6.1
The Our North, Our Future: White Paper on Developing Northern Australia (White Paper) clearly stated that 'developing the north will need to be in full partnership with Indigenous Australians, with a focus on creating opportunities through education, job creation and economic development'. The necessity of this partnership is made clear when one considers that First Nations land tenure comprises a vast proportion of the Northern Australia landmass, including 66 per cent of north Queensland, 80 per cent of the Northern Territory and 94 per cent of northern Western Australia. Further, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people make up approximately 15 per cent of the population in Northern Australia and over 25 per cent of the population in the Northern Territory.
6.2
Any assessment of the effectiveness of the Australian Government's Northern Australia agenda must therefore necessarily examine the economic and social benefits which have arisen from investment in Northern Australia, particularly for First Nations people. This chapter examines the evidence received in relation to these social and economic benefits, and areas for improvement in policy and engagement. A discussion of First Nations peoples' economic engagement with the renewable energy sector is discussed in Chapter 8.
6.3
Additionally, the committee made recommendations in its interim report in this area, specifically:
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider converting part of the NAIF to a combination of small grants, equity stakes and guarantees, supported by rigorous guidelines including caps on funding and business size, to ensure that small scale projects and First Nations projects are adequately supported.
Recommendation 4
The committee recommends that the NAIF further develop linkages with other government programs and funds that are available for building capacity among proponents of small or First Nations led projects to meet NAIF's administrative requirements, including funds to support early explorative work and feasibility studies.
Recommendation 5
The committee recommends that the Australian Government require project proponents to produce and publish a local procurement and employment strategy in line with and in addition to the Indigenous Engagement Strategy.
6.4
At the time of writing, the government is yet to respond to the interim report. The committee again encourages the government to prioritise the implementation of these recommendations.
White Paper
6.5
The White Paper noted that secure land rights underpin investment and development. In the White Paper, the Australian Government made a commitment to work with First Nations communities, business and northern jurisdictions to simplify and modernise land arrangements in the north. It stated that this would create more certainty for investors, and increase the value of land.
6.6
The White Paper noted that native title and First Nations land holding is of particular importance to Northern Australia as the majority of determinations and current native title claimant applications are in Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland.
6.7
The White Paper stated that land in Northern Australia has the potential to support greater and more diverse economic activity. It noted however that some of the rules governing land use in the north adversely affect economic development and discourage investment. For example, the complexity of land arrangements has slowed development to date.
6.8
The White Paper highlighted that First Nations groups, business and communities have generally recognised the need for reform; and argued that the White Paper's 20-year vision provides the clear policy direction needed for sustained reform.
6.9
It was acknowledged that land is of fundamental importance to First Nations Australians for cultural, social and economic purposes. However, The White Paper stated that in many cases, Indigenous Australians do not have the same opportunities as other Australians to leverage their land assets to generate wealth. In the White Paper, the Australian Government made a commitment to reform native title to ensure that native title holders and Indigenous businesses and communities should have this opportunity.
6.10
The White Paper stated that there is strong support in Northern Australia to try new ways of using land to promote economic opportunity. This would increase the value of land for all — through the creation of a native title regime that has a greater focus on economic opportunity for First Nations Australians; increasing individual property rights in township areas for willing First Nations communities; and developing pastoral leasehold into a simpler and broader form of tenure.
6.11
The White Paper established 10 actions related to land use and First Nations people in Northern Australia. These were, as follows:
$10.6 million to support pilot reforms that broaden economic activity on land and demonstrate the benefits of reform to investors, Indigenous Australians and other stakeholders.
Supporting the native title system (with funding of approximately $110 million a year over four years) with the aspiration of finalising all existing native title claims within a decade.
More efficient native title processes that create more certainty for investors and opportunities for native title claimants and holders (through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Indigenous land review).
$20.4 million to better support native title holders engage with potential investors.
Consult on options to use exclusive native title rights for commercial purposes (through the COAG Indigenous land review).
$17 million to support freehold/99 year leases for willing Indigenous communities, including rolling out more township leases in the Northern Territory and finalising cadastral surveys and area mapping across the north.
Consult on new models to manage native title funds for development.
More business friendly information on the different land tenure arrangements to increase the appeal of investing in the north.
Pursue a set of principles and actions to improve the security, bankability and efficiency of pastoral land.
6.12
On 19 August 2020, the Australian Government provided an update on these measures, stating that they are now regarded as 'delivered' and 'on track'. As noted in chapter 2, the basis for 'delivery' of these factors is based on announced funding, ongoing commitments and continuing works in most cases, as opposed to the actual finalisation of works and confirmation that actual goals have been achieved. As is discussed below, there is clearly work that remains incomplete in this area.
Government policies and investment
6.13
Since the release of the White Paper, the Australian Government has developed a range of policy initiatives and made investments in programs to support First Nations entrepreneurship and businesses, many of which are based on First Nations land tenure and native title arrangements.
