SENATE

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 

Proof Committee Hansard 

SENATE 

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION LEGISLATION 

COMMITTEE 

Estimates 

(Public) 

FRIDAY, 21 OCTOBER 2016 

CANBERRA 

CONDITIONS OF DISTRIBUTION 

This is an uncorrected proof of evidence taken before the committee. 

It is made available under the condition that it is recognised as such. 

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE 

[PROOF COPY]

INTERNET 

Hansard transcripts of public hearings are made available on the 

internet when authorised by the committee. 

To search the parliamentary database, go to: 

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au

SENATE 

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 

Friday, 21 October 2016 

Members in attendance: Senators Dodson, Kakoschke-Moore, Lines, McAllister, McCarthy, McKenzie, 

Paterson, Siewert, Smith.

Friday, 21 October 2016 Senate Page 1 

CROSS-PORTFOLIO INDIGENOUS MATTERS 

In Attendance 

Senator Scullion, Minister for Indigenous Affairs 

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 

Mr Andrew Tongue, Associate Secretary, Indigenous Affairs Group 

Mr Richard Eccles, Deputy Secretary, Indigenous Affairs Group 

Education, Community Safety and Health Division 

Ms Liz Hefren-Webb, First Assistant Secretary 

Ms Fiona Sawyers, Assistant Secretary, Education Policy and Coordination Branch 

Mr Gavin Matthews, Assistant Secretary, Early Childhood and Youth Branch 

Ms Belinda Campbell, Assistant Secretary, Schooling Policy and Delivery Branch 

Ms Tarja Saastamoinen, Assistant Secretary, Community Safety Branch 

Mr Brendan Gibson, Assistant Secretary, Health Branch 

Policy, Analysis and Evaluation Division 

Mr Troy Sloan, First Assistant Secretary 

Mr Ryan Bulman, Assistant Secretary, Cross-Government Policy Branch 

Ms Rachel O'Connor, Assistant Secretary, Strategy Policy and Coordination Branch 

Mr Robert Ryan, Assistant Secretary, Program Innovation Branch 

Mr Matthew James, Assistant Secretary, IAG Information and Evaluation 

Housing, Land and Culture Division 

Ms Danielle Donegan, Acting First Assistant Secretary 

Mr Wayne Beswick, Assistant Secretary, Land Branch 

Mr Leonard Hill, Assistant Secretary, Culture Branch 

Ms Jessica Del Rio, Assistant Secretary, Remote Infrastructure Branch 

Ms Edwina Spanos, Acting Assistant Secretary, Housing Branch 

Mr Greg Roche, Special Adviser, Housing Land and Culture 

Program Integrity and Engagement Division 

Ms Susan Black, First Assistant Secretary 

Mr Dave Agnew, Assistant Secretary, Grants Policy Branch 

Mr Stuart Turnbull, Assistant Secretary, Grants Management and Performance Branch 

Mr Geoffrey Richardson, Assistant Secretary, Indigenous Engagement Branch 

Community and Economic Development Division 

Ms Nadine Williams, First Assistant Secretary 

Mr Paul Denny, Assistant Secretary, Operations and Performance Branch 

Ms Kirsti McQueen, Assistant Secretary, Economic Development Policy Branch 

Ms Bronwyn Field, Assistant Secretary, Policy and Engagement Branch 

Indigenous Employment and Recognition Division 

Ms Gayle Anderson, First Assistant Secretary 

Ms Justine Curnow, Assistant Secretary, Employment Policy and Programs Branch 

Ms Marian Moss, Assistant Secretary, Legal Services Branch 

Mr Brant Smith Assistant Secretary, Environment Branch 

Ms Joanna Virtue, Acting Assistant Secretary, Constitutional Recognition Taskforce 

Ms Kerstin Wijeyewardene, Assistant Secretary, Strategic Priorities Branch 

PM&C Regional Network 

Ms Anne-Marie Roberts, National Director 

FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Page 2 Senate Friday, 21 October 2016 

Mr Leon Donovan, Deputy National Director 

Governance Group 

Ms Deborah Lewis, First Assistant Secretary, Corporate Services 

Ms Charlotte Tressler, First Assistant Secretary, Financial Services Division 

Ms Sarah Vandenbroek, Assistant Secretary, Budgets and Reporting Branch 

Mr Patrick Sowry, Assistant Secretary, Business Services Branch 

Ms Emma Greenwood, Assistant Secretary, People Branch 

Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations 

Mr Anthony Beven, Registrar 

Indigenous Business Australia 

Mr Leo Bator, Acting Chief Executive Officer 

Mr Peter O'Neill, Acting Chief Operating Officer 

Indigenous Land Corporation 

Mr Edward Fry, Chair 

Mr John Maher, Chief Executive Officer 

Ms Jodie Lindsay, Chief Operating Officer 

Ms Tricia Button, Executive Director Program Delivery 

Outback Stores 

Mr Stephen Bradley, Chair 

Department of Health 

Dr Wendy Southern PSM, Deputy Secretary, National Program Delivery Group 

Ms Bobbi Campbell, First Assistant Secretary, Indigenous Health Division 

Ms Kate Thomann, Assistant Secretary, Strategy and Evidence Branch, Indigenous Health Division 

Ms Kate Wallace, Assistant Secretary, Health Programs and Sector Development Branch, Indigenous Health 

Division 

Ms Meredeth Taylor, Assistant Secretary, Program, Services and Access Support Branch, Indigenous Health 

Division 

Ms Tania Rishniw, State Office Manager, Health State Network Division 

Ms Natasha Cole, First Assistant Secretary, Health Services Division 

Ms Lisa McGlynn, Acting First Assistant Secretary, Population Health and Sport Division 

Committee met at 09:01 

CHAIR (Senator Paterson): I declare open this meeting of the Senate Finance and Public Administration 

Legislation Committee. Today the committee will continue examination of the supplementary budget estimates 

for 2016-17 with the cross-portfolio hearing on Indigenous matters. The committee may also examine the annual 

reports of the departments and agencies appearing before it. The committee has before it a program listing 

agencies and outcomes relating to matters on which senators have given notice. The committee has fixed 2 

December 2016 as the date for the return of answers to questions taken on notice. 

The committee will begin with examination of portfolio agencies as listed on the program, and then proceed to 

outcome 2 of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, followed by Indigenous health issues where the 

Department of Health will join officers of PM&C. 

Under standing order 26 the committee must take all evidence in public session. This includes answers to 

questions on notice. I remind all witnesses that in giving evidence to the committee they are protected by 

parliamentary privilege. It is unlawful for anyone to threaten or disadvantage a witness on account of evidence 

given to a committee, and such action may be treated by the Senate as a contempt. It is also a contempt to give 

false or misleading evidence to a committee. 

The Senate, by resolution in 1999, endorsed the following test of relevance of questions at estimates hearings: 

any questions going to the operations or financial positions of the departments and agencies which are seeking 

funds in the estimates are relevant questions for the purpose of estimates hearings. I remind officers that the 

Senate has resolved that there are no areas in connection with the expenditure of public funds where any person 



has discretion to withhold details or explanations from the parliament or its committees unless the parliament has 

expressly provided otherwise. 

The Senate has resolved also that an officer of a department of the Commonwealth shall not be asked to give 

opinions on matters of policy and shall be given reasonable opportunity to refer questions asked of the officer to 

superior officers or to a minister. This resolution prohibits only questions asking for opinions on matters of 

policy, and does not preclude questions asking for explanations of policies or factual questions about when and 

how policies were adopted. 

I particularly draw the attention of witnesses to an order of the Senate of 13 May 2009 specifying the process 

by which a claim of public interest immunity should be raised. 

The extract read as follows— 

Public interest immunity claims 

That the Senate— 

(a) notes that ministers and officers have continued to refuse to provide information to Senate committees without properly 

raising claims of public interest immunity as required by past resolutions of the Senate; 

(b) reaffirms the principles of past resolutions of the Senate by this order, to provide ministers and officers with guidance as to 

the proper process for raising public interest immunity claims and to consolidate those past resolutions of the Senate; 

(c) orders that the following operate as an order of continuing effect: 

(1) If: 

(a) a Senate committee, or a senator in the course of proceedings of a committee, requests information or a document 

from a Commonwealth department or agency; and 

(b) an officer of the department or agency to whom the request is directed believes that it may not be in the public 

interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, the officer shall state to the committee the ground on which 

the officer believes that it may not be in the public interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, and 

specify the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document. 

(2) If, after receiving the officer’s statement under paragraph (1), the committee or the senator requests the officer to refer 

the question of the disclosure of the information or document to a responsible minister, the officer shall refer that question to 

the minister. 

(3) If a minister, on a reference by an officer under paragraph (2), concludes that it would not be in the public interest to 

disclose the information or document to the committee, the minister shall provide to the committee a statement of the ground 

for that conclusion, specifying the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or 

document. 

(4) A minister, in a statement under paragraph (3), shall indicate whether the harm to the public interest that could result 

from the disclosure of the information or document to the committee could result only from the publication of the information 

or document by the committee, or could result, equally or in part, from the disclosure of the information or document to the 

committee as in camera evidence. 

(5) If, after considering a statement by a minister provided under paragraph (3), the committee concludes that the statement 

does not sufficiently justify the withholding of the information or document from the committee, the committee shall report 

the matter to the Senate. 

(6) A decision by a committee not to report a matter to the Senate under paragraph (5) does not prevent a senator from 

raising the matter in the Senate in accordance with other procedures of the Senate. 

(7) A statement that information or a document is not published, or is confidential, or consists of advice to, or internal 

deliberations of, government, in the absence of specification of the harm to the public interest that could result from the 

disclosure of the information or document, is not a statement that meets the requirements of paragraph (1) or (4). 

(8) If a minister concludes that a statement under paragraph (3) should more appropriately be made by the head of an 

agency, by reason of the independence of that agency from ministerial direction or control, the minister shall inform the 

committee of that conclusion and the reason for that conclusion, and shall refer the matter to the head of the agency, who shall 

then be required to provide a statement in accordance with paragraph (3). 

(d) requires the Procedure Committee to review the operation of this order and report to the Senate by 20 August 2009. 

(13 May 2009 J.1941) 

(Extract, Senate Standing Orders) 

Witnesses are specifically reminded that a statement that information or a document is confidential, or consists of 

advice to government, is not a statement that meets the requirements of the 2009 order. Instead witnesses are 

required to provide some specific indication of the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure 

of the information or the document. 



Officers are requested to keep opening statements brief or to seek to incorporate longer statements into the 

Hansard. I welcome the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator the Hon. Nigel Scullion, and Mr Stephen 

Bradley, Chair of Outback Stores Pty Ltd. Minister, do you wish to make an opening statement? 

Senator Scullion: Not at this stage, but I would like to make an opening statement at the start of the 

Department of PM&C session. 

CHAIR: Thank you. We will come to that then. 

Senator McALLISTER: Chair, is it worth you clarifying how you intend to proceed in outcome 2? 

CHAIR: Yes. For everyone's information, the deputy chair and I were discussing how we will work through 

the program of outcome 2. We have agreed that we will begin with some general questions that people want to 

ask, in case they do not fit perfectly to any programs, and when we have dealt with those general questions we 

will then move through the programs sequentially. When the committee agrees that we have finished each 

program any public servants who are attached to that program but not another will be free to leave because, by 

agreement, we will not be coming back to them. 

Outback Stores Pty Ltd 

[09:05] 

CHAIR: Mr Bradley, do you wish to make an opening statement? 

Mr Bradley: Very briefly. I would just like to explain why I am here as the chairman of the Outback Stores, 

rather than the CEO. The previous person who you have seen here has been Steve Moore. He resigned from 

outback stores in late July and we have been recruiting a replacement, who does not start until next Monday. So I 

am here and I will do the best I can. 

Senator DODSON: Minister, you know as well as I do the appalling statistics we have around family 

violence, incarceration rates, suicide, out-of-home care, the lack of real jobs and many other things. What we have 

been wanting to know is what have you done about these matters with the public funds you have received and 

what have your programs delivered through the IAS to improve outcomes in these areas. If I could go to Outback 

Stores, Mr Bradley, can you give us a bit of understanding of what Outback Stores is? 

Mr Bradley: Outback Stores is a management company that manages retail stores in remote communities on 

behalf of the owners. We were set up by the government in 2006 and our mission is to improve the affordability 

of food in remote communities, to improve the availability of healthy fresh produce, to provide employment in 

those communities and to support general community development as part of what we do. At the moment we run 

36 stores and one club. 

Senator DODSON: Are you a statutory entity or are you incorporated? What is your legal status? 

Mr Bradley: We are a government-owned Commonwealth company. 

Senator DODSON: Are your articles of your incorporation publicly available? 

Mr Bradley: Yes. 

Senator DODSON: I think that in 2013-14 there was a combined turnover of the stores of something in order 

of order of $80 million. 

Mr Bradley: That is correct. 

Senator DODSON: That is 2014-15. Do you know what the figures are for 2015-16? 

