co-invest with the states.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I note that the Australasian Performing Right Association, APRA, has received around $4.3 million in grants in the last three years. APRA had record revenue last year of $740 million, with revenue noticeably outpacing inflation. Isn’t it their job to develop local talent and then benefit from increased Australian airplay and the royalties they collect from their talent? They have a great business model here, it seems. Why are taxpayers funding a commercial operation that should be funding new talent themselves?  

Mr Collette: They do indirectly fund new talent, because their business collects receipts for—  

Senator ROBERTS: So why should you be funding it?  

Mr Collette: Well, the most particular thing we do with APRA is fund Sounds Australia. That is an organisation that we have funded historically, and we chose to continue that funding, even after the establishment of Music Australia, because it is such an effective way of supporting Australian artists to get to and benefit from overseas markets.  

Senator ROBERTS: But can’t the Australasian Performing Right Association—which are a commercial entity, by the sound of it—do it on their own? They’re developing the talent and they’re making money off it.  

Mr Collette: You’ll have to ask them that question.  

Senator ROBERTS: But you’re giving them money, so you—  

Mr Collette: We’re giving them money because we think it is very good value for money, given the expertise they bring to supporting Australian artists to get to overseas markets.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you replacing private funding with government funding?  

Mr Collette: Not at all. In fact, it’s growing, I’m happy to say. To get back to first principles, under Revive, our revised legislation allowed us, really for the first time, to co-invest. That means co-invest with philanthropic interests. It means co-invest with commercial interests. That is why, for example, if we want to invest in Australian artists getting overseas, we can ensure that we are co-investing with commercial interests to try and drive the value of our government funding further.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. There are only a few more quick questions to go. Doesn’t the music industry need more live venues? Have you done any grants in that area?  

Mr Collette: I don’t think we’ve done any grants specifically into live venues, no.  

Senator ROBERTS: You call these grants ‘investments’, yet we don’t see any mention of a return on investment—how Australia benefited from the spend. How many people attended events that you funded? 

Mr Collette: We do have that number. I will get it to you. In the last annual report it was upwards of $14 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question: do you have any performance metrics to ensure that you are spending where the public want it spent, as evidenced by ticket sales, artwork sales—some tangible KPI?  

Mr Collette: Yes, we do. If you look at our annual report, we report against KPIs, and attendance at the events we fund is very much part of that. Again, because of Revive, we will be putting an even greater emphasis on audience and market development going forward.  

Senator ROBERTS: Where can we get that figure?  

Mr Collette: We can get it for you. It is in the annual report last published.  

Senator ROBERTS: Send us that on notice.  

Mr Collette: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. 

/by

Beyond Labor and Liberal

,

Premier Malinauskas is wasting taxpayers’ money in the name of woke politics. The Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital is now costing $3.2 billion, yet it has fewer services than the new Tweed Valley Hospital in NSW, which only cost $720 million — in part owing to its grandiose design over actual function.

More of the Premier’s woke agenda is on display with the hydrogen-powered project designed to make Whyalla a centre of green hydrogen production. The project has now been shut down because green hydrogen is fairytale technology designed to offer the false hope that solar and wind — with hydrogen as a backup — could provide baseload power. That is $580 million wasted.

More “woke” can be found in Premier Malinauskas’s decision to legislate an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament, despite South Australians voting against it in the Voice referendum. Premier Malinauskas has not listened to the voters; in fact, he has treated them with contempt and pushed ahead with his agenda anyway. The $10 million cost of the South Australian Voice over forward estimates is equal parts woke virtue signaling and a bribe for Aboriginal votes.

For too long, the only choice for Australian voters was to alternate between the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties. When one failed, voters selected the other, then switched back again. Now, voters finally have a real option besides the Liberal-Labor uniparty: a One Nation party that’s larger, stronger, and more professional than it has been in any previous election.

We are ready for government. One Nation is not splitting the conservative vote; we’re providing an alternative to the Liberal-Labor uniparty, which has treated South Australia as its personal property for 60 years. Supporting One Nation gives people a real choice. Vote One Nation.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: For too long, the only choice for Australian voters was to alternate their vote between the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties. When one failed, voters selected the other, and then back again. Now, though, finally, voters have a real option besides the Liberal-Labor uniparty: a One Nation party that’s larger, stronger and more professional than it has been in any previous election. We are ready for government. One Nation is not splitting the conservative vote; we’re providing an alternative to the Liberal-Labor uniparty, which has treated South Australia as its personal property for 60 years. Supporting One Nation gives people a real choice. Supporting One Nation is not voting against two parties, Liberal and Labor; it’s voting against one—the uniparty. 