6.14
The Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (DISER) submitted that the inclusion of First Nations Australians in the Northern Australia agenda is critical in maximising the full potential of the region. As such, supporting First Nations entrepreneurs and businesses is a priority for the Australian Government, and opportunities are being made available for First Nations Australians to benefit economically from their land.
6.15
DISER noted that pilot reform programs for land tenure are now operating across Northern Australia to support innovative changes to land use arrangements and to simplify and boost investment on First Nations land. It submitted that 'the National Native Title Council is also preparing case studies of the development of Indigenous land-related resources, and developing a Prescribed Body Corporates curriculum and training'.
6.16
DISER noted that township leasing is helping to provide a strong foundation for increased economic activity and inter-generational wealth in towns on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. Township leasing establishes a head lease over the whole community, which encourages local decision-making, streamlined land administration and decision making in commercial timeframes. DISER noted that a number of communities in the Northern Territory have negotiated township leases and are seeing the benefits of economic activity. For example, Mutitjulu in Central Australia, Pirlangimpi on the Tiwi Islands, the Binjari housing lease near Katherine and in Gunyangara in northeast Arnhem Land. It should be noted that these leases are 'community-entity township leases' held by Indigenous-controlled entities, as opposed to previous models of township leasing where leases were held by the Commonwealth and had been strongly critiqued by Indigenous stakeholders. DISER submitted that lease negotiations are occurring at Jabiru in Kakadu National Park and at Yarralin in the Victoria Daly region of the Northern Territory.
6.17
DISER submitted that the Australian Trade and Investment Commission has also developed business friendly, investor focused online guides to land tenure and native title systems in Northern Australia.
6.18
The clean, pest and disease free status of Australia is described by DISER as 'one of the nation's greatest assets and gives the north a competitive edge in a global market where quality and safety is highly valued'. In recognition of this, the Australian Government invested $200 million into biosecurity across Australia through the Northern Australia Biosecurity Framework. This investment included $12.4 million provided to expand biosecurity activities by First Nations ranger groups in Northern Australia. Sixty-nine skilled ranger groups are now playing a biosecurity role, with many located along northern coastlines in very remote areas.
6.19
DISER also noted that the Northern Australia Indigenous Development Accord, an intergovernmental agreement focused on progressing First Nations economic development in Northern Australia, was launched at the Ministerial Forum on Northern Development in December 2019.
6.20
The Accord sets out the commitment of governments to strengthen First Nations economic participation and the mechanisms for jurisdictions and the Commonwealth, led by the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), to continue to work together to progress the Indigenous Reference Group's recommendations. One of the joint activities in the Accord is expanding fee-for-service opportunities for First Nations ranger groups across the north. At the time of writing, there is yet to be a progress update on the Accord's outcomes.
6.21
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and Austrade submitted that they are advocates of the Indigenous Procurement Policy and strive to build long-term strategic commercial partnerships with First Nations businesses to build capacity in both Australia and overseas. It was noted that DFAT (as at July 2019) had awarded over 530 contracts to First Nations-owned businesses with a total-value of over $41.5 million, with a significant portion of these businesses located in Northern Australia.
6.22
DFAT and Austrade also submitted that DFAT is advocating for greater participation by First Nations businesses within the Australian aid program, as subcontractors. DFAT noted that it launched an online market place, AusConnect, to link suppliers with opportunities to engage more broadly. DFAT stated:
DFAT prime contract holders are now required to list all subcontracting opportunities on the portal. This requirement extends to all suppliers in the supply chain. Austrade is implementing its Indigenous International Business Strategy, aiming to assist more Indigenous owned businesses succeed internationally.
6.23
However, witnesses raised the need for improved coordination of government programs and services, as there is ongoing duplication in this area. Mr Napau Pedro Stephen, Chairperson, Torres Strait Regional Authority, stated that identifying duplication in different structures was a key focus for the Authority. Ms Melinda Eades, Executive Officer, Torres Cape Indigenous Council Alliance expanded on this point, outlining how such duplication of funding and services impacted on-the-ground organisations:
Both the Commonwealth and the state have various programs that are seeking to better deliver services on the ground … A lot of the money that is going to those organisations to deliver services into communities doesn't hit the ground. There are huge amounts of duplication because a lot of those programs are funded in isolation. There's not a lot of conversation and collaboration between those organisations because they're all in a competitive process as well for that funding. As a consequence, it's the communities that continue to miss out.
Leveraging economic opportunities from land
6.24
The Committee heard evidence of the challenges facing First Nations communities seeking to leverage economic benefit from their rights and interests in land.
6.25
Thirteen legislative acts govern land use in the north:
Australian Government: Native Title Act 1993, Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976;
Northern Territory: Pastoral Land Act 2011, Associations Act 2012, Crown Lands Act 1992, Special Purposes Lease Act 1953;
Queensland: Land Act 1994, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Holding Act 2013, Land Act 1994, Aboriginal Land Act 1991, Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991;
Western Australia: Land Administration Act 1997, The Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority Act 1972.
