Posts

NAAJA Crisis: Leadership Turmoil and Funding Mismanagement Allegations

,

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.

/0 Comments/by

Audit of Aboriginal Spending Is Necessary!

,

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. 

/by

Concerns Mount Over Increasing Aboriginal Land Claims

,

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? 

Question agreed to. 


/2 Comments/by

The Current Native Title System Fails Aboriginals

,

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.


/by

A Thorough Review of the Native Title System is Critical

,

One Nation advocates for a thorough review of the entire native title system and proposes a sunset clause on native title claims. The current situation is out of hand and sidelines the most crucial stakeholders—the Australian people—from any meaningful consultation in these processes.

Currently, over half of Australia is subject to native title claims, yet less than three percent of Australians have had a voice in this matter. The vast majority of us are excluded from participating in the process. 

While state governments, councils, and the Federal Court are involved, they rarely reflect community views because they do not seek our input. This pattern mirrors the lead-up to the Voice referendum, where extensive consultation, funded by taxpayers, occurred solely with Indigenous groups, neglecting the broader Australian population.  It was this approach that contributed significantly to the Voice’s failure, costing taxpayers a staggering $450 million. Native title claims are similarly determined within a closed circle, deliberately excluding the majority of Australians, including those whom the native title system purportedly aims to benefit.

During my visits to remote communities in Cape York and the Northern Territory, a consistent grievance I’ve heard from Aboriginal Australians across these regions is their inability to obtain land title, while unaccountable land councils operate like robber barons, establishing their own fiefdoms. This sentiment was reiterated by Aboriginal elders who sought me out during recent visits to Maryborough and Gympie.

There’s a hidden agenda at play here. The preamble of the Native Title Act is filled with references to United Nations policies and declarations. This raises questions about whether the Act is serving the UN agenda of undermining private land ownership and restricting land use. Unfortunately, local Aboriginals are denied the opportunity to own land outright under native title and hinders their ability to live on, invest in, develop, farm, or leverage it for business loans.

Native title prevents Aboriginals from enjoying the same land use rights as other Australians, prolonging inequality rather than closing the gap. Land ownership on mainland Australia did not exist when the British colonists arrived, nor was there recognition of individual land rights or inheritance. The Mabo decision was based on this distinction.  It was the Labor native title legislation that extended this to mainland Australia — incorrectly. This framework introduces race-based rights, perpetuating racial discrimination in Australia, which contradicts the principles of equality.

The lack of action by Labor, Liberals and Nationals to review and rectify these issues underscores a failure of democratic governance, which should prioritise serving and representing the people, not controlling them.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I move: 

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: 

The Native Title system in Australia is critically flawed and perpetuates discrimination. A new claim has been lodged by the Woppaburra people for exclusive use over an additional 2,249 acres of Great Keppel Island, despite a prior Federal Court ruling extinguishing Native Title over significant portions of the island, with the effect of potentially closing Great Keppel Island to non-Aboriginal Australians. This situation exemplifies why there is urgent need for a thorough overhaul of Native Title laws to prevent misuse and ensure equal treatment for all Australians regardless of race 

I rise to speak about the racial divisions that continue to be perpetrated by the Liberal-Labor uniparty and their toxic native title system. One Nation ‘s candidate for the Queensland seat of Keppel, James Ashby, is doing a wonderful job holding the Miles Labor government accountable for its failure to meet $30 million worth of commitments to Great Keppel Island. Further, James Ashby deserves credit for exposing the latest native title claim on the island on the weekend. This claim, if successful, would mean that 84 per cent of Great Keppel Island would be excluded from non-indigenous Australians. One of the jewels of Central Queensland and an Australian tourism icon could effectively be closed off for all time from the Australian people, from local businesses and from international visitors. 

This isn’t the first time an Indigenous group has tried to close off Great Keppel Island from the rest of us by using a divisive native title claim. In 2021 the Federal Court denied a native title claim over the Great Keppel Island leases held by Tower Holdings because of pre-existing infrastructure of commercial value. One Nation calls on this latest claim to be thrown out, too, and for the Miles Labor government to honour its $30 million promise to clean up and restore Great Keppel Island. Yet we must go much further than that. We’re calling for a comprehensive review of the entire native title system and a sunset clause on native title claims, because it’s getting out of hand and it’s excluding from any consultation on these processes the most important stakeholders of all: the Australian people. 