Mr Bradley: For 2015 it was $73 million and in 2016 it was $77 million. 

Senator DODSON: So you have been fluctuating on a downward trend. 

Mr Bradley: The big change was that we managed Tennant Creek supermarket on part of IBA for a period of 

time. They chose to take that back about 18 months to two years ago. That was a significant reduction in sales. 

Senator DODSON: In that period I think you said there were 35 stores? 

Mr Bradley: I cannot recall exactly, but it would be 33 to 35 at that time. 

Senator DODSON: A number of those would be profitable, and a number obviously are not. Can you give me 

the breakdown of that? 

Mr Bradley: We break stores into three areas. There are the ones that are completely profitable. There are 

about 10 of those. There are another group that we call barely viable, which, depending on the circumstances, 

move in or out of being profitable. There are about another 10 of those. Then there are the ones that require 

subsidy to keep going. There are 16 of those. 



Senator McCARTHY: Would you be able to give us an indication of just where these 10 profitable and the 

10 non-profitable are? Could you give us an indication of location? 

Mr Bradley: The key difference is that it is all based around community size. We typically find that in a 

community of less than 200 we cannot run a profitable store. When it gets over that, up to about 500, it falls into 

that barely viable category, and when the community population is over 500 we are able to run a profitable store. 

The smallest community that we aim to run a store in is of the order of about 80 people, but there are one or two 

that have dropped a little below that in recent times, so we have to consider whether it is appropriate for us to still 

run stores there. 

Senator DODSON: With those that are not as profitable—maybe in your third category—what is the level of 

operating subsidy that they require? 

Mr Bradley: We spent $1.5 million last year subsidising those unviable stores. 

Senator DODSON: Has the government had to tip into that or does it just come out of your revenue? 

Mr Bradley: The government, when they set us up in first place, provided three tranches of funding. We are 

still using that to subsidise those unviable stores. We could reduce the amount that it costs to subsidise those 

stores by increasing the prices of merchandise. We think that is the wrong thing to do, so we are maintaining the 

selling prices at reasonable levels and using the government money to subsidise those stores. 

Senator DODSON: In terms of your profitability, where that occurs, is there a dividend paid back to those 

local communities or those local stores? 

Mr Bradley: The stores are owned by the community. If it is profitable a proportion of the profit will be 

retained for future improvement to the store and a proportion—it is roughly fifty-fifty—will go to the community 

to be spent out of the community benefit account. So we take nothing of the profits from the store. 

Senator DODSON: In terms of the items that are promoted in the stores, have you got a health strategy 

associated with that? 

Mr Bradley: We do. 

Senator DODSON: Maybe we could get a copy of that somewhere down the track. 

Mr Bradley: I can certainly give you a copy of our health and nutrition strategy. What I would say is that it is 

geared towards not promoting or supporting unhealthy products where we can, and pushing as far as we can the 

availability and the affordability of the healthy products. There is a lot more detail behind that. 

Senator DODSON: I would appreciate it if you could take that on notice. Do you receive any rebates from the 

wholesalers? 

Mr Bradley: Yes we do. 

Senator DODSON: What is the value of that? 

Mr Bradley: It is about $2 million a year. 

Senator DODSON: Has that been consistent from about 2014? 

Mr Bradley: Broadly, yes. 

Senator DODSON: Has it dropped off, or— 

Mr Bradley: I can tell you that in financial year 2015 it was $2.2 million, and in 2016 it was $2.1 million. 

Senator DODSON: How does that translate into the cost of items on the store shelves? 

Mr Bradley: It does not directly. We take the rebates into subsidising the cost of running Outback Stores as a 

company. That in essence allows us to charge a lower fee to run the service in the stores than we would otherwise 

have to charge. Outback Stores as a company just about breaks even. We make a small profit or small loss—that 

is what we try to do. The rebates are part of our income and we use that to lower the amount that we have to 

charge in management fees to the stores. 

Senator DODSON: Not necessarily on the products. 

Mr Bradley: No. Can I say incidentally that this is a common issue in the food industry. I used to work for 

Woolworths. You cannot negotiate from the suppliers the lowest price in the base price of the merchandise. The 

standard in the industry is that rebates are paid and, in our case, we take those back into Outback Stores to reduce 

the amount that we need to charge and management fees. 

Senator DODSON: I just wanted to know whether there is a flow on to the items on the shelf in pretty 

reasonably poverty-stricken communities. 



Mr Bradley: One way or another it does. The point is that we use it to charge a lower management fee than 

we would otherwise have to charge, if that makes sense. 

Senator DODSON: So long as you have good quality. 


Senator DODSON: How many local Aboriginal people do you employ in the stores. 

Mr Bradley: It is just under 300 across the stores. We have a very strong policy of employing local people. 

We set a wage figure that we would like each store to spend employing local people. I have to say that there are a 

number of communities where we are unable to employ as many people as we would like. In those rare occasions 

we employ external backpackers to do it. Our absolute preference is to employ local people. 

Senator DODSON: What is the proportion between the two? If you have 300 Indigenous— 

Mr Bradley: It is about 80 per cent Indigenous within the stores. 

Senator DODSON: I have questions on your policies regarding employing local people. I know the minister 

has an interest in trying to get people into jobs. I am trying to understand what your strategy is in terms of KPIs 

and moving Indigenous and local people through the ranks of your stores. 

Mr Bradley: We run retail training schemes and we train our people through the certification levels that you 

can do in retail. We have about 150 people in training schemes of one type or another at the moment. To put a bit 

of realism in this, though, I have to say that the turnover of staff in the communities is fairly high. The incidence 

of people starting training, dropping out and coming back in again is quite high. That is something that we just 

have to work with. 

Senator DODSON: Do you have a mechanism to report back to the community in relation to employment 

targets, training issues and other strategies? 

Mr Bradley: Absolutely. Every quarter, we report back to the community on the most important elements. 

That would include employment, fruit and veg consumption, sugar drinks consumption and so on and it would 

also include the financial results of the store. 

Senator DODSON: I want to come to the sugar drinks in a minute, if I can. You mentioned the challenge with 

getting local employment. What is the retention rate of those that you do get? 

Mr Bradley: We measure it as the turnover rate. 

Senator DODSON: That sounds like a negative factor to me. I want to know what the retention rate is. 

Mr Bradley: The turnover rate, as we express it, is about 200 per cent of people in stores. But they are people 

who come and work for us and then they might leave for three or four months—and we count that as leaving— 

and then they come back again and we re-employ them and we continue. We have to work within the way that 

people are prepared to incorporate it in their overall lives in the community. 

Senator DODSON: Do you find that pool widening, or it a sort of a recidivist shop assistant of some type? 

Mr Bradley: It varies community by community. Some communities have a strong track record of working in 

the store and supporting it—and that is great. In other communities we find it really hard to get people to work 

there. I would also say that it depends a lot on the quality of our managers. If we have managers who can really 

engage with the community, inspire them and get them to work there, that is a real positive. Clearly we have 

variability in the standards of our managers. 

Senator DODSON: What is the overall trend of the food sales in the last 12 months? 

Mr Bradley: In terms of sales growth? 

Senator DODSON: In terms of sales and I suppose the purchases from the wholesalers. Are you increasing 

the product on the shelf or are you diminishing the product on the shelf? 

Mr Bradley: In terms of range? 

Senator DODSON: Quantity and range. I want to know whether you are cutting back because of maybe 

income that is less available for expenditure in the store economy or whether you are increasing because the 

communities are flush with money. 

Mr Bradley: If you look at this financial year, from July to now, our sales have declined by about two per 

cent in dollar terms. That is the current trend rate with our sales. But, within that, are very big variances. The 

biggest increase in a store is close to 50 per cent growth and the biggest decrease is about 30 per cent. We find 

this very frequently. As community populations move around, sales jump up and down. So, overall, it is two per 

cent down. But, as I say, it is between plus 50 per cent and minus 30 per cent depending on the community. 



Senator DODSON: Moving around is one factor; what about income factors? 

Mr Bradley: Is this a question around the CDP and the impact of that? We cannot see anything in our 

numbers that shows specifically from CDP. But we also do not know exactly how CDP is being applied in a 

community and the impact on income. 

Senator DODSON: And you are not seeing that reflected in the nature of the product you are putting on the 

shelf like baby food? 

Mr Bradley: No, we are not. 

Senator DODSON: So you do not see any trends? Is this the normal situation or the medium situation or is 

this some anomaly? 

Mr Bradley: To have a reduction of two per cent across all stores is worse than it would have been for two or 

three years but it is not outside the bounds of normality. Something else that we struggle with is trying to 

understand what the population is in each of the communities that we operate in. It is very hard to know the 

number of people that are in the communities that we are serving relatively accurately. So for us to draw a 

correlation between the amount of money that is spent, we do not know exactly the number of people in the 

community and how much income they have got. We cannot see that link. 

Senator DODSON: Are there any observations on why the mobility is such? 

Mr Bradley: It has always been that way since we have been involved with it. I can talk about specific 

instances. You get populations fleeing communities when there are high levels of violence—it certainly goes on. 

We have people who choose to move around for family reasons, for cultural events and so on. I do not think we 

could say that the level of movement of people is any higher than it has been in the past but—in all honesty—we 

really do not know. 

Senator DODSON: I was hoping you might be able to touch on people going on to better jobs and better 

quality of life in some ways but that obviously is not a factor in your thinking. I go to the delivery of the food 

strategy that you indicated you have got. What do you think is the effectiveness of that strategy on community 

health or on individuals' health? 

Mr Bradley: We have not been able to measure directly the impact on health. We can measure the 

consumption of different types of product categories. For example, we track fruit and veg quantities pretty 

carefully. In the last year, that went up by about five per cent so that is a positive trend. I would say incidentally 

we track fruit and veg by weight rather than by value because we have done a lot to bring down the price of it. I 

would say we have seen good growth in fruit and veg albeit the amount that is spent in our stores on fruit and 

veggies is 4½ per cent of total sales. In mainstream retailing, it would be more like 12½ per cent or 13 per cent so 

there is a long way to go. If you talk about sugared drinks, we sold about just over 1.3 million litres of sugared 

drinks last year, which was a small increase on the previous year but, in fact, a reduction in market share. So of 

drinks, we measure the market share of sugared versus non-sugared drinks and the market share came down by 

half a per cent. 

Senator DODSON: What is your education strategy in relation to sugar with the community? 

Mr Bradley: We do a lot in different communities. It depends on the willingness of the community to engage 

with us in what we do. You could take an example that I know Nigel has gone to previously around Balgo, where 

in order to agree to loan to the community, pressure was put on them to increase their strategy for sugar reduction. 

They came to the party about that. The initial results show that sugared drinks consumption in Balgo dropped by 

about 10 per cent but other things that contain sugar such as fruit juice have gone up so the net impact looks as 

though it is around seven per cent. It is still a very constructive improvement. The amount of sugar drinks has 

dropped by about 11 per cent from the same period last year. That is an environment where total dollar sales are 

down two per cent anyway, and it is too early, I think, to draw any conclusions from it, but there are some 

encouraging signs there. 

Senator McALLISTER: Just a quick one: on notice, could you provide the committee with—it sounds like 

you have got some good data there and that you are tracking what is going on with healthy food purchases. If you 

could set out for the committee what KPIs you are using and what data you collect to measure performance 

against those KPIs, that would be very useful for us. Thank you. 

Mr Bradley: We can certainly do that. 

Senator LINES: Could you add to that to and give us the sugar drinks consumption across all the areas where 

you have got stores by state? 




Senator LINES: You gave some figures on Balgo. Obviously, we would be interested in the Western 

Australian figures but more broadly. I think you said you employed 300 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander— 

Mr Bradley: It was 297, but yes. 

Senator LINES: Did you say that was 80 per cent of your staff? 

Mr Bradley: In stores. 

Senator LINES: Can we get a breakdown of that by community as well. 


Senator LINES: Thanks. 

Senator SIEWERT: I want to go back to sugary drinks and the example of Bathurst Island. I have also got 

another store where I have heard evidence of a similar occurrence. Can you take us through how Bathurst Island 

happened and what other stores had the same access to the cheaper soft drinks. 

Mr Bradley: I have to say my starting answer is going to be: I am not aware of any other stores. If you have 

an example, I would like to hear it. What happened on Bathurst Island was: there are two stores that operate in the 

community—one is run by us; and the other one by somebody else. They have improved the operation of the 

other store, and that has had an impact on the sales of the store that we run on Bathurst Island. I am all for 

competition: I think it makes you improve your performance. 

What the team did to try and respond to that drop in sales was to bring in some additional product at lower 

prices that they would sell. Most of what they did was quite okay but they did include some sugared soft drinks in 

that, which they should not have done. 

Senator SIEWERT: So did they get that extra product from you? 

Mr Bradley: From? 

Senator SIEWERT: Where did they get the extra product from? 

Mr Bradley: It was from Woolworths in Darwin. 