6.26
First Nations communities hold a diverse array of rights and interests in land under these frameworks.
6.27
In their submission, Professor Altman and Dr Markham identify three primary types of Indigenous land tenure in Northern Australia: land rights and native title exclusive and non-exclusive possession. They note:
As a general rule property rights are most clearly defined and strongest in the first, land rights, especially in the Northern Territory where traditional owners are afforded free, prior and informed consent rights. Property rights are weaker in land where native title has been determined exclusive and weaker again in areas of non-exclusive or shared native title rights.
6.28
The Cooperative Research Centre for Developing Northern Australia (CRCNA) provided an overview of the key challenges in managing Indigenous lNS. It submitted that these challenges are:
Past development priorities have often been misaligned to Traditional Owner aspirations and interests.
Broad scale mapping of soils and water resources in Indigenous lands is mostly too coarse to inform selection or design and commercial interests of individual developments based on soil quality.
Limited efforts in enabling Indigenous workforce participation and economic activity results in labour and other input being sourced from outside the region.
A low awareness of economic opportunities arises from Traditional Owners only recently restoring their rights and interests in land and sea country and a lack of long term support for country-based planning.
Communal ownership of land can complicate and prolong decision-making for large projects.
North Australian governments vary in the extent to which they have recognised or supported Indigenous-led development and the ownership of conservation areas. Further, there is a Traditional Owner expectation that these areas will continue to be used at varying levels of intensity for Indigenous-led management and research services, commercial tourism and other opportunities.
There is a high cost to scale operations and the variability of favourable development opportunities across the Indigenous estate increases the costs of infrastructure to support development or to maintain a dispersed operation.
Capital raising opportunities are hard for Indigenous landholders to secure because of complexities in land and sea tenure arrangements.
Public investment in infrastructure is needed to foster opportunity and encourage meaningful development.
6.29
Several stakeholders noted the challenge of limited resourcing provided to the Aboriginal organisations that manage interests in land, including Land Councils and Registered Native Title Body Corporates (RNTBCs).
6.30
Professor Altman and Dr Markham noted that the given the large amount of Northern Australia covered by First Nations land interests, 'there is a critical and growing role for Land Councils, Native Title Representative Bodies and Prescribed Bodies Corporate in representing landowners in dealings with often powerful corporate and state interests.'
6.31
The Torres Cape Indigenous Council Alliance submitted that the limited organisational capacity and resourcing of many RNTBCs can lead to a loss of investor confidence, as well as drawn out and complex negotiations which may impact on the viability of projects. The Torres Cape Indigenous Council Alliance further noted the provision of ongoing support to build the capacity and resourcing of RNTBCs is critical if the aim of tenure resolution is to deliver equitable economic, social and cultural benefits to communities.
6.32
Other stakeholders raised the absence of knowledge about natural resources and commercial potential of land and water assets as barriers to First Nations communities leveraging economic benefits from their land.
6.33
To address this issue, the Indigenous Reference Group to the Ministerial Forum on Northern Development (IRG) recommended the provision of technical support for First Nations communities to collect data about land and water resources and map it to inform regulatory decision-making and identify opportunities for economic development.
First Nations land tenure
6.34
The committee heard divergent views about whether current forms of First Nations land tenure were in themselves a barrier to economic and social development in Northern Australia.
6.35
Regional Development Australia Far North Queensland and Torres Strait (RDAFNQTS) argued that 'land tenure is a significant impediment to opening up First Nations opportunities'. The RDAFNQTS recommended 'a mechanism to allow freehold tenure for First Nations people who chose to live and work on their traditional lands'.
6.36
The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies (AMEC) supported reform of the native title system to increase the 'clarity, certainty, efficiency and effectiveness of native title processes'. AMEC submitted that these reforms should support a reduction in delays and costs for stakeholders, and 'ensure fair, equitable and quality negotiated outcomes and benefits for governments, industry and Aboriginal Australians'.
6.37
In the Northern Territory context, AMEC also called for a review of the operation of Part IV of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (ALRA). AMEC submitted that the ALRA 'currently provides Indigenous people with a right to veto for five years'. They argue this 'is a dis-incentive to AMEC member companies wanting to undertake mineral exploration and subsequent mining activities in the Northern Territory'.
6.38
The IRG submitted broadly that efforts must be made to improve the land tenure system to facilitate opportunities for economic development. It noted that 'after centuries of dispossession and limited inter-generational wealth transfer that is the result of oppressive and discriminatory policy, relatively recently recognised legal rights to land is often the only significant assets that Indigenous communities have'.
6.39
The IRG identified 'the typically weak and/or inflexible nature of Indigenous tenure, absence of knowledge as to natural resources and commercial potential of land' and recommended that the security of tenure and the fungibility of Indigenous lands and waters, and capacity building be a policy priority.