More than 50 per cent of Australia is now under native title claim, yet fewer than three per cent of Australians have had any say in it. The rest of us are excluded from the process. While state governments, councils and the Federal Court get a say, they almost never represent community views, because they don’t ask us for our views. We’re not asked, because they don’t want to hear our views. This is what happened in the lead-up to the Voice referendum. There was a lot of consultation, costing a lot of taxpayer money, but only with Indigenous groups. There was none for the rest of Australia. It’s one of the main reasons it was such a spectacular $450 million failure, a flop. Consultation was undertaken in an echo chamber where dissent was absent, where dissent was chastised, where dissent was suppressed. Native title claims are resolved in this sort of bubble as well—a bubble from which most Australians are always excluded, deliberately. Even those people who are specifically intended to benefit from native title are excluded from those benefits. 

I often visit remote communities in Cape York and the Northern Territory, and the No. 1 complaint from Aboriginal Australians right across Cape York and the communities I visited in the Northern Territory is the inability of Aboriginals to get land title while unaccountable land councils act as robber barons building fiefdoms. This was expressed to me again by Aboriginal elders who’d heard I was visiting Maryborough and Gympie last week and came to see me and attended a forum I hosted. There’s another agenda going on in the background. The Native Title Act’s preamble is littered with references to the United Nations policy and declarations. Why is this so? It fits with the UN agenda of attacking private land ownership and locking the land away from use. Unfortunately for local Aboriginals, they’re denied the opportunity of actually owning their piece of Australia by buying it to live on, to invest, to build, to develop, to farm or to use as collateral for a business loan to set up a business. 

Native title holds Aboriginals back from doing what all other Australians can do with land. It works to maintain the gap, not close it. When British colonists arrived there was no form of landownership on the mainland. There was no recognition of individual landownership, security or passing the land onto heirs. Land title existed only in limited form, in some Torres Strait Islands. The Mabo decision was based on this distinction. It was the Labor native title legislation that extended this to the mainland of Australia—incorrectly. Native title perpetuates racial discrimination in Australia by creating rights based on race. This is wrong and must be reversed. The whole concept is consistent with Labor’s policy of waste and arrogance and disdain for Aboriginals and all Australians as part of a global agenda. 

Labor is one part of the uniparty. The Liberals and Nationals have done nothing to review this act to fix things for all Australians. Democratic government is supposed to work for the people and serve the people. Instead, in recent decades the uniparty governments have worked to control the people. They push a global agenda to control people and steal property and transfer wealth to the party’s corporate globalist masters. We need a comprehensive review of native title urgently so that we can get back to helping Aboriginals get some land. 

/10 Comments/by

Billions Spent and “Closing the Gap” Remains. Why?

,

At the recent Senate Estimates, I asked Senator McCarthy about her knowledge of the extensive achievements of Indigenous peoples, to which she affirmed her awareness. However, she was unable to explain why the gap remained despite the billions of dollars being spent to achieve this. Senator McCarthy declined to commit to an audit, despite it being evident that the numerous Indigenous agencies were the cause not the solution to the issue.

Senator McCarthy showed no interest in discussing the substantial funds spent by the NIAA in contracts that seemed to make some individuals wealthy yet did not assist in closing the gap efforts. Once more, I called for a proper and thorough audit and review of the massive spending that failed to improve the quality of life for Aboriginal communities.

I reiterated the necessity for funds to be directly paid to communities, bypassing agencies that have essentially become part of the Aboriginal industry, draining much needed resources from Aboriginal communities.

Transcript | Session 1

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you agree with the reality that Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are hugely talented? They are top in NRL, AFL, arts, business, science and sports; and, in politics, there is a higher proportion of Aboriginals in federal parliament than across Australia.

Senator McCarthy: I do.

Senator ROBERTS: I thought you would; I was hoping you would. I have driven to all Cape York communities twice, and some three times. I’ve flown or boated into Torres Strait Island communities. Minister, do you agree that people in communities care for each other?

Senator McCarthy: I do. Chair, could I ask about the relevance of this to the budget questioning?

Senator ROBERTS: I am getting to that now. Thank you, Minister. An overwhelming majority of Australians in every jurisdiction, except this Australian Capital Territory ivory tower, disconnected as it is from Australians, voted in the Voice referendum that Aboriginals and islanders already have plenty of voices, in addition to the voices of the fine Aboriginal senators in this room. I note that all of them are women.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I am struggling to identify the relevance of this question to estimates.