Senator SIEWERT: So they brought it in separately, not purchased from you—not through you? 

Mr Bradley: No. Outback Stores, the company—we organised the purchase of the stock, so I am not saying it 

is not Outback Stores. We organised the movement for it into that store, and it was put on sale to be sold. It was a 

clear breach of our health and nutrition policy. It should not have happened. It was an absolute mistake, and there 

are no excuses in essence. 

Senator SIEWERT: Thank you. Has that situation now been reversed? 

Mr Bradley: Absolutely. So, as soon as we heard about it, it was reversed. I understand in fact that there were 

only 14 bottles sold at the reduced price, and we reinforced the message throughout the whole company that this 

is something that should not be done. But it is very clear in our health and nutrition policy: we should not have 

done that; it was a mistake. 

Senator SIEWERT: Is Warmun one of your stores? 


Senator SIEWERT: I have heard evidence to suggest that the same thing happened there. Have you had 

any— 

Mr Bradley: No. 

Senator SIEWERT: Can you check it out—could you take on notice and see if there were occasions that soft 

drink has been displayed predominantly and sold cheaper. 

Mr Bradley: The allegation is—this is the roadhouse in Warmun, is it, because there is a community store 

there and a roadhouse? 

Senator SIEWERT: I think it is the community store. So if you could check that for us—the way it was told 

to us was that it was the store. 

Mr Bradley: Is it recent? 

Senator SIEWERT: It would have been last month. 

Mr Bradley: I will be very disappointed, if that is the case. 

Senator SIEWERT: It was not long after—sorry, I will correct that—the Bathurst Island incident. 



Mr Bradley: The nature and the way it happened in Bathurst Island, that set of circumstances, should not have 

occurred in any other store. If there have been other breaches, I will be concerned. 

Senator SIEWERT: If you could take it on notice, because it could be that the situation has been 

misunderstood, that would be appreciated. 

Senator McCARTHY: I have a couple of questions on notice, Mr Bradley. Just a clarification: in terms of 

your Indigenous employment in the stores, could you provide positions and locations for us for each of those? I 

know that Senator Lines also made reference to a couple of things there. Also, with the subsidies, could you let us 

know for each of the stores what kind of support they receive financially in terms of those subsidies? How do you 

break that down for each of the stores? 

Mr Bradley: Okay. We can do that. 

Senator McALLISTER: A further question on notice, Mr Bradley. I think you indicated that 80 per cent of 

your staff were Indigenous or local employees. Some opposition senators have anecdotal observations that differ 

from that, and we would be interested to know whether that is by head count or by hours. Perhaps you could 

provide, to the extent your data allows you, some indication of the hours allocated to the staff? 

Mr Bradley: I can tell you that figure is by head count. 

Senator McALLISTER: If you were able to break it down by hours or by wages, or by something that gave 

some more direct indication— 

Mr Bradley: I understand. 

Senator McALLISTER: of how much of the employment is actually being allocated to Indigenous people, 

that would help us. 

Mr Bradley: Okay. 

Senator SIEWERT: I have a follow-up question. In terms of the process failure that essentially happened in 

the Bathurst Island example, has there been a process undertaken where you make sure that all stores now know 

that that is inappropriate? Also your staff that—I was going to say 'facilitated', but that is not it—that got the 

additional product? 

Mr Bradley: Your point is right. There were two errors: one was to buy the stock and the other was then to 

put it on show and promote it. That error to promote it was made in the store by the manager, and should not have 

happened. The error to buy the stock and send it to the store was made by the buying team, and that should not 

have happened. They have both been told—all stores have been told—that it should not happen, so if Warmun has 

happened— 

Senator SIEWERT: It may have been at around the same time. It may have been—if it has happened— 

before you did that process. 

Senator Scullion: Mr Chairman, before we move off some of these matters, first of all, I would like to 

acknowledge the traditional owners of country, acknowledge the elders both past and present, and acknowledge 

that we are much blessed to have two Aboriginal senators on the committee. 

It is useful that we all understand the context of Outback Stores and the role they play. These are privatelyowned 

stores with a board which is the boss. Outback Stores are the managers, and we do our best in here to 

influence policy. I think where some of the weakness is is that there is some significant pushback from the owners 

of the stores, and it is about profitability—the issue about profitability, Senator Dodson—that you speak about. 

One of the areas that I am engaging in is where the profit goes, because that profit, if it were reinvested in food, 

would significantly lower the cost of food. It is not. I am not suggesting for a moment that it goes on 

inappropriate things, although I can have a discussion about that. So that is one of the most important issues that 

we need to have an ongoing conversation about—where the profit of the store actually goes to. 

The policies that we have been pushing are probably the things that have made the most difference. There are 

people who get up in the morning and it is their job to really sell stuff. And they know positions in stores—it is a 

bit of a science—where you put stuff; when you open a fridge, whether it is at the back or the front; what sorts of 

colours you use. It has actually been quite extraordinary that they reverse-engineered that. Particularly, Senator 

Siewert and Senator Dodson may be aware of the Beagle Bay store where, when it was built, the actual 

construction and design of everything in that was about sugar. Now, the price of water is almost cost, and that is 

all at the front. You have to find the sugary soft drinks and whatever right at the back. All the zero things are right 

at the front. I was there when the children opened the doors and rushed in, and they found the sugary soft drinks. 

They managed to get through all of that process. 



Senator DODSON: Senator Scullion, I hate to interrupt you, but I am aware of what took place in Buronga 

when Woolworths and others were operating, or assisting to operate, and they actually redesigned the whole way 

in which these things were laid out. I appreciate the education, and I appreciate what you are trying to do with 

that, but I— 

Senator Scullion: There is a different way. If you do not want sugary soft drinks in the stores, you have just 

got to not have them there—but there is this balance between the rights of people to make a choice. In terms of 

mobility, it is actually about shopping. The store in Barunga, for example, suffers because people decide they are 

going on a shopping trip—because it is a bit exciting to get out of town. They drive to Katherine, even if the 

actual prices of many of the items in Barunga are the same as in Katherine—but they will go and buy at the store. 

The viability of the store and all those issues—mobility and shopping—are connected. 

Senator SMITH: I am curious about this issue from a different perspective—access to these communities. As 

someone who has been to Balgo, I am familiar with this. When we are speaking to local communities, the lack of 

good road access is putting significant costs on the transport of food into communities and then, of course, having 

an effect on price and particularly on the price of perishables. Have you done any work—or can you give us any 

indicative figures—about the price impact that poor road access is having on some of these communities? I am 

not talking about the need to bituminise every access point to every community, but improving the serviceability 

of road access might have a positive effect on reducing costs to consumers. Now, of course, I am interested in 

Balgo from the Tanami Road exercise—having travelled down the Tanami Road with the Shire of Halls Creek. I 

know they have been here to see Minister Scullion in the last few weeks et cetera. So do you have any 

commentary around the serviceability of roads as a means of improving the profitability of stores and whether or 

not Outback Stores says to government, 'If you were to improve serviceability in these communities, this might be 

a positive outcome,' in terms of the quality of choices that Indigenous people might get? 

Mr Bradley: We go out to tender for freight services. We do not run the freight directly ourselves. We, 

obviously, aim to procure it in the cheapest possible way with a decent service. That often depends on whether the 

leg that we are doing is a return leg for something the transport provider is already running. If we can get a return 

leg, the cost is much lower—where somebody else is paying the primary cost. 

Senator SMITH: How likely is that? 

Mr Bradley: Well, it does occur, for example, in Balgo. 

Senator SMITH: Generally, how likely is that? 

Mr Bradley: We do not necessarily know, because it all comes netted up in the price from the service 

provider. I think our most expensive store to deliver to is Tjuntjuntjara and I think it is of the order of 37 per cent 

of the cost of the merchandise is freight in that store. That is the most remote store that we operate, and it is truly 

very difficult to get to. If you like, I could come back with, at least, what the percentages are of the cost price of 

the merchandise we pay to get into those stores at the moment. We have also done collaborative contracts with 

people like the Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation, where we can share trucks if we have got 

communities that are adjacent and so on. I think our focus has more been on how we can negotiate the best deal 

rather than maybe consider more fundamentally— 

Senator SMITH: I am interested in these things because, as we know, they are not isolated from one another. 

I would be very interested in that data. And particularly in a Western Australian context—just from my selfish 

Western Australian senator perspective. I am curious, but, in terms of efficiency of your time, do not worry about 

the Northern Territory and Queensland for me! 

Senator McKENZIE: All politics is local. 

Senator SMITH: That is right. 

Senator DODSON: We might have a mutual interest there, Senator. 

Senator SMITH: We will share it around. 

CHAIR: There are no further questions for Outback Stores. Thank you very much, Mr Bradley. 



Indigenous Land Corporation 

[09:39] 

CHAIR: I welcome Mr Edward Fry, Chair of the Indigenous Land Corporation, Mr John Maher, the Chief 

Executive Officer, and officers. Mr Fry, do you wish to make an opening statement? 

Mr Fry: Yes I do, thank you very much. Before I do that I would like to pay my respects to the Ngunnawal 

people, the traditional owners past and present, and if it is possible, to pass on those respects to those future 

generations coming forward. Thank you for the invitation to come and speak and answer any questions that you 

would like to ask of me in particular. This is a first for me to come in. I think it is a first for any chair of either the 

ILC or the IBA to be asked to come here. 

Yesterday was a year in the job and by extension in December it will be two years in the IBA. It has provided a 

quality time for me on the inside to have a very close look at these institutions and also the client base and how 

they intersect particularly with its major stakeholder, the Australian Government, its policies and the product 

offerings that are generally available for Indigenous Australians. Needless to say, there have been some surprises. 

I do not need to go into them but it is more to do with how we go about creating an entity that will outlast all of us 

here today. I do not think that has ever been thought of nor has it ever been considered in a strategic sense by the 

ILC in previous years. That is not to say that they did not have a corporate plan but certainly the strategic intent 

and the strategic design was absent. The ILC is transforming itself. It is certainly tightening the way that it does 

its business. If I could sum it up I would like to do it in the following way. In the past 30 years there has been a 

huge underwriting by Indigenous Australians and the very good will of non-Indigenous Australians around human 

rights and property rights. But in that period I would say, with some limitations in some areas, that there has not 

been the realising of those assets as each one came into the inventory list in a way that you would expect. 

So we are starting from a point in time which from my view maybe should have started some time ago. That 

being said, that underwriting has allowed us to intersect with Indigenous people and non-Indigenous Australians 

both at a personal level and a community level and in corporate world strategic alliances. We will transform into 

this. We will turn this organisation into one that Indigenous people will want to be part of and will seek 

arrangements with, and we would like to think that over the coming year in particular, the sorts of results and the 

product offerings and the movements towards a much more agile and flexible business entity can be described as 

follows: to turn the ILC into a commercial business that reinvests. That is the model. 

We only have one client in terms of delivering our products, so we will constantly look to how we refine the 

business case to get greater outcomes with the available resources and those resources being people, the 

intellectual property of it and also our available funds going forward. Thank you. 

CHAIR: Mr Maher, would you like to make an opening statement? 

Mr Maher: I just want to say thank you for the invitation. I think Mr Fry has summed up the view on where 

we are going as the ILC in the future. 

Senator DODSON: Thank you, Mr Fry. The last time we met the minister took $23 million out of the IBA 

account, I think it was. Who is the IBA person? 

Senator Scullion: I think they are next. 

Senator DODSON: Okay. I thought you were collectively representing them. I will see. In that case: Minister, 

in the estimates on 12 February 2016, you stated that you were intending to meet with the ILC and the ILC board 

to discuss a number of whole-of-board issues that you thought this would be a good opportunity to reset. Is Mr 

Fry talking about outcomes from that discussion or was there something new? 

Senator Scullion: I did indeed meet with the board. We discussed a number of matters. Amongst them was a 

loan at the very best rate to ensure that they could provide the very best outcome for their core constituencies. We 

discussed that and a number of other matters, and I am very pleased—certainly as an observer; you will have to 

go to the officers for the details—to see that the consequence of that and of other efforts that have been made by 

others is that Ayers Rock Resort has gone from strength to strength. I cannot recall the other matters that we 

discussed at the meeting, but I did have a very productive meeting with the board. 

Senator DODSON: There are the matters in relation to the ILC, I suppose. I get a bit confused when you start 

talking about the Uluru board and whether those are funds out of the ILC or the IBA. I am not sure. 

Senator Scullion: Sorry. For your benefit: whilst the ILC are the board, part of the ILC board is the Voyages 

board, so that is probably why there is some confusion. It is actually like a subcommittee of the ILC. The board 

that runs Voyages— 

Senator DODSON: is accountable to the ILC? 



Senator Scullion: Well, they are part of the ILC. In fact, one of the directors of the ILC, I understand, is the 

director of Voyages. 

Senator DODSON: There has been some discussion that the intent of the land fund in the ILC may be 

modified or changed. Can you clarify that for us? 