Indigenous land tenure is not a barrier
6.40
The characterisation of Indigenous land tenure as a barrier to economic development was strongly opposed by some submitters, particularly by First Nations submitters. The Indigenous Business Australia (IBA) told the committee that 'whilst the nature of tenure of the Indigenous estate can vary from jurisdiction, this should not be considered a barrier to realising the economic development aspirations of Northern Australia'. As an example, IBA noted that its business solutions, investments, asset management and housing solutions programs are carried out across Northern Australia, irrespective of the underlying land tenure arrangements.
6.41
Similarly, Ms Marion Scrymgour, Chief Executive Officer, Northern Land Council, stated:
Aboriginal land tenure and culture should not be considered as a barrier or blockage or seen as red tape—or black tape—but as providing integrity, strengths and opportunities.
6.42
The IBA was of the view that the White Paper 'places an overemphasis on Indigenous land reform, when there is already capacity for such land to be used for economic development purposes'. It explained
For example, whilst Aboriginal land pursuant to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 provides communal title to Traditional Owners in the form of Aboriginal freehold held by Land Trusts, this has not hindered substantial investment or the grant of long-term interests. Long-term leases for commercial stores, tourism ventures, schools, private business etc. operate successfully on Indigenous land, regardless of the inalienable nature of the underlying title (and indeed many millions of dollars have been invested in oil and gas and mining ventures on Indigenous land both in Northern Australia and elsewhere in Australia).
6.43
This was echoed by Dr Kamaljit Sangha and Professor Jeremy Russell-Smith (Sangha and Russell-Smith) who submitted that the White Paper 'perpetuates the "myth of Indigenous interests as barriers to sustainable northern development"'.
6.44
Other submitters argued that—far from posing a barrier to development—First Nations property rights should be strengthened across Northern Australia. Professor Jon Altman and Dr Francis Markham noted that First Nations landowners currently enjoy differential property rights, ranging from the 'free prior informed consent rights' enjoyed under Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 to far weaker rights of consultation afforded to those with a non-exclusive native title determination.
6.45
In their submission, Professor Altman and Dr Markham note '[i]t is likely that there will be growing political pressure from Indigenous stakeholders for property rights to be strengthened'. They recommend that a minimum standard of 'free prior and informed consent' be adopted consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and that additional resources be earmarked to enhance the capacity of First Nations mediating institutions.
First Nations poverty in Northern Australia
6.46
While the housing and health needs of First Nations peoples are discussed in chapter 5 (social infrastructure), this section considers the impacts of poverty outside of these areas. While the issues are, of course, profoundly interrelated, for clarity housing and health infrastructure will be considered with social infrastructure.
6.47
Regarding the impact of poverty on First Nations communities, the committee received evidence that 'despite any attempts to facilitate private and public investment in infrastructure and economic development in Northern Australia, the situation for Indigenous people has deteriorated' between 2014–2019. Professor Jon Altman and Dr Francis Markham (Altman and Markham) explained:
…there is clear evidence that Indigenous poverty rates by Northern jurisdictions, be it the Northern Territory as a whole or very remote Australia that is primarily in the north have increased both in absolute and relative (to non-Indigenous people and non-remote Indigenous people).
6.48
Altman and Markham went on to explain that 'arguably investments made under the Australian government's Northern Australia agenda might not yet be apparent'. However, there is no evidence to suggest that any of mainstream employment or major project development in the north would have changed this situation of increased poverty'.
6.49
The Regional Implementation Committee (RIC), a Pilbara based forum established in 2016 made up of representatives from eight Pilbara Traditional Owner groups and Rio Tinto similarly outlined the findings of Professor John Taylor who was commissioned to undertake an analysis of social indicators for Pilbara Aboriginal people. The RIC stated that in 2017 it commissioned Professor Taylor to:
…conduct an analysis of change in social indicators for Pilbara Aboriginal people from 2001 - 2016, around health; education, employment and training; participation in regional labour markets; housing; and crime and justice.
6.50
The RIC submitted that this study found that while some aspects of the lives of Pilbara Aboriginal people improved, 'in many respects, outcomes are worse now than they were before the mining boom'. The RIC stated:
As representatives of eight Traditional Owner groups in the Pilbara, we feel that this failure to 'raise all boats' on the back of massive government and private sector investment in our region is an indication that current systems of engagement with Traditional Owners are ineffective.
6.51
The IRG similarly told the committee that:
Despite holding legal rights pertaining to over 80 percent of the Northern Australian land mass, socio-economic disadvantage among the Northern Australian Indigenous population is extensive and in some instances, severe.
6.52
The IRG further noted that statistical analysis has found that the socioeconomic disadvantage among First Nations residents in Northern Australia is worse than in southern Australia, and that the environment that must be navigated to address this is more challenging.
6.53
The IRG recommended that the both the Australian Government and state and territory governments 'elevate addressing the extensive and severe nature of Northern Australian Indigenous socioeconomic disadvantage through the facilitation of participation in the Northern Australian economy as a priority of the Northern Australia Agenda'.