Senator ROBERTS: Aboriginals and islanders have many other voices. Minister, these include registered Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations, 3,521, including 243 native title bodies; 12,966 charities and not-for-profit commissions providing aid to Aboriginals; land councils, 48, not including state land councils; regional councils, 35; Aboriginal—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you will need to come to a question because you have gone through so much information and opinion that it will be impossible to discern what the question is. Refrain from making a lengthy statement with excessive commentary, and try and put your question. Thank you, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, can you consider the possibility that this morass of bodies, often with overlapping, disjointed responsibility, is part of the core problem, not the solution?

Senator McCarthy: No, I don’t, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: I hope you agree that patronising paternalism and top-down approaches fail to get buy-in of people on the ground, Minister. Isn’t that why such approaches fail, top-down?

Senator McCarthy: I will say that your question is quite patronising and top-down, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Failing to get buy-in, top-down approaches fail to get accountability. Is that correct?

Senator McCarthy: I’ve answered your question. Your questions are very patronising. There is no question here that is related to the budget, Chair.

Senator ROBERTS: The Closing the Gap annual report is very clear. There is the total failure in closing the gap, with only four of 17 targets being met, or goals achieved, and some actually worsening. I’m sure you would acknowledge that symbolic gestures and overreach promises have not achieved better outcomes for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders.

Senator McCarthy: I reject the assertion that symbolism is not important, Senator Roberts. I come from a very strong people, of the Yanyuwa Garrwa people. We’re enormously proud not only of our language but of our history and our current status as artists, dancers and singers. In fact, we have the Malandarri Festival coming up. We celebrate culture and symbolism every day, every year; so I reject your question.

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps I didn’t explain my question clearly enough.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I couldn’t discern a question, apart from the commentary in it. Please come to your question.

Senator ROBERTS: My question was about acknowledging that symbolic gestures are not closing the gap. When I have travelled across communities in Far North Queensland and in the Northern Territory, listening to local Aboriginal people, I found that they know the solution. I was told that there are many people who relied on keeping the gap wide because those people were working the system and their livelihood depended on the ongoing failure of Closing the Gap programs. I recall a Badu Island councillor—I might have told you this before, Minister—who told us that the Closing the Gap campaign ensures that money continues to go into the pockets of consultants, activists, lawyers, bureaucrats, contractors, politicians, academics and advocates, rorting the system of Aboriginal welfare grants and programs to entrench the gap. This hurts the people in the communities. That’s my real concern here—the people in the communities. The Aboriginal industry depends on the gap being maintained, not closed. Minister, are you aware of this?

Senator McCarthy: Senator Roberts, I will say this to you: the whole point behind Closing the Gap is so that the Australian parliament and the Australian community can be aware of the discrepancies between the life expectancy of First Nations people and non-Indigenous Australians, and the unemployment gap, the education gap and the employment gap. That is the whole point of Closing the Gap. There are many levels and many layers of that. The important one that you are a part of is the institution that you are sitting in right now, and that is to hold to account whether Closing the Gap is working or not and whether the gaps can be filled in different ways. Your representation of Queensland as a senator is part of that. Your questions in this Senate estimates hearing to the relevant departments are absolutely critical. I reject outright that Closing the Gap in itself, in terms of our work with the peak organisations, is irrelevant. It is very relevant. It is an imperfect structure, but it is one that is trying to do its best in terms of trying to improve the lives of First Nations people in our country in a collective and transparent way, and it is one that is held highly by this institution called the Australian parliament.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I treat my constituents the same, regardless of their background. I listen to them. Many people of Aboriginal descent are telling me that the system is failing; that the Closing the Gap system, the morass of agencies, is actually hindering the closing of the gap.

Senator McCarthy: Senator, you are here at Senate estimates to ask those very agencies those very questions. You may have an opinion dedicated—

Senator ROBERTS: No, it’s not my opinion; I’m telling you my constituents’ opinions.

Senator McCarthy: You may have a view as a result of your constituents, but your question as to what is happening can go directly to an agency. What is the question that constituent is asking you to ask?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this government has continually refused to authorise an audit of government spending in this sector. The morass of agencies is doing more damage than—

Senator McCarthy: So those are the words of your constituent: the ‘morass’ and the ‘damage’?

Senator ROBERTS: What is being hidden? Why won’t you conduct an audit of these agencies to help the people in the communities?