Senator Scullion: There has been no suggestion on the public record or anywhere else and there have been no 

utterances from me apart from a consideration about the advice that has been provided over many years about the 

investment parameters that are legislated around that. It is probably of less focus at the moment because the 

general interest rates around the place are pretty poor at the moment, but there were times over the last few years 

where the size of the fund could have been making a lot more money in terms of where they made the investment, 

but the investment parameters are so conservative that the levels of interest that have been available are not what 

the financiers tell us is the case. So we have been having some discussions, but that is the only discussion we have 

been having around the land fund, and this is in response to a number of people in the financial area that have said 

that the actual legislative rules around the land fund and how it can be invested should be refreshed and advice 

sought from financiers about whether or not those are still appropriate. 

Senator DODSON: So there is no intent to change the purpose of the fund? 

Senator Scullion: No. There has been absolutely no discussion with me about anything else about the fund 

ever except for those matters and the notion of land. We have had that extending to sea country. I have had that 

discussion with you. 

Senator DODSON: My understanding of the land fund was that it was primarily to assist those Indigenous 

peoples who were not capable or were not going to pass the test under the native title laws in order for them to get 

access to a fund in order to buy land to assist them. That is still the purpose? 

Senator Scullion: That is the single purpose. 

Senator SIEWERT: Senator Dodson, do you mind if I ask about that proposal about sea country? There has 

been some discussion at this committee in the past. Minister, have you got a time line for when you might 

progress that? 

Senator Scullion: I will allow the organisation to answer, but the reason I brought that up at the meeting is 

that, since the Akiba case, quite clearly the fund is there to fund people who do not quite make the connection to 

country, because of displacement. Since the Akiba case, it is my view that those circumstances would now exist 

and have been shown to exist. If you do not quite make exclusive possession but the nature of the connection is 

there in exactly the same way—in fact an identical way—that previous investments have been made in land, it 

would flow then to investments in sea country such as access rights. If you can build a cattle yard, why can't you 

build a wharf—all of those sorts of connections. 

Senator SIEWERT: I understand that. When we had the inquiry into my bill, for example, there was strong 

support for expanding it into sea country. How close are we to seeing the program? 

Senator Scullion: There is a question that exists about whether or not you need legislative change about land. 

Is it 'land'? Well, that is our word, but it is a continuum. I understand we are still seeking some advice about 

whether or not that change is required. 

Senator SIEWERT: Okay. How soon is that? I am trying to look at how soon the changes can happen if they 

can happen, whether they are through a regulatory process for the definition of 'land' or through a legislative 

change. 

Senator Scullion: I will seek some advice on that. I wanted it to happen yesterday, but the process moves a 

little slower than that. 

Mr Eccles: It was something that was discussed only a couple of days ago between John, other members of 

the board and me. We are taking it offline to work together to map out a process. 

Senator SIEWERT: Okay. 

Senator McCARTHY: How much annual payment does the ILC receive? 

Mr Maher: We are legislated to get a minimum of $45 million a year. We are budgeted to get $51 million for 

this financial year 2016-2017. 

Senator McCARTHY: How is that money distributed? 

Mr Maher: I might pass this to the COO. 

Ms Lindsay: The money comes directly from the land account. The land account is a fund that was 

established to fund the ILC in perpetuity and to provide a secure and reliable income stream to the ILC. The 



legislation actually requires for $45 million indexed in 2010 dollars to be paid to the ILC each year annually in 

October. 

Senator DODSON: Was there a 10-year sunset on that? 

Ms Lindsay: No, in perpetuity. 

Senator DODSON: Someone must have negotiated something worthwhile! I think in the second reading 

speech there was a 10-year sunset on that. 

Ms Lindsay: The 10-year sunset was to establish the fund, so there was an appropriation from government for 

10 years to establish the fund. 

Senator DODSON: So you are still getting access to that capital in the account. 

Ms Lindsay: Absolutely. 

Senator DODSON: Okay. 

Senator McCARTHY: You were talking about Voyages there, but would you be able to let us know a little 

bit about your involvement with the NCIE and also National Indigenous Pastoral Enterprises? 

Mr Maher: Both of those organisations are wholly owned subsidiaries of the ILC, as is Voyages, and they are 

governed by a board where two directors from ILC are on those boards. One of those directors will be the chair of 

NCIE or NIPE as well. They are subsidiary organisations. NIPE, for example, manages assets over 14 properties 

across Australia. NCIE is our National Centre for Indigenous Excellence, based at Redfern, and is an organisation 

where we educate and train Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people in catering, in tourism and in other 

areas as well. We also run social services out of that asset for the local population. 

Senator McCARTHY: What is the employment ratio here for Indigenous people with NCIE? 

Mr Maher: The employment rate? 

Senator McCARTHY: Yes. 

Mr Maher: The employment rate is 50 per cent. 

Senator McCARTHY: And the total employment? 

Mr Maher: Eighty people in total are employed and 40 of those are Indigenous. 

Senator LINES: Has that percentage gone down since it opened? 

Ms Lindsay: No, it has consistently been around 50 per cent. 

Senator McCARTHY: Can we go through Indigenous employment and overall employment at Voyages? 

Mr Maher: As of 31 August, Voyages had 381 Indigenous employees. That represented 36.1 per cent of the 

employment. 

Senator McCARTHY: Was that 36.1 per cent of the total workforce? 

Mr Maher: Yes. 

Senator McCARTHY: What is the number of the total workforce? 

Mr Maher: It is 1,056. 

Senator McCARTHY: Given that it is on Anangu land, would you be able to break down the percentage of 

Anangu? 

Senator DODSON: Chair, I would like to raise a matter. As a native title holder, I have an arrangement with 

the pastoral company of the ILC in Broome. I will not ask any questions in relation to the ILC, but I do 

understand how some of these matters work. 

CHAIR: Fair enough. Thank you, Senator Dodson. 

Senator McCARTHY: I just want to know the percentage of that staff who are Anangu. Are you looking at 

those figures? 

Mr Maher: Going off the annual report— 

Senator Scullion: I think the question is about local people, probably from Mutitjulu. 

Senator McCARTHY: Yes, that is right. 

Senator Scullion: Can we take that on notice? We will find that out in a few minutes. I suspect it is under 20. 

If you are talking about Anangu outside of the Northern Territory, I think the number goes up by about that same 

quantum again. It is still quite low in comparison with the other Indigenous employers. 

Senator LINES: Is that 20 per cent? 



Senator Scullion: No, it is 20 as in the real number. 

Senator McCARTHY: Twenty people? 

Senator Scullion: Yes. That is locally in Mutitjulu, but we have another avenue—women, particularly in the 

domestic area, that come from the APY lands. We are trying to expand that. I will get those numbers in a 

moment. 

Senator DODSON: Mr Fry, how successful is that whole arrangement with native title holders and 

commercial arrangements? Is it panning out across Australia in commercial, environmental and management 

arrangements? 

Mr Fry: Thank you very much for that question. As I said earlier, I have had the opportunity to get some 

quality time and information to look at that particular question. I think it is fair to say that over the last 20 years 

there has been a very serious acquisition process of properties. In that time frame, as with all businesses, there has 

been waxing and waning of their performance. As I indicated earlier, the ILC is transitioning to position itself so 

that it will address that very question so that we can provide further capacity and, definitely, capability assistance 

to drive the wellbeing of those assets that are acquired and divested for Indigenous bodies. 

The frame around land is that there was a very pointed recruitment of the CEO, who has a very strong 

background in that area. Needless to say, the number of hours that we have spent going over this has certainly 

occupied a lot of our time. I can assure you that we cannot fix it all in one go, but we will certainly make the right 

steps towards that. It will be on an incremental basis and then exponentially, we would like to think, through this 

effort these particular Indigenous organisations will start to flourish a whole lot better than they have in the past. 

Senator DODSON: I think underpinning your opening statement was the notion of some kind of merger 

within the two organisations. At what stage is that, what are the likely implications, what consultations are taking 

place and what functions will be incorporated? 

Mr Fry: Again, I came into the organisation looking at two very large institutions effectively operating as 

separate silos to each other, servicing the same client, and not bringing their combined grunt to the sort of 

aspirations and demands and requirements of its client base. With respect to the word 'merger', that is certainly 

not something that we are seeking. What we are doing is making sure that both organisations continue to operate 

separately to each other but develop a very highly fluid, collaborative model so that the intellectual property of 

both groups is focusing on specific matters that may be relevant to both organisations at the same time. There has 

always been the situation where an Indigenous organisation, if they have had to talk to an ILC and an IBA on a 

particular project, have flown in from, say, far-flung Western Australia to talk to ILC in Adelaide, then they have 

to go and talk to IBA in Canberra. It does not make sense, to me, in terms of cost efficiencies and how you do 

business. 

Probably in the past year we have certainly ramped up our output to meet with Indigenous organisations in a 

combined sense. I call it the investor run with the two chiefs, in particular, and we might take specific individuals 

with us rather than have expertise in a specific matter that the client is requesting discussions on. There is no talk 

of merger, there is no work in that space. It is no surprise to anyone that the papers that I have given have talked 

about a shared services structure, which is back-office functions, and making sure that we at least test proof of 

concept around that before we go any further. 

Senator DODSON: You are more talking about a co-location? 

Mr Fry: That is one of the things that we would look at in any regard, because I think it makes really good 

sense. 

Senator DODSON: Economies of scale, I can understand that. 

Mr Fry: If you come to town and you have to go to one office which is on one side of town to talk to the ILC 

and then you have to go to the other side of town to talk to the IBA and you are constrained by travel 

arrangements or accommodation, it just seems a little bit strange. 

Senator DODSON: So the separation of the boards would be retained? 

Mr Fry: Absolutely. 

Senator DODSON: What are the terms and conditions of the loan in relation to Voyages? 

Mr Fry: So there is no absolute confusion on this I will hand it over to John or Jodie. It is probably better that 

Jodie speaks to it because John, as you know, has only been in the job for the last four months—even though I 

have a very high opinion of his capability. 

Senator DODSON: Thank you for your assistance. 



Ms Lindsay: It is a $65 million loan from the Commonwealth to the ILC, interest and principal payment from 

day one. The interest rate is benchmarked to a publicly available published interest rate in the budget system, so it 

is effectively the cost of funds to the government. The terms and conditions of the loan are that the 

Commonwealth have taken the same security over the assets as the other financier, ANZ. They have secured the 

loan through security over the assets of Ayers Rock Resort. 

Senator McCARTHY: Can you define the assets? 

Ms Lindsay: Ayers Rock Resort, as you know, is accommodation and a town centre and lots of land. There is 

a mortgage over the land, there is a mortgage over the shares ILC hold— 

Senator McCARTHY: How many shares? 

Ms Lindsay: It is 100 shares in the ILC. The ILC own 100 shares in Voyages. There is a mortgage over the 

airport lease with the Northern Territory government and a general charge over all assets. That is consistent with 

the same security arrangements that we have with ANZ, who are the other financier. 

Senator DODSON: I want to ask about the training packages on the pastoral leases and just how effective 

they are. Are you getting numbers coming through there? I know in the Kimberley there are a few places where 

this is happening. 

Mr Fry: Yes. Thanks again for that question, Senator. I will pass to Jodie or John, or Tricia Button, who 

might have those numbers in specific terms. 

Mr Maher: The effectiveness of that training program has been really well received across the top end. 

Obviously that is where the training predominantly takes place. You will see, through the annual report that has 

just been released, that in fact employment outcomes through both ILC and land management projects, which 

include that kind of training, are well over the target. It is 1,000 people. Also the total number of Indigenous 

training outcomes enabled through ILC land acquisition and those training programs you referred to, Senator, 

have had a 91 per cent completion rate. Out of 3,014 participants, 2,745 Indigenous people have been trained 

through those programs and other programs that the ILC itself would run. 

Senator McCARTHY: And how many of those have gone on to full-time work? 

Mr Maher: That is a question I cannot answer because sometimes we do not know where they go. A lot of 

them are employed back through ILC and its subsidiaries, being NIPE, but other corporates do take on those 

trainees—such as AACo, CPC et cetera. 

Senator DODSON: Maybe that is a matter you could take on notice. 

Mr Maher: We can take that on notice and try to get— 

Senator DODSON: It will be interesting, because you seem to be having good success with the training. The 

secondary level of that is: are they going into mainstream employment somewhere? I was going to ask a question 

that has just drifted out of my mind. I will come back to it. Senator Line, have you got one? 

Senator LINES: Yes, I want to ask a question on NIPE—National Indigenous Pastoral Enterprises. If you 

cannot give us this answer today, you can take it on notice. I would really like you to tell us what is the balance 

between the NIPE investments into its own pastoral interests and in southern Australia? What is that breakdown? 

Mr Maher: I will not tell you in percentage terms; I will take that on notice. I will say that we have 13 

properties north of the Capricorn, if you like, and we have one property in Tasmania. 

Senator LINES: I am interested in the balance of investment between those and what is happening across 

southern Australia. 