6.54
Generation One, Minderoo Foundation told the committee that First Nations Australians suffer from low levels of home ownership in Northern Australia which has negative consequences such as preventing the development of intergenerational equity, and eroding a sense of empowerment among families. They suggested that:
The key to increasing home ownership opportunities is the ongoing need for land tenure reform to unlock lands for housing. Private land ownership either through leasehold or freehold underpins Australia's home ownership system. However, the current reserve system in remote Western Australia and limits on private ownership in other parts of Northern Australia removes that option.
6.55
The Cape York Land Council Aboriginal Corporation supported the Queensland model of 'Aboriginal freehold tenure' provided for under the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 (Qld). Aboriginal freehold does not extinguish native title but 'provides an ideal platform for investment and development' because leases can be for periods of up to 99 years and may be renewed, mortgaged and traded through transfer to another party. In their view, the granting of Aboriginal freehold tenure, given its leasing potential is 'one of the keys to unlocking the potential of Cape York'.
6.56
As outlined above, however, not all submitters agree with the need for land tenure reform or see home ownership as a primary solution to high levels of First Nations poverty and disadvantage in Northern Australia.
6.57
Reflecting on the decline in social indicators for Pilbara Aboriginal communities following the mining boom, the Regional Implementation Committee (RIC) noted the need to alleviate a broad range of circumstances preventing engagement in employment, including adverse health issues, patchy school attendance, the growing need for carer support, and disproportionate incarceration rates.
6.58
The RIC noted the importance of regional First Nations forums to identify 'community-based solutions to entrenched social and economic issues'.
6.59
Professor Altman and Dr Markham submitted that there is 'a total regional absence of sufficient jobs and commercial opportunity' in many First Nations contexts in Northern Australia. They argue:
In such contexts innovative institutions like Universal Basic Income should be trialled or relatively successful programs from the past like the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) scheme should be revisited. Little consideration is given to alternative forms of Indigenous economy in the Australian Government’s Northern Australia agenda despite over a decade of Closing the Gap developmental failure.
First Nations enterprise
6.60
The committee received evidence that though 'well-resourced social programs are obviously critical to improving the dire health and education status of many Northern Australian Indigenous communities, reliance on government funding itself can often create perverse incentives'. This reliance in turn discourages enterprise, including through competition between government organisations and First Nations managed non-government organisations (NGOs) for service delivery contracts.
6.61
The IRG argued that without concurrent economic development and pathways to economic self-determination, 'a significant number' of First Nations people in Northern Australia will 'remain welfare dependent and continue to live with the negative impacts of dependency and passivity'.
6.62
The IRG noted however, that First Nations enterprises in Northern Australia face both the same structural challenges as all businesses in Northern Australia, as well as those unique to the circumstances and history of First Nations people. These generic challenges include: small and sparse markets; remoteness including limited access due to seasonal weather conditions; poor infrastructure; harsh climate; and a degree of political irrelevance derived from the electoral imbalance between northern and southern Australia. In addition to these structural challenges, First Nations businesses in Northern Australia face challenges which have arisen as a 'result of two centuries of discriminatory dispossession, oppressive and punitive policy that has resulted in widespread…intergenerational socio-economic disadvantage'. The IRG noted that the unique challenges faced by First Nations people in Northern Australia 'manifests itself in many ways, including limited inter-generational wealth transfer, relatively limited capacity to engage in the workforce and to own, successfully operate and grow commercial enterprise'. The IRG concluded that:
…the market failure in the development of Northern Australia that is the result of the generic challenges targeted by the Commonwealth's Northern Australia Agenda are greatly exacerbated in the case of the Northern Australian Indigenous economy.
6.63
The IRG made a number of recommendations to enhance and accelerate the engagement of Indigenous interests in Northern Australia which include:
Create jobs and foster labour participation, entrepreneurship and business acumen among the Northern Australian Indigenous population;
Develop knowledge management systems and commission research and development that is designed to improve the decision-making environment for Indigenous managers and business owners in Northern Australia;
Develop infrastructure that supports Indigenous economic development in Northern Australia;
Provide improved access to capital and international markets for Indigenous businesses in Northern Australia;
Initiatives to activate the economic value of land, water, sea and cultural resource rights and interests of Northern Australian Indigenous people; and
Give effect to institutional arrangements that work to activate, accelerate and optimise Indigenous economic development across Northern Australia.
6.64
The IRG submitted that 'there is a clear prima facie case for a dedicated institutional arrangement to support the development of the Northern Australian Indigenous economy'. It proposed the establishment of the Northern Australian Indigenous Economic Development Body (NAIEDB) which would have the following core functions:
Growing successful ideas through working with Indigenous individuals, communities and organisations to identify Indigenous economic development ideas that have a strong chance of success, and support the development of proof of concept;
Generating and effectively communicating knowledge that informs better strategies, operational and financial decision making; and
Supporting the delivery of a Northern Australia Indigenous Enterprise and Employment Hub System by providing access to existing support programs, professional service providers, potential investors, research and analysis and other resources; and
Serving as an informed advocacy voice for the Indigenous economy in Northern Australia. This would include, securing effective Indigenous representation in planning processes for infrastructure investment (large and small scale) and land, sea and water use regimes as these are critical to ensuring government and private sector investment facilitates Indigenous economic development.