Sixty years of their failure have decimated our standard of living and made all except the government class poorer, less happy and less healthy than they were even just 10 years ago—a loss of wealth that’s even worse for Australians under 35, who are the first generation that will have less than their parents. The median income in South Australia, inflation adjusted, has risen from $1,290 per week in 2022 to just $1,300 this year. In other words, wages have gone nowhere under the Malinauskas Labor government. In that same time, the median rental in South Australia has risen from $480 a week to $630 a week. That’s 10 bucks more a week coming in to pay 150 bucks extra in rent. South Australians are going backwards. Great job, Premier! 

When I came to Canberra 10 years ago, I was told a joke that was more of an observation. The Liberal Party, I was told, run Canberra for the benefit of their wealthy owners. The Labor Party run government for the benefit of union bosses. The Nationals run government for the benefit of themselves, and the Greens can’t govern at all. 

To be clear, there are good union officials and there are good unions that are run for the benefit of their members. The Red Union is a great example of an old-fashioned union that just gets on with the business of looking out for its members. One Nation will have to prise South Australia out of the hands of Labor’s union mafia and woke climate change agenda zealots. 

To illustrate this point, let’s compare the new Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital with the recently completed Tweed Valley Hospital, in New South Wales. Tweed has 430 beds. Adelaide has 410 beds—almost the same. Emergency departments and operating theatres are the same. Maternity services are the same, although Adelaide has 70 parental units. Tweed has oncology, renal, mental health and outpatient physical therapy. Adelaide has none of these. Tweed was built in under five years. Adelaide is two years into a build scheduled to finish in 2031—seven years, hopefully. Tweed Valley Hospital cost $730 million. The Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital is at $3.2 billion, and further increases are expected. 

The Adelaide hospital is larger as a building and more grandiose, despite providing fewer services. At $3.2 billion, the Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital is what happens when woke is combined with political ego. The Malinauskas government has wasted more than a billion dollars of taxpayer money, which keeps CFMEU union bosses happy—stealing from taxpayers. 

More of the Premier’s woke agenda is on display with the hydrogen powered project designed to make Whyalla a centre of green hydrogen production. The project has now been shut down because green hydrogen is fairytale technology designed to offer the false hope that solar and wind with hydrogen as a backup could provide base-load power—$580 million wasted. Only coal, nuclear and hydro can provide cheap, stable base-load power, and that’s exactly what One Nation will build.  

More woke can be found in the decision of Premier Malinauskas to legislate an Aboriginal voice to parliament despite South Australia voting against it in the Voice referendum. Premier Malinauskas has not listened to the voters in the Voice referendum. In fact, he’s treated voters with contempt and pushed ahead with his agenda anyway. That’s the difference between One Nation and the Labor Party. We listen to the people. Labor treats you with contempt. In reality, the $10 million cost of the South Australian Voice over forward estimates is equal parts woke, virtue signalling and a bribe for Aboriginal votes. The Premier has misread the room badly. 

Far from bringing chaos to parliament, as Ashton Hurn and the Liberals said last night, One Nation, if elected in South Australia, will bring honesty and authenticity, just as we have at a federal level now for nine years—a decade—and just as Pauline Hanson has done for 30 years. We will decide policies through the consideration of facts, not feelings. We will be a woke-free government of real people dedicated to doing what’s right for South Australians. I ask South Australian voters to choose a new path this election. Choose One Nation.  

/1 Comment/by

Setting the Record Straight on Indigenous Procurement

,

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.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you very much.

/by

Widespread Late Reporting by Aboriginal Corporations

,

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?  

Ms Stroud: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. 

/1 Comment/by

One Nation Turns Its Back on ‘Welcome to Country’

,

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”.

/6 Comments/by

Voice to Parliament 2.0

,

Labor wants to bring The Voice back from the dead after a majority of Australians outright rejected it in a national referendum.

It’s time to end everything that seeks to divide Australians on the basis of race and be One Nation, together.

/3 Comments/by