Mr Maher: Yes, and as we speak we have one in Tasmania. It is very heavily skewed towards the north. 

Senator McCARTHY: So just to clarify: earlier you said 14 properties. So it is 13— 

Mr Maher: Yes, 13 across the top and one in Tasmania. That is the 14. 

Senator DODSON: Mr Fry, I have just recalled the question I want to ask you. We had in the Kimberley, as 

the minister would know, the development of a meatwork—privately owned I presume. There is no interest that 

you people have got in it, or the ILC. I am just wondering what the impact of that particular entity now in the 

Kimberley will have on the properties that Indigenous peoples or the ILC have interests in across northern 

Australia, given that you have got the smaller operation out at Gunbalanya? 

Mr Fry: I will hand that over to John to give you a more defined response, but I thank you for that question. 

One of the things we are doing is looking at exactly what is the best business case model for us. Is it to be solely 

in live export? Is it to diversify into abattoir production? And the range goes on. So this question, and the other 

questions that the senators are raising, I am actually quite pleased with because these are all of the things that we 



are thrashing out at the executive level. I can assure you I meet biweekly, every second week, with the chiefs of 

both organisations to address all of these questions that you are raising. So, John, could you add to that? 

Mr Maher: The meatworks I think you are referring to is the one at Livingstone, which has recently been 

opened by AA company. 

Senator DODSON: No. It is in the Kimberley. 

Mr Maher: In the Kimberley? 

Senator DODSON: Yes. 

Mr Maher: It is a similar situation in that it has been a boon for producers in that part of the country because 

it means that older cattle now have a market that is much closer to home, rather than having to send them further 

south to Harvey Beef or some other abattoir down south. It also means that, when there are no boats coming out 

of Broome or Wyndham, it provides another market for those kinds of animals that would normally go to live 

exports. The opening of that abattoir in the Kimberley has been a boon. I was also going to talk about the other 

one, which is a boon for the Top End in total. 

Senator McCARTHY: How many abattoirs do you have? 

Mr Maher: We do not own that abattoir. It is a privately owned abattoir, as is the AACo. It is owned by a 

public listed company. The only abattoir that we are involved in is the one at Gunbalanya. 

Senator DODSON: Mr Fry, can I ask you about the land fund. How many loan applications have been made 

from Indigenous organisations or communities to get access to funds for the purchase of land? 

Mr Fry: I cannot definitively tell you exactly what loan amounts— 

Senator DODSON: Take it on notice. 

Mr Fry: I will take it on notice, and we will certainly come back to you on that. 

Senator DODSON: Thank you. 

Senator Scullion: It should be a little bit more expansive, but we will take it on notice with both IBA and 

ILC. The land fund does not actually provide loans for land. It buys land that failed the native title test and then 

provides it back, as you would be aware. I understand what you are saying, but that question would go to— 

Senator DODSON: How many applications have been made for the purchase of land by Aboriginal 

corporations or individuals? 

Senator Scullion: That question should extend to IBA as well because they do some applications. 

Senator DODSON: I was more interested in how the land fund itself was being impacted by that. 

Mr Fry: In terms of acquisition, there have been 252 acquisitions of land properties over the period. 

Senator Scullion: I know you have got a particular interest in this. We will try to prepare a an extensive brief 

about the purchases, maybe over the last five years, and a bit of a vignette around the rationale for those from 

both the land fund and any other application for funding around the IBA. 

Senator DODSON: That is most appreciated, Minister. 

Senator McCARTHY: Mr Maher, could I come back to you on Gunbalanya. Are you able to provide further 

details on just that community and how it is going in terms of the cattle? 

Mr Maher: The cattle or the property? There is a property there as well. 

Senator McCARTHY: Both. 

Mr Maher: Seasonally, it has had a pretty good year. I would have to come back to you with the financials, if 

that is what you are after. I do not have them with me at the moment, but I am happy to come back to you with the 

financials. 

Senator McCARTHY: You can certainly take that on notice, but what can you tell me in terms of the 

programs out there? 

Mr Maher: The abattoir has a reasonable throughput. I would not say it is best practice, but it is certainly 

something that we would look at with respect to investing to get there. It has its own community market. I think it 

is a big part of helping that community with respect to not only employment but also producing its own product. 

Senator McCARTHY: Does it have a market outside Gunbalanya though? 

Mr Maher: No, not properly yet. 

Senator McCARTHY: Is that the intent? 



Mr Maher: The intent is to explore that with ALPA. 

Senator Scullion: We have a bit of an emerging arrangement with Gunbalanya. Quite a few people who are 

driving across Arnhem Land are calling in. It is probably one of the few places you can actually purchase 

unfinished Brahman anywhere. We bring all these British breeds in from down south, and that is what you see in 

most of our butcher shops. Brahman has a very distinct taste. I think it is my choice anyway. It is a beautiful 

product, but it is relatively unknown. I think a lot of people are now going to Gunbalanya because it is the only 

place you can buy an unfinished animal. When I talk about unfinished, I am talking about an animal that has not 

been fed grain and that sort of thing. So I think there is a lot of interest in a new product. 

Senator McCARTHY: Are you able to provide us with statistics on employment for local people there? 

Mr Maher: For Gunbalanya specifically? 

Senator McCARTHY: Yes, please. 

Mr Maher: I am sorry. We do not have that with us, but we will come back to you on that. 

Senator McCARTHY: If you could take that on notice, local employment and the total number of 

employment— 

Mr Maher: Yes, sure. 

Senator Scullion: Just so I can provide parts of the question on notice, in terms of Anangu, we have 17 

Anangu employees, including 14 in a structured work program, 11 Anangu contractors regularly engaged around 

the rock, and two ad hoc contractors if something in particular happens and they are called in. 

Senator McCARTHY: Are they based at [inaudible]? 

Senator Scullion: I do not know where the ad hoc contractors are. These are local contractors. If I have made 

an incorrect assumption I will correct it. 

Senator McCARTHY: So a total of 17. 

Senator Scullion: No, 17 employees. There are an additional 11 regularly engaged contractors that are 

Anangu. They are not an employee; they are a contractor. They come in through the arrangement as an employee 

PAYE. It is a contractor engagement. There are two ad hoc contractors we would have from time to time. So 11 

are regularly contracted to do work, two are ad hoc and 17 are Anangu employees. 

Senator McCARTHY: Full-time equivalent. 

Senator DODSON: They are all Indigenous. 

Senator Scullion: For clarity, in terms of full- or part-time, I will have to get that on notice. I do not think we 

should assume—the only information I have is that they are employees. 

Senator McCARTHY: Just for the record, to clarify I have it right, there are 17 Anangu. 

Senator Scullion: These are all Anangu. 

Senator McCARTHY: So there are 17 full-time equivalent or part-time but you will get back to me on that. 

There are 11 contractors— 

Senator Scullion: Yes, Anangu contractors. 

Senator McCARTHY: Anangu and two extras. 

Senator Scullion: There are two other contractors. They do bits and pieces but they are not considered a fulltime 

contractor. 

Senator McCARTHY: Please also take on notice, Minister, what their pay is. 

Senator Scullion: Certainly. We will take that on notice. As I indicated, there are 14 of those Anangu 

employees that are on a structured work program. As part of the question on notice, we will provide the details of 

that. 

Senator LINES: Mr Fry, I was interested to hear you say that at the board level ILC is examining what it does 

beyond live exports and those sorts of investments. What consultation will you have with different Aboriginal and 

Torres Strait Islander Peoples? I am sure you are aware that in Western Australia there is strong criticism from 

south-west Noongars about ILC investments being predominantly in the north-west of Western Australia. And I 

understand there are concerns with Kooris and others across the country. If you are looking at how you go beyond 

pastoral leases, what is that dialogue with other interested parties, such as south-west Noongars or other 

Aboriginal groups? 



Mr Fry: I will answer your question generally, in the main, and will ask Mr Maher to provide any definitive 

or more strengthened commentary around it. In terms of stakeholder engagement, I took the opportunity to throw 

open the door at the recent native title conference in Darwin. I structured the back half of every day, while we 

were there, and opened it up for Indigenous organisations on a scheduled basis to sit down with us and talk about 

exactly what their aspirations were and where we might be able to fit in. 

That stakeholder arrangement is certainly top of mind in everything we do. However, I would suggest, at this 

stage, whilst we are transitioning and, indeed, both the two organisations and positioning them to the state that we 

want, at the same time, we have met with the Noongar representative, the CEO of the south-west land council. 

We had a very fruitful meeting with him. He has gone away from that meeting with quite a lot of considerations. 

We are more than happy to work with those organisations to embed people into them, to help them, to redesign 

their business case, their structure, their corporate governance and to offer whatever capability we can to assist 

them achieve what it is they want to achieve—particularly the Noongar group. That in itself is very exciting but it 

needs a highly structured sophisticated approach to it. 

Mr Maher: Just to clarify, whereas the question was to do with pastoral interests and, certainly, we are 

heavily weighted in the north pastorally, across the country are remits to acquire and manage land for cultural 

heritage and environmental reasons. That is a far better spread across the country, which also includes into 

southern WA. To backup Mr Fry's point, we are in dialogue with the Noongar people with respect to the pending 

land rights. 

Senator DODSON: Of the number of properties that have been bought by the ILC, what proportion of those 

are still held by the ILC and what of those have been transferred to the native title holders or the relevant 

Aboriginal communities? 

Mr Fry: Out of the 252 that have been acquired, 33 per cent are still held and managed by the ILC. 

Senator DODSON: What is the strategy for the transfer? 

Mr Fry: I will pass this on to John, again. We are certainly revisiting our divestment strategy so that when the 

divestment occurs it is a viable property, that the capability and, indeed, the capacity is ongoing for those 

properties. I would like to think that everybody would be expecting that of the ILC, that we do not just acquire 

and hand over an asset that may well become distressed for all sorts of reasons. It then becomes a very costly 

matter. John, do you have anything to add? 

Mr Maher: One hundred and ninety three of those properties have been divested. About seven per cent have 

required remediation from ILC after that divestment. Our strategy is very much about ensuring that we develop 

the land we acquire and that the skills are with the people we are divesting to, so that property can be an ongoing 

concern or be used as an asset for an ongoing concern in the future. That is one area we will be focusing on, 

ensuring those divestments principles are evenly tied up with respect to that. It is incumbent upon us to ensure 

success. 

Senator SIEWERT: I wanted to follow up a couple of questions around the loan. I think it was Senator 

Dodson who asked about the $65 million loan to assist Voyages. Has the full amount of the loan being taken up? 

Ms Lindsay: Yes, it has. 

Senator SIEWERT: Which elements of the pre-existing loan arrangements have been refinanced by the 

Commonwealth loan? 

Ms Lindsay: The original loan, when we purchased Ayers Rock, was through a combination of a vendor 

finance arrangement with GPT and some additional funding from ANZ. We refinanced with GPT and ANZ in 

March 2016, earlier this year. ANZ increased their loan and GPT, consequently, reduced their loan. The GPT loan 

reduced down to $65 million and now GPT has been replaced with the Commonwealth loan. The vendor finance 

has been replaced with the Commonwealth loan in total. 

Senator SIEWERT: So that is the money that the Commonwealth loan replaces. What did the ANZ increase 

to? 

Ms Lindsay: From $60 million to $120 million. 

Senator SIEWERT: Okay. I know Senator Dodson was asking about the land fund investment. I am going to 

put some questions on notice, but I would like to know what is the current budget for the discretionary land 

management and land acquisition programs. I am trying to look at what the movement has been over the last 

couple of years. I have more-detailed questions that I will put on notice, on some of the other investments—the 

long-term investments. 

Mr Maher: Would you like us to map that out over the last five years perhaps, so that you get a feel for that? 



Senator SIEWERT: Yes. Is that something you can give me for this year and then, on notice, for the last five 

years? 

Mr Maher: Yes. 

Senator SIEWERT: Thanks. 

Mr Maher: I can give you this year's budget, if you like. It is $27.3 million for land acquisition and land 

management. 

Senator SIEWERT: $27.3 million. Are you able to give me last year's at this stage? I know it is a big ask to 

give me the other years, but if you have last year's that would be helpful. 

Mr Maher: Yes, it is $33.1 million. 

Senator SIEWERT: What is the reason for it going down? 

Ms Lindsay: The spend in 2015-16 was effectively catching up with some projects that were multiyear 

projects from prior years. 

Senator SIEWERT: So that increased it. Is that what you are saying? 

Ms Lindsay: Yes. 

Senator SIEWERT: If you could take on notice to give me the out years, that would be great. 

Mr Maher: The five years. 

Senator SIEWERT: Yes. That would be great, thank you. Can I go back to the issue that was touched on a 

while ago, and that is the talk of the merger. Can I ask just a couple of follow-up questions there. In terms of the 

merger of the backends, I presume you are talking about the administration facilities for both IBA and ILC? 

Mr Fry: Payroll and that sort of stuff. 

Senator SIEWERT: Okay. Is there any other organisation that you are talking about also combining into that 

process? 