6.65
The RIC argued the importance of a legislatively enacted Indigenous Business Incubator (IBI). The RIC stated that an IBI:
…would assist with incubation programs to allow private companies and municipal entities, public institutions i.e. colleges / universities access to some of the non-mainstream ideas of Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs.
6.66
The IRG submitted that 'fundamental' to its 'approach to enhancing Indigenous economic development in Northern Australia is empowerment of Indigenous people to own their own risk and drive economic development at a local level'.
6.67
The RIC submitted that commercial funding assistance could also be acquired through the IBI, differentiating it from a capital style investment model utilised by, for example, First Nations bank structures that only lend according to low risk and high return principles. The RIC submitted that the IBI could act less as a lender and have more of a mentor role.
6.68
Ms Tahnee Davies, Facilitator, RIC, explained to the committee that a business incubator could provide mentoring and 'support for ideas that are in their infancy'. Ms Davies stated that:
It's a matter of finding an organisation that traditional owners are comfortable with. It's quite hard for locally based traditional owners to go to yet another government agency to talk about this; it really has to be a locally based support and mentoring arrangement where people feel comfortable going with ideas and getting support for those ideas.
6.69
In order to support the First Nations economy, the RIC called for greater support of and investment in government entities such as Supply Nation and the IBA. It submitted:
There is a serious movement in the Pilbara towards an Aboriginal Industry. The first step in supporting such an industry is to support the existing entities established to assist Pilbara Aboriginal businesses. It would be a game changer to have Supply Nation and Indigenous Business Australia (IBA) take a more proactive, less analytical approach.
6.70
Ms Melinda Eades, Executive Officer, Torres Cape Indigenous Council Alliance (TCICA), similarly told the committee that:
…where those business support services don't exist in communities, people don't know where to go. Often, they don't have access to digital technologies to do that research, so their idea remains just an idea.
6.71
Ms Eades explained that businesses also may require ongoing support 'while the business gets off the ground and while that business owner understands their reporting obligations, their statutory obligations and how to run a set of accounts'. Ms Eades noted that the Lockhart River Aboriginal Shire Council appointed a 'business development or support officer to provide exactly that sort of service, in community, to support that ongoing opportunity for private sector business development'. Ms Eades described this as a 'fantastic initiative' and called for:
…either the state or the Commonwealth fund a program that helps local government provide those sorts of services within their community, so people don't have to try and navigate a system that is really difficult to navigate.
6.72
The North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance argued that a productive approach to realising diversification and engaging First Nations people in expanded economic activity should include a:
systematic and properly-resourced support for landholders and managers to work through land use options and plan to implement favoured opportunities;
serious consideration of markets in environmental services; and
funding of pilot studies in land use diversification, including regional-scale initiatives that cross tenure boundaries.
On-country work
6.73
The importance of on-country work opportunities for First Nations communities was widely noted by witnesses throughout the inquiry. This included on-country ranger programs and cultural tourism.
6.74
The Northern Land Council told the committee that it is responsible 250,000 square kilometres of land in Northern Territory, including 85 per cent of the coastline, and that it employs some 250 staff, including 125 land and sea management rangers. Similarly, Ms Yananymul Mununggurr, Director, Laynhapuy Homelands Aboriginal Corporation gave evidence regarding the ranger program the corporation manages. Ms Mununggurr stated:
…the Yirrkala Rangers program…looks after country. We've got a partnership with what's now called the Laynhapuy homelands schools, when it comes to learning on-country programs. As we speak, there's a workshop happening out in one of the homelands, which is a galtha workshop. It's a partnership with the Laynha homelands school. It has children coming into a place called Djarrakpi and working with the community and the rangers to learn about country and to learn about culture, and the story about that particular homeland.
6.75
Representatives of the Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation also provided evidence regarding the Dhimurru ranger program. Ms Christine Burke, Executive Officer, Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation, stated:
Our rangers are paid for through the Ranger Employment Program and also the Indigenous Protected Area Program. We have about 10 rangers, Mandaka and a senior cultural adviser, who are all Yolngu and work for the organisation. Those rangers are responsible for land management across 550,000 hectares of land and sea country…It's very well known across Australia, and it does very good work. So yes, it's one of the ranger groups that is a very good success story in terms of greater employment for Yolngu. It's employment that Yolngu relate to. It's working on country, caring for culture, making sure that the land stays how Mandaka's elders asked for it to be.
6.76
Ms Leilani Bin-Juda, Chief Executive Officer, Torres Strait Regional Authority (TSRA), told the committee that the TSRA manages a ranger program employing approximately 60 people. Ms Bin-Juda noted that this program receives multi-year funding from the Australian Government's National Indigenous Australians Authority, and provides environmental protection and preservation services to 16 or 17 communities.