Senator McCarthy: We have the Australian National Audit Office. In this institution, high levels of audits are constantly taking place. This Senate estimates process, whether you understand it or not, is another form, and a very important form, of transparency and accountability. You have every agency before you. The minister is trying not to speak to enable you the opportunity to directly ask the questions of the agencies. You have the power to represent your constituency and, Senator Roberts, in the couple of minutes in which you are asking these questions, you are failing to do that.

Senator ROBERTS: That may be your opinion, Minister. Let me tell you that in my questioning of the Australian National Audit Office, they don’t do specific audits; they do overall audits of processes, and that’s it.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, come to your question.

Senator ROBERTS: I am just answering the minister. Will this government accept the recommendations of the Productivity Commission to move away from bureaucracy at a high level; in other words, from making uninformed decisions from an ivory tower, and do an audit?

Senator McCarthy: It depends on the Productivity Commission report you are referring to, Senator Roberts. The Productivity Commission is there to give advice on how processes occur. The most recent productivity commission that I recall was on a First Nations area and collaboration, and the voices of First Nations people that need to be heard. The Australian people rejected that at the referendum. We have to ensure that the status quo is better.

Senator ROBERTS: When will this group accept the advice from grassroots Indigenous groups such as Western Australia’s Empowered Communities and its chair Mr Ian Trust as to what works and what does not work based on real life experiences and successes? When will it get away from the top-down, patronising, paternalistic approach of so many agencies and get down to what people need?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you are putting lengthy statements and commentary into questions.

Senator ROBERTS: When will you start addressing the needs of people in the communities?

Senator McCarthy: Senator Roberts, you said as much in your preamble. You have a responsibility to ask questions of the agencies here—

Senator ROBERTS: And the government.

Senator McCarthy: And the government. You used the example of an individual from far Western Australia, but you didn’t state the purpose behind what they raised. Senator, if you really wanted to improve the lives of First Nations people you would ask questions diligently, and you would do so with the agencies that are relevant to that question.

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: I have faith; why doesn’t the government have faith in Aboriginal—

Transcript | Session 2

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. How much money did the NIAA spend on the doomed voice referendum?

Dr Gordon: Good afternoon, Senator Roberts, I don’t have that exact figure with me, but we’ll be able to get that quickly this afternoon to you.

Senator ROBERTS: If not, I’ll put it on notice. What difference would that money have made if provided directly to local Aboriginal communities to spend on their decisions and actually make a difference?

Ms Guivarra: Senator, although we don’t have the figures with us, you may be aware from previous testimony at other hearings that the majority of the expenditure on the referendum was actually with the Australian Electoral Commission. NIAA received a very small proportion of funding for issues associated with the referendum working group meetings and a civics and awareness campaign. Really, as I said, it was a very small proportion of the overall expenditure on the referendum.

Senator ROBERTS: My concerns are not only with the amount of money spent but with the effectiveness of it. That’s why I asked the question about whether it would be better spent with the communities. Let’s continue. Looking at NIAA figures obtained through freedom of information—seeking moneys that NIAA spent—why are such large amounts provided to particular contractors? Barpa Construction Services has received almost $613 million.

Ms Guivarra: Senator, are you referring to overall expenditure under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, not related to the referendum?

Senator ROBERTS: No, overall money that NIAA has spent. I think the previous man said something like 1,200 grants or 2,000 grants.

Mr Dexter: Senator, I think you might be referring to some information that was released under FOI to do with the Indigenous Procurement Policy over the last several months. The Indigenous Procurement Policy is a whole-of-Commonwealth policy that provides preferential procurement practices for registered Indigenous businesses. Barpa Construction did ring a bell with me as one of the businesses that were released as receiving a certain amount of money.

Senator ROBERTS: $613 million, I’m told.

Mr Dexter: I believe that was an amount that Barpa has received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy, which is not necessarily—in fact it’s Indigenous Advancement Strategy money. It’s a collection. The Indigenous Procurement Policy and the reporting under it is a collection of all of the contracts that organisation has received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know what they were paid for? If it’s outside your accountability, that’s fine.

Mr Dexter: No, Senator, I wouldn’t know. That that would need to be directed to the agency that engaged them.

Senator ROBERTS: What about Evolve FM Proprietary Limited, which received almost $497 million?

Mr Dexter: That would be in the same category, Senator. There were a number of FOI requests that were made recently which were asking for the aggregate amounts that Indigenous businesses had received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy over the life of the policy. The Indigenous Procurement Policy is a policy that’s been in place since 2015. It’s resulted in about $9.5 billion going to Indigenous businesses over that period of time. I think one of the questions that we got under the FOI was: ‘What are the top 100 businesses that have received money through that policy?’ Evolve and Barpa were both on that list.