Mr Fry: I will start and then I will hand it over to John and Jodie, and they can speak to it even more 

definitively than I will, because they have been charged with doing the work. But essentially, as I said earlier, 

there is no merger between the two organisations. It is about looking at the cost efficiencies between the two. It is 

working out the best way to apply a combined resource to all the things that we do in payroll, HR et cetera, and to 

work our way forward out of a project generation stage and work a high-level concept into feasibility so that we 

get proof of concept before we make a really concerted effort; and it will be primarily for the two groups, IBA 

and ILC. We will then look at what sort of work we can do with our subsidiaries in that area and to fold them in 

or vend them in, and it will be a very stepped and very measured process to do that. 

Senator SIEWERT: What specific subsidiaries are you talking about? 

Mr Fry: In particular in the ILC, NIPE, NCIE, Voyages. That is not going to take place for some time. 

Senator SIEWERT: What is the time line from here in terms of rolling that out? 

Mr Fry: I will hand that over to Jodie or John, who can give you a very detailed layout of the schedule, going 

forward on this. 

Mr Maher: Thanks, Senator, for the question. There has been a lot of work in exploring back-office 

efficiencies, if you like, or synergies with respect to IBA and ILC. That includes, as I think Mr Fry alluded to, 

HR, IT, accounting, finance et cetera—functions that do not really affect a brand—and the front office of both 

organisations. There has been no agreement at all with respect to 'where to'. Consequently, your question on time 

frame is one that we cannot answer. There actually has not been any agreement yet by either board with respect to 

that, going forward. 

Senator SIEWERT: In fact, you have pre-empted another question, where I was going next, which was about 

what has been discussed with the boards of both organisations. 

Mr Maher: Both boards are aware of the work that has been done. Certainly, Jodie and Jodie's peer in IBA 

have done a large amount of work with respect to the possibility and consequently the efficiencies. But certainly 

there has been no agreement by either board on 'where to' and therefore on time lines as well. 

Senator SIEWERT: Mr Fry and I were just discussing possible subsidiaries going in at a later date. Has that 

been discussed by the boards of any of those organisations? 

Mr Maher: Certainly the ILC board has discussed potential inclusion of subsidiaries, and the first two 

subsidiaries that would be involved, if they were, would be NCIE and NIPE. 



Senator SIEWERT: Sorry; what? 

Mr Maher: NIPE, the pastoral business. To be frank, the ILC does a lot of work for them as it is now anyway. 

If Voyages were to be involved, it would be quite a while down the track, given the sophistication of their back 

office already. 

Senator SIEWERT: Yes. I would have thought that was quite complex. Going to the subsidiaries, there are 

no other outside organisations that you are talking about or thinking about combining? 

Mr Maher: The outside organisations have not been factored into any figures or anything like that with 

respect to— 

Senator Scullion: Senator, do you have someone in mind? 

Senator SIEWERT: For example, the hostels— 

Senator Scullion: AHL? 

Senator SIEWERT: Yes. 

Ms Lindsay: We are not factoring in AHL at the moment in the consideration of the corporate shared 

services. But, at the same time, we are providing AHL—we are in constant contact, as a portfolio, with backoffice 

functions with each other; we are constantly providing information and assistance. So, while we are not 

factoring them in, we are still talking to them, providing assistance to them, at the moment. 

Senator SIEWERT: So it is more an informal thing rather than formal. 

Mr Maher: It is collaboration. 

Senator SIEWERT: Thank you. I do have other questions for ILC but I will put them on notice. 

CHAIR: I appreciate that. Thank you, ILC. Those of you not connected with IBA are free to go. For those of 

you who are, we will return after the break. 

Proceedings suspended from 10.32 to 10.49 

Indigenous Business Australia 

CHAIR: The hearing will now resume. I welcome Mr Leo Bator, acting Chief Executive Officer of IBA, and 

Mr Peter O'Neill, acting Chief Operating Officer of IBA. And I thank Mr Fry for making himself available for 

these questions as well. Mr Bator, do you have an opening statement? 

Mr Bator: I do. Thank you very much, Chair. I would like to provide a short statement on IBA's 2015-16 

performance and what we are currently doing to address some of the gaps. It is true that we did not meet all of our 

performance indicators for the year. However, we did achieve many meaningful economic outcomes for 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, which is at the core of everything we do. In providing over $160 

million in financing 480 home loans, we helped to make a reality the dream of owning a home, creating a secure 

environment to bring up children, avoiding the uncertainties of renting and creating a source of financial security 

and independence into the future for approximately 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—that 

includes the customers and, of course, their families. 

We would like to have achieved more, but the current home ownership funding model has some inherent 

constraints and the IBA board is considering how to overcome these. Program capital appropriation from the 

annual budget cycle comprised only 14 per cent of the overall capital lent for home ownership in 2015-16, with 

86 per cent coming from loan repayments, loan discharges and other earnings of the IBA. In 2015-16 our budget 

for home loans was fully expended. This is the fundamental reason why we must continue to grow the asset base 

and find new and innovative ways to raise capital for additional amounts to expend on home ownership that can 

be facilitated by the IBA. 

During the year we positively responded to the findings of the Australian National Audit Office on the Home 

Ownership Program via changes to our programs and practices. Our results to date show that these changes are 

making a difference, particularly for Indigenous Australians in the lower income bands. 

Changes to the Business Development Assistance Program were also made to align our services and products 

more closely with our customers' needs and business life cycle. Whilst the number of loans was less than 

anticipated, debt financing is only one of the mechanisms required in a business life cycle. Leasing is now 

fulfilling a vital role in business success, and we are soon to roll out an invoicing credit product to deliver cash 

flow to growing businesses. Importantly, during the year, 420 Indigenous entrepreneurs were supported in 

capability development activities. So we are transforming ourselves and adopting a tailored approach rather than a 

one-size-fits-all approach. 



Many native title and Indigenous community groups lack access to professionally managed, well governed and 

affordable investment solutions that enable the building of intergenerational wealth. This is where our Equity 

Investment Program is making a real difference. Over the past two years, IBA has established and seeded the 

Indigenous Prosperity Fund and the Indigenous Real Estate Investment Trust for Indigenous organisations to 

invest in. Since its inception, the Indigenous Real Estate Investment Trust has delivered returns of 16 per cent per 

annum. For 2015-16, the annual return was just under 22 per cent. There are 17 Indigenous investors across our 

current asset platforms and we are looking to get another eight to 10 groups involved in investment prior to the 

end of this year. Overall, the Equity Investment Program generated more than $23 million in financial benefit to 

Indigenous Australians in 2015 through financial returns, wages, training and procurement outcomes. I think we 

have done a number of things well, and we are working to do better in future across all of our programs. 

CHAIR: Thank you. We will now go to questions. Senator Siewert. 

Senator SIEWERT: Mr Bator, you have acknowledged that your targets have not been met. Can you explain 

a little bit more why those targets were not met and tell us when you realised you were not going to meet them? 

Mr Bator: With the Home Ownership Program, as I said, we did fully expend our budget in terms of the 

money to be lent out. Clearly there has been a drop-off in the number of inquiries—from 5,700 down to around 

4,500 last year. We know that there has been a downturn in the mining industry around the country, which may or 

may not have impacted on demand. We have not been out there with much advertising either. We are now 

looking very closely at different programs, particularly in the lower income bands—because that is an area that 

the Australian National Audit Office and the minister are interested in us looking at—and we have had some 

success in attracting people who are interested in home ownership. Last year, we thought we were going to get 

closer than we did; but, at the end of the day, we did not. With home ownership it is not a very quick process; it 

can be a longer process taking many months. And we just did not see the impact on home ownership of the 

downturn in some regions. 

Senator SIEWERT: In terms of not seen the downturn, when did you realise you were not going to make that 

target? 

Mr Bator: I was not there. Nevertheless, from talking to people, it was pretty evident that we needed to do 

different things during the course of the year—and, as I understand it, we did do some things differently. To be 

honest, you generally know in around January whether you are going to make your targets or not. There was some 

effort put in to try to work on how we could find the customers. But you have to remember that customers have to 

want to get a home loan; it is a voluntary thing. They themselves will know whether they are capable of taking out 

a home loan or not. I think one of the things that we as an organisation need to do is be more proactive in trying to 

understand that. One of the key things that our people do is work out how much you can pay for a home loan and 

then help you find a place you can afford to buy. 

Senator SIEWERT: You said you did not do much advertising. Did you do less than normal? 

Mr Bator: I do not think we did less than normal, but we should have done more. 

Senator SIEWERT: Why wasn't that done when you realised that you may not meet the target? 

Mr Bator: I would only hazard a guess. As I said, we had a lower number of inquiries—4,500 compared to 

5,700 in an earlier year. In fact, the market was also indicating to us that there was less demand. I suppose we 

could have done more at an earlier stage, and from now on we will. 

Senator SIEWERT: In terms of advertising and outreach? 

Mr Bator: It is more about being out in the communities and trying to find out what the community demand 

across the country is. Word of mouth is our bestselling product. We do not have a budget to be on television. We 

use things like Indigenous football tournaments. We do advertising at those tournaments because it is 

economically viable for us to do that and we have a client base that attends those tournaments. By and large, our 

clients come from word of mouth. So we know we have repeat customers: when a mum and dad get a loan with 

IBA, the daughter will come and get a loan with us. So we know that. And this year we have had some real 

success with follow-up clientele, with children coming in to see us. After all, we think that is a good outcome. 

Senator SIEWERT: Has there been a change in housing policy over the last couple of years within IBA? 

Mr Bator: Obviously we changed the policy from 1 September— 

Senator SIEWERT: This year. 

Mr Bator: This year. That took into account the sorts of concerns that the Australian National Audit Office 

had about our program—specifically, the targeting of the program. The board agreed on the new policy settings. 

We have put in place new practices. We have an online presence now, which is getting a lot of hits. So people are 



alive to the online assessment of their loan capabilities. That is happening. What I am seeing early on is that those 

changes are starting to make a difference in terms of the target audience. 

Senator SIEWERT: Besides the most recent changes as a result of the report, have there been any changes 

over the last, say, four years? 

Mr Bator: There is always an element of program change. A number of years ago there were changes around 

the interest policy of the board. There were policies around the level of risk that we will take in terms of home 

affordability. As you can imagine, the structuring of those loans is above what a bank might offer in terms of the 

credit risk that we will take. 

Senator SIEWERT: Can you outline on notice what those changes have been? 

Mr Bator: Of course, Senator. 

Senator SIEWERT: Mr Fry, when was the board aware of the situation of potentially not meeting the 

targets? 

Mr Fry: It is not that we were not aware of not meeting our targets. The board is a group of individuals who 

are very focused on the market space, so we are constantly questioning the executives around this. Over the last 

two years in particular we have noticed that there has been a quite significant surge in house prices. Given the 

purchasing power of Indigenous Australians, whether they be living in Sydney or in regional New South Wales, 

the price of housing was pretty much washing away their ability to even take out a home loan. They might be able 

to afford a $400,000 home. But when the average is pushing up closer to $600,000 it is not a favourable 

environment for them. As a board, we are constantly looking at all of this. It is a board that has moved to looking 

at every aspect of its business in a strategic sense, not a transactional sense. So we are very much focused on our 

product offerings and the markets they are operating in, specific to our clients. 

As you would appreciate, whether it is in business or in home loans, the market space that we are working in, 

which I would call the non-Indigenous sector, is quite tough. I recently read an article written on 17 August by 

Glenn Stevens, the former Governor of the Reserve Bank, in which he said Australians are facing a real problem 

around house prices for the current generation. Mums and dads are going to have to assist with mortgages and, 

therefore, they are going to have less of their superannuation left. When you look at that kind of statement—and 

the reports from CoreLogic of a downwards trend in the number of home units being sold and a growing number 

of homeowners being in repayment arrears in the non-Indigenous sector—the difficulty for Indigenous people is 

compounded even further. So the board gives really fluid and flexible consideration to all these matters. 

Senator SIEWERT: Minister, were you aware at the time that there were issues with not being able to meet 

the targets, and the very nature of the issues we have just been talking about? 

Senator Scullion: Not specifically, no. But, without reflecting too much on what has already been said about 

the matter, there are a number of factors, and we can put a target of how many we want to give away. Perhaps a 

question that might be of use to us all is: how many people came who met all the requirements of a loan and were 

refused? The organisation can do only so much. And we have indicated that yes, the market is a bit tighter. We 

have had all these market pressures. I am not actually sure. I think the question I would like to get the answer to is 

how you actually set the target. If we are going to make people come and apply for a home loan, it would be a 

pretty tough target to meet. I am not sure actually how you ascertain that this is the number of home loans we 

want to provide. I do not know how you come to that target. I think that would be something I would like to 

inform myself of. So, I will ask them to provide me with a brief and I will give that brief as a question on notice, 

because I think that will be a lot more important than some of those other matters. 

Senator SIEWERT: I do have other questions, but I will put them on notice, given the time. 