6.77
Professor Ian Gordon, Director, Wet Tropics Management Authority (WTMA) and Chair, Scientific Advisory Committee WTMA, told the committee that the authority received $2.6 million under the Reef Assist program to train First Nations rangers.
6.78
It was submitted that the Australian Government's support for land and sea management has been highly successful in building long term social and economic development for remote families and communities. Establishing active local First Nations land management organisations provides a broad spectrum of benefits for individuals and their communities.
6.79
The Pew Charitable Trust submitted that First Nations land and sea management programs provide a broad spectrum of benefits including:
establishing and building stable land management organisations capable of taking on contract work for government and private industry services such as quarantine services, and invasive weed, feral animal and fire management of public and private land;
establishing stable local organisations that increase communities' capacity to engage with other private enterprise possibilities such as tourism, carbon farming and commercialised bush food;
providing highly sought after job opportunities for school leavers in remote communities; including for teenagers in vulnerable family situations, and those who may have had difficulties with schooling;
providing an opportunity for young Indigenous rangers to become more confident and work ready which enables them to take up opportunities in higher level roles in land management, or shift to other work sectors;
providing Indigenous school children with active role models of people in their immediate families and communities who have long term jobs and careers;
providing job pathways for Indigenous women in remote communities; and
providing an organised body of well-equipped rangers to carry out emergency service work.
6.80
The Wet Tropics Management Authority (WTMA) also stated that investment by both the Australian and state and territory governments in First Nations ranger programs 'provides meaningful employment, particularly for young people, with measurable benefits for family and the broader community'. The WTMA noted that in 2016, the Australian Government found that:
…an investment from government and a range of third parties in the national Indigenous ranger program generated a three-fold return on investment. The review found that the program is 'effectively overcoming barriers to addressing Indigenous disadvantage and engaging Indigenous Australians on country in meaningful employment to achieve large-scale conservation outcomes, aligning the interests of Indigenous Australians and the broader community'.
6.81
Sangha and Russell-Smith likewise described the engagement of First Nations people living in remote communities to manage the landscape as of 'enormous' benefit. Sangha and Russell-Smith submitted that these benefits include: reduced domestic violence and dependence on welfare; improved health outcomes and childhood learning; as well as reduced costs for weed and pest management; and the protection of biodiversity and water resources. Sangha and Russell-Smith stated that in order to realise there is 'great scope to expand existing land management and support new land sector programs in the region.
6.82
Ms Christine Burke, Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation, highlighted the work that First Nations rangers undertake on behalf of the Australian Government in relation to biosecurity. Ms Burke also told the committee that there is scope for First Nations rangers to undertake additional work, with the provision of appropriate funding. Ms Burke told the committee that currently, the corporation has:
…a contract with AQIS [Australian Quarantine Inspection Service], in the Australian government, to do some biosecurity checks over the course of the year. That program is a fee-for-service arrangement, but it's only a very limited amount of money—less than $10,000. So it's quite a small fee-for-service arrangement, and really it just covers our costs; it doesn't actually generate additional funds for us in the sense of profit that can go back to be used for the organisation.
6.83
The committee also heard that First Nations rangers undertake work to collect marine pollution such as 'ghost' fishing nets, sewage and plastic. On this point, both Gamarard and AgForce submitted that First Nations rangers across Northern Australia can provide border protection and help protect against biosecurity risks that could enter and traverse Northern Australia. They submitted:
Indigenous rangers can assist with monitoring sentinel herds, insect pest traps and weed outbreaks for new biosecurity incursions, creating positive outcomes for both First Nation peoples and Northern Australian agriculture and the environment.
6.84
Sangha and Russell-Smith told the committee that the public funding of First Nations ranger programs has served a number of important employment, cultural site and environmental management, and socio-economic policy objectives. Sangha and Russell-Smith suggested that an appropriate expansion of regional development strategies could focus on providing foundational investment to build the capacity of Indigenous Ranger Groups to contract their services, and develop sustainable, autonomous regional enterprises. Sangha and Russell-Smith noted that a number of Indigenous Ranger Groups currently:
…contract services for a range of activities outside their mandated public funding commitments, e.g. mine-site management, road maintenance, quarantine surveillance, and fire management around outstations.
6.85
The Pew Charitable Trust described the First Nations land and sea management programs as 'a model for successful Federal Government engagement in Northern Australian development'.
6.86
The committee heard that First Nations ranger programs give hope to young First Nations people living in communities through the provision of employment opportunities, and training. Ms Christine Burke, Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation told the committee that the corporation, in partnership with the Yirrkala Bilingual School, developed a Learning on Country program where the ranger group works with school student, and provides an employment pathway. Ms Burke stated:
That program is a clear pathway for employment for young people. They start at school, they learn cert II in school and then they go into an internship or work experience with Dhimurru. At the end, what we'd like to see is that we can give them a job.