Senator ROBERTS: What about PricewaterhouseCoopers, disgraced consultants, who’ve received almost $50 million?

Mr Dexter: I’d need to check, Senator, but I would hazard a guess that it was not PricewaterhouseCoopers itself but rather PwC’s Indigenous Consulting, which is a separate entity.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you check on both those items, please.

Mr Dexter: I’d be happy to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What was the total amount of NIAA money spent over the eight-year period to companies providing contract services?

Ms Guivarra: We’ll have to get some other colleagues up for that, Senator.

Ms Broun: Senator, could you repeat that question?

Senator ROBERTS: What was the total amount that NIAA spent over that eight-year period to companies providing contract services? That’s the eight years to January 2024.

Ms Jackson: I don’t know if we’ve got the eight-year amounts with us. We’d have the last couple of years, which we can go into if you like, but otherwise we can take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Take it on notice, thank you. Presumably it’s several millions of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars. With that kind of money and other moneys being injected into Aboriginal wellbeing, why is the gap not being closed?

Ms Broun: Senator, clearly the evidence is that there are gaps in outcomes for First Nations people. Closing the Gap is designed and has been designed with our partners, particularly the Coalition of Peaks but all states and territories, to address those gaps. I’m a bit confused by your question in terms of ‘there’s some spending here, so that would have changed the outcomes over there’, because obviously there are different outcomes depending on different areas of government as well. I’d like to be a bit more specific about your question.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned that there’s a huge amount of money being spent, and it’s going through agencies, but it’s not closing the gap. Why isn’t it closing the gap?

Ms Guivarra: Senator, the majority of your questions are related to what we’ve done under the Indigenous Procurement Policy. The original intention of the Indigenous Procurement Policy obviously was to support Indigenous businesses, because we know that in fact Indigenous businesses also have a higher employment rate for Indigenous people as well, First Nations people. As Mr Dexter has said, we’ve had a lot of success with that—over 65,000 contracts with a total value of $9.5 billion worth of business going to First Nations businesses as a result of that Indigenous Procurement Policy.

Ms Broun: You may be aware that in fact the assistant minister launched a review of the Indigenous Procurement Policy back in December. We opened up a consultation process for that review. It closed, I think, around March of this year. We’re going to take the learnings from all of that and see what further improvements we can make to continue what, I think, has been a success story just in relation to the generation of Indigenous business and creation of Indigenous employment.

CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re telling me there’s been a review of money given to Indigenous businesses. What I would like to know is: is there a review being conducted, or any idea of a review to be conducted, on spending of all kinds? Could that money instead be going directly to the communities to develop accountability and autonomy? Communities are screaming out for autonomy.

Ms Guivarra: Senator, as I indicated, in fact this review and consultation was really to see how we can further strengthen the Indigenous Procurement Policy because, as I mentioned, it has been very successful in awarding business to First Nations businesses and creating employment opportunities for First Nations people.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I acknowledged that and said: can you extend it to a review of all spending? And specifically can you send the money directly to the communities and bypass the agencies?

Ms Guivarra: The money associated with the Indigenous Procurement Policy is basically services contracted across all of government. Then it’s for each agency to decide whether they’re seeking to procure services from businesses, including First Nations businesses. The Indigenous Procurement Policy has a mandatory set-aside for First Nations businesses as part of that policy, which applies across government agencies. There has been interest in the community more broadly about what can be done to further to enhance that particular policy, and that’s the purpose of the review.

CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I acknowledged that twice. But what I’d like to know is: is there any consideration being given to reviewing expenditure across NIAA, not just on procurement?

Ms Broun: Senator, obviously spending on Indigenous outcomes—and this is why we have cross-portfolio here—cuts across all of government to deliver outcomes in specific portfolio areas and specific policy areas. In NIAA we have the IAS, a large part of which has been employment services. Another part is ranger services. To your point, that goes particularly to communities on the ground, so it is focused on those sorts of things. Then there are a whole range of other programs that are supplementary to mainstream funding. But these are services that citizens are entitled to. It depends how you quantify the spending, but the different programs are there to deliver different outcomes for Indigenous people. We could go into the programs that are specifically designed with community and go directly to community, because there are a lot of those sorts of programs as well. They’re not all being delivered through departments, but on the ground as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. We’ll continue this in the future.

/by