CHAIR: Thank you. 

Senator McCARTHY: In your opening statement you spoke about 70 per cent of Indigenous investors. Is 

that correct? 

Mr Bator: It was 17 Indigenous investors. 

Senator McCARTHY: Is that right across Australia? 

Mr Bator: It is. These are in our particular products of the Indigenous Prosperity Fund and the Indigenous 

Real Estate Investment Trust, and particular large assets that we own. 

Senator McCARTHY: What kinds of assets? 

Mr Bator: Vibe and Medina. 

Senator McCARTHY: Where? 



Mr Bator: In Darwin. 

Senator McCARTHY: Any other assets? 

Mr O'Neill: We have approximately 26 direct investments around Australia—the Kakadu properties, for 

example. The 17 co-investor figure that Mr Bator referred to in his opening statement is in regard to the asset and 

funds management that we have. That includes the Indigenous Real Estate Investment Trust, the Indigenous 

Prosperity Fund and both the cash and growth aspects of that. 

Senator McCARTHY: You say there are 26. 

Mr O'Neill: There are 26 direct. 

Senator McCARTHY: Could we get a list of the 26? 

Mr O'Neill: Certainly. 

Senator McCARTHY: Could you read them out, if you have them there? 

Mr O'Neill: Certainly. It is on page 55 of the annual report. We have specialised investments such as property 

holdings across Australia, ranging from the Commonwealth Centre, the Goldfields Building, [inaudible] et cetera 

in WA through to properties in Queensland and the Northern Territory. 

Senator McCARTHY: Are they business properties, in Queensland and the Northern Territory? 

Mr O'Neill: They are predominantly commercial office buildings. We have a couple of retail investments— 

Tennant Creek Food Barn and Merredin Supa IGA. And then we have an industrial portfolio. 

Senator McCARTHY: What do you have in the industrial portfolio? 

Mr O'Neill: We have six assets, or six direct investments. 

Senator McCARTHY: Where are they? 

Mr O'Neill: They range across Australia. We have Inverell in New South Wales. We have, up in the gulf, 

Carpentaria Shipping Services, and Carey Mining, which is in WA, and Anderleigh Quarry, in New South Wales. 

And then we move on to the tourism and hospitality portfolio, where we have joint ventures at Fitzroy River, 

Kakadu, Townsville and Cairns, and properties—the Vibe hotel that Mr Bator referred to—and Wilpena Pound 

Resort. 

Senator McCARTHY: Where is that? 

Mr O'Neill: Wilpena, in South Australia. So we attempt to have a national approach to our investments, on an 

opportunity basis but obviously to have as diversified a portfolio as possible. 

Senator McCARTHY: How many Indigenous people are employed in each of these 26 assets? 

Mr O'Neill: Approximately 27 per cent of employees in these particular investments represent as Indigenous. 

Without a direct figure in front of me— 

Mr Bator: A total of 776 jobs were supported by direct investments during 2015-16. Twenty-six per cent of 

the staff are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people, and 73 per cent are non-Indigenous. 

Senator McCARTHY: For the 26 per cent, what are the positions that they hold? Can you break that down? 

Mr Bator: I cannot right now, but we can certainly do that on notice. 

Senator McCARTHY: Yes, just so we can see where those 26 per cent are employed across those 26 assets. 

Mr Bator: Yes. We also employ, through a leasing impact, 188 Indigenous people through the business that 

IBA leases to. We provided 406 instances of training. 

Senator McCARTHY: With your leasing, how many assets do you lease? Is that what you are saying—that 

you pay rent? 

Mr Bator: People lease yellow equipment from us and four-wheel-drive vehicles. 

Senator McCARTHY: So, they lease from you? 

Mr Bator: They do. 

Senator McCARTHY: So, it is 188 people who lease from IBA. Is that correct? 

Mr Bator: Yes, who are Indigenous. 

Senator McCARTHY: Out of how many overall? 

Mr Bator: I could find them out. Most of them are Indigenous organisations that lease from us. 

Senator McCARTHY: Would you be able to take that on notice? 



Mr Bator: Yes, absolutely. 

Senator McCARTHY: And that is right across Australia? 

Mr Bator: It is. 

Senator McCARTHY: Again, in your opening statement you spoke about how the number of inquiries had 

dropped from 5,000. Is that correct? 

Mr Bator: I made that as a further comment, but yes, home loan inquiries have dropped. In the 2015-16 year, 

there were 4,751 home loan inquiries, in 2014-15 there were 5,503, in 2013-14 there were 5,160, in 2012-13 there 

were 4,780 and in 2011-12 there were 5,418. 

Senator McCARTHY: Let's go with the 2014-15 figure of 5,503. Of that, how many were granted? 

Mr Bator: Loans? 


Mr Bator: How many loans ended up out of that? I do not have that in front of me, but I think we met targets, 

which was just under 500 home loans, from memory—495 or something like that. It was around that. 

Senator McCARTHY: Out of the 5,503 inquiries? 

Mr Bator: Correct. 

Senator McCARTHY: Do you consider that a success? 

Mr Bator: Well, I think that was the question the minister was posing: what is success? Of course, people 

contact us and ask: 'What would I need to do to position myself to get a home loan? What savings should I make? 

How much would I need? How much would you loan to me?'—those sorts of questions, and over what term we 

would give the loan. Some people might, out of all of that, find that they could go to a bank. Others might find 

that in fact they are not ready yet, they do not have the savings or they cannot see themselves clear to be able to 

pay a mortgage in terms of what is required. So, traditionally I guess there have been many more loan inquiries 

than loans converted. But clearly there is an audience, and we need to find better ways—and better innovative 

ways—to get more people into home ownership who have a willingness to get into home ownership. 

Senator McCARTHY: What are the criteria here that allow 495 home loans to go through and the remainder 

to not go through? What do they need to meet that would be different to going to, for example, the National 

Australia Bank for a home loan, or to the Commonwealth Bank? What is it about IBA's home loan and the criteria 

that you offer that Indigenous people need to meet? 

Mr Bator: In some instances, of course, a bank would require you to have a long-term savings history or 

savings. They would require you to have a good credit history. They would require a period of constant, ongoing 

employment. They would have those sorts of requirements. We have a different view of that. That is the first 

differentiator. Another differentiator, of course, is that the loan terms are longer, generally speaking, than with a 

bank. Also, the introductory loan interest rate is lower. As well as that there will be some other grants that 

potentially are available if you are in regional or remote areas to allow you to get into that home ownership, 

which might cover such things as stamp duties, government taxes and the like. So I think there is a range of 

additional things that we probably have that the banks do not have. 

Senator McCARTHY: Can you break the 495 home loans down into what part of Australia they came from? 

Mr Bator: Most definitely we can. 

Mr O'Neill: Predominantly we would lean to regional or remote areas. That tends to be the make-up of our 

portfolio. The annual report also shows that by new housing loans in the last year, with 77 per cent of loans 

written in regional or remote areas. That tends to be the concentration. We can break it down by state. We will 

take that on notice. 

Senator McCARTHY: So, 77 per cent of the 495 home loans were from the regional and remote areas. In 

terms of the loans themselves, how much are you lending, on average? 

Mr O'Neill: That goes to Senator Siewert's question to some degree as well. The average home loan that we 

have been funding has increased over the period, and it comes back to setting the budget et cetera. In actual fact 

the budget has been expended but the targeted number of loans has not been reached, because the actual loan that 

was lent has increased by $40,000 on last financial year. So, in 2015-16, with the average price being around the 

$360,000 mark, the average amount loaned was $331,400. That was the average loan that we funded. 

Senator McCARTHY: What is the life of that average loan? 

Mr O'Neill: Our terms? 




Mr O'Neill: We offer terms of up to 32 years. 

Senator DODSON: I understand the challenge of people trying to access loans for houses, homes and 

businesses. I just want to explore with you the notion of the risk factors that govern the way you set your interest 

and your loan amounts and periods in relation to the sustaining of the quantum of your cash flow. Can you 

explain that to me? What are the risk factors that are at play here that either enable you to respond, which is part 

of what the minister's question was, or for those people who come before you who do not meet all these criteria, 

because you have a certain risk profile that you have? And that risk profile goes to the outlays that you are going 

to make in relation to the loan, but also in terms of the sustainability of your quantum of your reserve. Can you 

explain that to me, please? 

Mr Fry: I just want to frame it up so that Leo and Peter can add more meat to this discussion on it. The 

board—we deliberate on the matter of risk. We do it probably every quarter around home loans. The issue for us 

is this: if we get 4,000—or whatever it is—inquiries what is the see-through return in providing a home loan for 

those individuals that managed to get there. The first thing is to acknowledge and understand that those who do 

get the loan are never going to get it from the bank. That is the very first thing. A great portion of them that are 

sitting inside that four or five—regardless of what the inquiry is, they are going to struggle to put together the 

actual package that will satisfy getting into a home loan. Then, from a risk point of view, the challenge then is: do 

we provide a home loan to an individual knowing that they are right on the margin and that they may very well 

end up in a distressed environment where we are having to foreclose the home on them because they just 

cannot—they have lost their job or their business has gone broke. It is not just a question of looking at risk from a 

monetary perspective. It is a risk on the community and the individual themselves. So when we look at risk it is 

not clearly just about the financial constructs to this and whether it is a good spend or a good investment. 

Senator DODSON: I was wondering also whether there is equity participation considerations that go to 

mitigate that risk, particularly if Indigenous people are owning their own land or, in the case of native title 

holders, bringing the land to market, as it were. What is the appetite for risk in that situation? I am just trying to 

see the innovative ways in which you are trying to respond to some of this—if there are innovative ways. 

Mr Fry: I can actually answer partly that because, only as recently as about three weeks ago, that very 

question was being discussed between Leo, myself and Peter—how we look at what ILC is doing out on the lands 

and how we tie in any employment opportunities to home loans arranged for purchasing of houses in those near 

remote areas. One of the considerations is how we might peg or lock in where they are tied into ILC activity to 

actually get them to commit to passing on a portion of that employment money into acquiring a home loan. These 

are the things that we are thinking about. These are things that we have been crunching and looking at. We are not 

sitting back just waiting for people to come in; we are actually— 

Senator DODSON: Or let the market determine what you are doing. 

Mr Fry: That is right—or let the market determine. We are actively doing this on a regular basis. As I alluded 

to earlier, I meet with them bi-weekly. I can assure you I have a very long list which is probably more extensive 

to the questions that are being asked. It is all about how we are: operating as a commercial entity; delivering our 

products; innovating on those products and expanding them into the areas that we may not traditionally be in, and 

reaching into them and to see what we can do; but, more importantly, how we can align this with the activities of 

the ILC or any other body that is working in that region with those Indigenous groups. 

Senator McCARTHY: I have just two quick questions, and you might want to take this one on notice, Mr Bator. 

You said 495 home loans were successful. How many people actually applied overall in 2014-15? 

Mr Bator: I can get those details for you. 

Senator McCARTHY: In terms of Aboriginal land—like, for example, the Northern Territory, where over 50 

per cent of the land mass is ALRA—do you loan to Indigenous families on Aboriginal land? 

Mr Bator: We do. That is one of the challenges, I think, that Senator Dodson was referring to. We have 

responsible lending practice that we like to follow. So if there is no market for a house, what is the challenge we 

are going to put up to a person? 

They may well be able to pay or employment opportunities might go and they might not have an opportunity to 

sell the house. So we are trying to think through, as well as giving the loan, the next steps in some regions like 

that. 

An important point, which the chair was making as well, is how we can bring all of our tools to play in terms of 

business start-up, investments and ILC activity to try to create an environment where there are ongoing 



sustainable jobs for people who do wish to take out a home loan and own their own home. So we do give loans in 

those areas, but we also— 

Senator McCARTHY: Could you give numbers on notice? 

Mr Bator: Yes. 

CHAIR: As there are no further questions for IPA, I thank you very much for participating today. 

Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations 

[11:26] 

CHAIR: I welcome Mr Anthony Beven, Registrar of Indigenous Corporations. Mr Beven, do you wish to 

make an opening statement? 

Mr Beven: No, thank you, Chair. 

CHAIR: We will go to Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCARTHY: Minister, I understand from the article that I am looking at that in March this year you 

requested that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet investigate a senior official, Mr Anthony Beven, 

over emails. Could you provide a progress report on where that might be at? 

Mr Eccles: Matters such as these are handled by the corporate area of the Department of the Prime Minister 

and Cabinet, rather than the Indigenous affairs area. So I would need to get an update and perhaps provide it later 

in the day or take it on notice. 

Senator McCARTHY: So you can confirm that that is taking place, Mr Eccles? 

Mr Eccles: It has taken place, yes. But I would need to check any further details with the people with the line 

responsibility for these sorts of activities. 

Senator McCARTHY: So you will be able to provide that to the committee later today? 

Mr Eccles: I will see what I can do. That will certainly be my best endeavour. 