6.87
The committee received evidence calling for additional powers to be granted to First Nations rangers, an expansion in the types of work undertaken, and additional funding. Ms Christine Burke, Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation, noted for example that the corporation was given responsibility for crocodile management but that no additional funding was provided. Ms Burke explained:
We have issues with crocodile management and making sure that people are safe. We've been handed that responsibility through the Northern Territory government when they originally had a position located here, which was withdrawn, and the responsibility for that management has now gone over the Dhimurru, but we never received additional funding for that. Rangers do trapping of crocodiles when we have problem crocodiles. That management is an additional management responsibility that strictly speaking we're not funded for.
6.88
Ms Burke explained that while the ranger program is funded, many of the services it carries out for government are not done on a fee-for-service basis and that with increasing costs, 'funds are now becoming tight'. Ms Burke stated:
There are things around weed management, crocodile management, fisheries management, recreation area management, which we get an amount of funding for, but with increasing costs and increasing costs of staff those funds are now becoming quite tight. Our ability to do fee for service through AQIS [Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service] and things is good, but those programs don't necessarily pay on a business rate. They pay on a rate that's just covering our costs.
6.89
In addition to increased funding or payment on a fee-for-service basis, Mr Mandaka Marika, Managing Director, Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation, told the committee that he would like to see First Nations rangers be granted appropriate authority to manage matters such as unauthorised access and hunting. Mr Marika stated that 'there's hunting and shooting on our land, and we cannot do anything about it' and that 'we would like powers—powers to kick people out, power to search and powers to sue'.
6.90
Ms Burke, Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation, told the committee that the corporation is responsible for the management of 20 recreation areas, licenced through the Northern Land Council (NCL). Ms Burke explained that while the rangers undertake works such as checking permits, rangers have not been granted any enforcement powers. Ms Burke, stated:
Dhimurru runs 20 recreation areas, which are licensed through the NLC. Those recreation areas provide access to the wider community to come and visit and also to camp. So it's on those recreation areas also that powers are required, because there are conditions that people are supposed to abide by when they visit, like a national park. So we check permits, we make sure that people are doing the right thing, not putting rubbish anywhere. But rangers don't have any powers at the moment in regard to how we do that. They do that work, but we don't have an automatic issue of a ticket if you haven't got a permit. We don't have those kinds of things.
Value of First Nations land management practices
6.91
The CYCL argued that Aboriginal land management practices should be considered an emerging industry, and invested in with public resources. It submitted that the Australian Government's Northern Australia agenda should:
…should facilitate the Australian public and Aboriginal land owners entering into a purchaser – provider arrangement where the Australian public purchase clean air, clean water etc from Aboriginal land owners who produce these commodities through their land management practices.
6.92
The CYCL concluded that 'managing Aboriginal land to produce public good conservation outcomes must be treated as a form of development on Indigenous land and recompensed as such'.
The issue of 'black cladding'
6.93
The committee received evidence on the troubling practice of 'black cladding', wherein companies exaggerate their commitment to First Nations employment in order to meet First Nations employment requirements. Ms Elsia Archer, Chair, Regional Development Kimberley submitted that government First Nations employment targets may be resulting in a higher incidence of the practice:
We support the aspirational targets for Aboriginal employment. The reality is that current targets are often unattainable for businesses, given the percentage of suitably trained and willing workforce. The current targets also increase the incidence of 'black cladding' and government tenders being awarded outside of our region to larger firms, which further disadvantages our local operators.
6.94
Ms Archer further stated that, while the practice was not directly related to NAIF funding, in her experience it had occurred with government contracts, wherein an organisation seeking a contract falsely indicates that they have hired First Nations staff member(s). Mrs Danelle Dowding, Executive Officer, Regional Development Australia Kimberley, provided another example:
I might add that there has been definite evidence in the East Kimberley of construction businesses that haven't put forward tenders, knowing that they can't meet the requirements for Indigenous workforce. Those tenders have been awarded to companies in Perth that have said that they will meet those tender requirements but who in fact don't. But they're not held accountable like the local businesses are. So those works are going to agencies outside the region and there's no follow-up to make sure that those targets are actually being met.
6.95
The Torres Cape Indigenous Council Alliance also noted the corrosive impact of this practice in its submission:
Indigenous procurement policies are helping to drive this change, although more focus on supporting Indigenous-owned businesses to access tendering opportunities for large-scale infrastructure projects in their local area is needed. The practice of 'Black cladding ' need to stop if local people are to benefit from government investments through business development opportunities, supply and servicing arrangements, and employment and training.
6.96
It is the committee's view the practice of 'black cladding' is unacceptable. It is imperative that the Australian Government ensure that tenderers are actually employing the staff they claim to and that First Nations-owned business have access to tendering opportunities. The publication of First Nations jobs data in relation to government tenders, as well as government departments undertaking due diligence in their hiring practices, must be undertaken in order to reduce the incidence of this deeply undesirable practice.