Senator SIEWERT: I want to follow up on a particular case. Could I have an update as to where the case of 

the Ngallagunda Aboriginal Corporation, a Gibb River road property, is up to? 

Senator Scullion: Perhaps in broad terms. We need to be a bit cautious. 

Senator SIEWERT: I am aware of that. I also know that it is extremely complicated. 

Senator Scullion: I have a very clear understanding of where we are at. It might be useful to provide you a 

more extensive brief if that is what you require. It is quite complex, but there is an end to the complexity. You can 

get through it in about an hour. There have been a couple of issues. First of all, there were some questions around 

whether or not a meeting was held and held properly. 

Senator SIEWERT: Whether it was held and whether it was properly constituted. 

Senator Scullion: Indeed. Of all of those matters, further meetings have been held and have been 

reconstituted in any event. So it is a historical fact. We can get some advice on that, but it has no real material 

impact on what is happening now. The facts are that there is some action in the Supreme Court. That action is 

around a contractor that had an agreement with Gibb River Station. 

Senator SIEWERT: Well, it depends on— 

Senator Scullion: And there is some issue around that. I am not sure that is going to be a part of the case, and 

Mr Beven can give us some advice on that. I have to say that there is only some contention around that. 

Before they went to court, in the mediation process, they were provided with some advice from the 

independent mediator about the draft agreement that was signed. I think it is reasonable to say that despite that 

advice they have decided to pursue this. That is something that is going on. 

There is also the added issue that despite how the contractor would think of and put weight to that particular 

agreement, another contractor, contrary to an agreement or non-agreement, has now been employed and is there 

and there is some action to prevent them from continuing their work. The issue for the Gibb River people is that 

this whole Supreme Court challenge raises the spectre, because of the activities leading up to the court case, of 

them being likely to have costs awarded against them. This is because they have been provided with independent 

mediation, which they chose not to take on board to that extent. 

The chunky issues are: if it is awarded against them, the only asset they have—and this is freehold—is Gibb 

River Station, and that is of great concern to all of us— 




Senator Scullion: And the remainder of those parts still lie with the Supreme Court. 

Senator SIEWERT: Okay. What about the action that ORIC is taking, though? And I want to come back to 

the briefing—I will accept that briefing. 

Senator Scullion: Yes, sure, and any others you want to have— 

Senator SIEWERT: Actually, I will resolve that first. Minister, can I indicate my acceptance of that briefing? 

I would appreciate that very much? 

Senator Scullion: Yes, certainly. 

Senator SIEWERT: Thank you. Mr Beven? 

Mr Beven: We have had an involvement with Ngallagunda Aboriginal Corporation for a number of years 

now. This started back in 2014, when we visited the community and provided some governance training to the 

directors. It is a very small community and so we provided some very hands-on assistance to them in how to run 

their small corporation. 

Since that time, there have been some disputes within the membership of the community and the corporation, 

and differing views as to where the corporation should go. As a result, a number of complaints and inquiries have 

been made to our office over the last couple of years. 

In March of this year we conducted an examination of the corporation. We flew out to the Ngallagunda 

community and also to Derby, where some members of the community also live and transit in-between. 

Senator SIEWERT: Between the two, yes. 

Mr Beven: The examiners were there in March of this year. We had some difficulty accessing the buildings 

and documents at the community— 

Senator SIEWERT: And I understand that there is concern about how that was caused, too? 

Mr Beven: Yes, that is right. In the intervening months we have been working with the corporation to get 

access to those documents. We have done that. Then, on 29 July this year, we issued a show cause notice to the 

corporation, asking the directors to explain why the corporation should not be placed into special administration. 

The corporation made representations to us as part of the natural justice process. We have gone back to the 

corporation to clarify some matters they raised in their representation, and those were due on 14 October but, as 

you would be aware, there have been large bushfires going through the Kimberley and one of those bushfires was 

on Ngallagunda and Gibb River Station, where the Ngallagunda community is. The community were actively 

engaged in fighting the fires, so we have given an extension of time for the corporation and its directors to 

respond to the show cause notice. So it is taking longer than usual, but there are very specific circumstances that 

warrant that in this case. 

Senator SIEWERT: When have they been given to to respond now? 

Mr Beven: Until 28 October, which is next Friday. That is obviously subject to the bushfire and the impact 

that it has had on the community. But at this stage the community is indicating that it can respond to our request 

by 28 October. 

Senator Scullion: I think this is emblematic. I share the concerns of many who are involved in this area about, 

frankly, the low level of a complete and comprehensive understanding of the consequences of many decisions as a 

board, including entering a court process where it is likely to have costs awarded against you. We need to all think 

about how we need to have confidence in ourselves—that in all of those boards we have a trigger. If they are 

going into something like that, that is very specialist advice. Whilst they had independent advice, I am still 

anxious about the level of knowledge that is actually required, particularly when it comes down to land that is not 

Aboriginal land—it is held in another way—that it will go. I acknowledge and I share your anxiety about those 

matters. I am working with ORIC and I am more than happy to work with you after the brief to see if there are 

other things we can do in terms of the education and capacity of the boards. 

Senator SIEWERT: Thank you. 

Senator McALLISTER: We appreciate that Mr Eccles is going to come back to us about the status of the 

investigation into Mr Beven. Mr Beven, you have an opportunity, I suppose, to respond to allegations that have 

been made about you quite publicly. Would you like to do so now? 

Senator Scullion: I am reluctant to not allow, because it is not within my capacity, but I would say that this 

has been investigated. We said we would provide on notice an answer comprehensively to that investigation, and 

I think that is where it should lie. I do not think an opportunity should be provided here for any other things. This 

involved Mr Beven himself. I think it would be more useful if we allowed the question on notice to be provided 



and potentially at another estimates hearing. On the basis of that information you could ask some further 

questions. 

Senator McALLISTER: That said, I think Mr Eccles has undertaken to attempt to do it today. 

Senator Scullion: Yes, indeed. 

Senator DODSON: I appreciate what you are saying, Minister, but the committee would just like to make 

sure that the opportunity was extended to Mr Beven. If that is his concurring position, then let's note that as well. 

Senator Scullion: Mr Beven has the right, as I said. I am not about to— 

Senator DODSON: I understand. I just want to make sure that he was not feeling intimidated by anything. 

Mr Beven: No, Senator. I am comfortable with that position. 

Senator SMITH: Mr Beven, how is ORIC performing with regard to meeting the Commonwealth public 

sector workforce targets with regard to Indigenous employment? 

Mr Beven: Where ORIC currently stands is that, at the moment, we have an FTE of about 47 staff located 

across eight offices around the country, predominantly located in the north of Australia where most of our 

corporations are based. In 2007, when I was appointed, about 13 per cent of our staff were Aboriginal and Torres 

Strait Islander people. Where we currently sit today is that 49 per cent of our staff are Aboriginal and Torres Strait 

Islander people—one of the highest levels in the Australian Public Service. We are hopeful that, by the end of this 

calendar year, early next year, we should hit 50 per cent of our staff being Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 

people. That is something I am really proud of and our staff are really proud of. One hundred per cent of our 

clients are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. One of my key strategies over the last nine years was to 

ensure that our staff reflect our client base, and I think we have been quite successful at that. 

Senator Scullion: Senator Dodson touched on: where are these people coming in at the entry level? Are they 

not only at entry levels? It is a quite important question. We are well advanced in having the CEO of both the ILC 

and the IBA being Indigenous people. I will have some more to report on that soon. We are not as advanced in 

replacing Mr Beven with an Indigenous person, but we have had some significant conversations about how that 

might be achieved. We have a particular strategy to do that. So it is my intention— 

Senator SMITH: Are you leaving? 

Senator Scullion: No. It is part of the strategy— 

Senator SMITH: Succession planning. 

Senator Scullion: It will be a replacement strategy to ensure that, when Mr Beven does depart, with the 

transitional arrangements, as everyone is working towards a particular place—that mentoring period of time—you 

will have to have someone working with them for a period of time. That is what we have found with the ILC and 

the IBA. There are plans afoot in both the organisations for that to be achieved. Again, we are well advanced in 

conversations with the registrar in that regard. 

Senator SMITH: Mr Beven, excuse my ignorance, but have you been the CEO of ORIC for that whole 

period, from 2007 to 2016? 

Mr Beven: Yes, from late 2007. 

Senator SMITH: To what do you attribute that quite remarkable increase, from 13 per cent to 49 per cent? 

What sorts of elements or strategies have you put in place under your leadership? 

Mr Beven: The first thing we did was set those targets; that is where we wanted to position ourselves. Over 

the last nine years we took a deliberate approach of ensuring that we had special measures, positions, within our 

organisation, right across all levels. The 49 per cent of our staff that are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander are 

just at lower levels; they are all the way up through senior management. We have positions right across all levels 

of our organisation which are for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people only. We have ensured that those 

opportunities are available. Our staff turnover rate is quite low. It is below the departmental average and has been 

for some time. We have staff that have been with us for coming on for 30 years now. It is the nature of the work 

people enjoy, the opportunities we have provided to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We have 

diversified outside of Canberra. It is always difficult to attract people to work in Canberra, particularly Aboriginal 

and Torres Strait Islander people who want to be closer to their homes, their families and their communities. We 

have 10 staff now based in the region, and 90 per cent of those staff are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 

people. It is about location of staff and creating opportunities. 

Senator SMITH: Is it fair to say that in ORIC there are now career paths that might have been absent before, 

so if you join ORIC at a lower level, you can see a career path for yourself to a higher level in the organisation? 



Mr Beven: It is, but I do have to acknowledge that we only have an FTE of 47 staff and a low turnover rate. 

We do say to staff that, 'In reality, there may not be opportunities within our organisation, but we want to set you 

up as best as possible so that, if other opportunities arise outside of our organisation, you can take advantage of 

that.' As the minister is saying, it is not just at the middle level, the senior level; it is going one step further now 

and looking at the deputy registrar and registrar positions in the short term. So there are definitely those career 

pathways. 

CHAIR: Senator, I am conscious that Senator Kakoschke-Moore needs to get to the airport, and her questions 

are on outcome 2. 

Senator SMITH: I am happy to proceed to outcome 2. 

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator. We thank the officers from ORIC for their attendance here today. 

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 

[11:43] 

CHAIR: We will now move to outcome 2 of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. We will deal 

with general questions first. If senators have general questions that fit neatly under the programs, it would be best 

to ask those questions when the programs arise. If they do not fit under any of the programs, it would be 

appropriate to ask them under general questions. I understand that the minister flagged that he would like to make 

an opening statement. 

Senator Scullion: My opening statement deals with much of the opening remarks from Senator Dodson about 

a whole range of things—about incarceration, out-of-home care, all of those sorts of matters—and deals with 

some of the issues around youth detention. If Senator Kakoschke-Moore's questions are not within that scope, 

perhaps I could help, and that way the senator has a better chance of making it to the airport. 

CHAIR: That is a good idea. Thank you, Minister. We will go to Senator Kakoschke-Moore, and then we will 

come back to you, Minister, for your statement. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: My questions are focusing mainly around jobs, particularly tourism. 

Recently I visited the town of Ceduna on the west coast of the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia. There I met 

with the Ceduna council, who are seeking to develop tourism opportunities in the local area in order to create 

more jobs. They have a fantastic idea of creating a wildlife park in that area to drive tourism and jobs. I was 

curious to know what support is available for local councils or community organisations who want to develop 

initiatives like wildlife parks, with the aim of developing jobs in a local area. 

Senator Scullion: Whilst the officer comes to the table, I can say that right at this moment we are in levels of 

engagement with not only the mayor but also the other principal organisations and communities around Ceduna 

about some economic development processes. I will allow the first assistant secretary to answer the question for 

you. 

Ms Williams: Yes, certainly, there is funding available under the IAS for opportunities such as the one you 

identify, Senator. As the minister noted, we are working very closely with Ceduna leaders around developing up 

those opportunities. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Does the department have a long-term strategy when it comes to 

Indigenous tourism and the jobs that can be created in that area? 

Senator Scullion: No, not specifically, in that this is about supporting what communities want to do. Some 

communities believe that tourism is what they want to do, particularly in the areas of ethnobotany and interpretive 

walks. There is a lot of Indigenous tourism focused around that at the moment. But we, I guess, are generally 

more reactive when the community says, 'These are the sort of tourism ventures or other ventures we'd like to get 

involved in.' So I would not say that we have a tourism bent particularly or that we would like to allocate funds on 

tourism. It is generally held that business development—it does not matter what business—would come from that 

process. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: I suppose you are more responsive to the requests of the community, 

rather than imposing a particular plan on them. 

Senator Scullion: Yes. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: I would like to take you now to Kangaroo Island in South Australia. 

There, the local football club, Dudley United, joined with the Clontarf Foundation. They linked together to 

develop a program in which Indigenous boys head to Kangaroo Island to play football for the local team. This 

helps the team keep up their dwindling numbers in a rural area, and it also provides the boys with opportunities 

for work, education and training. After the success of this grassroots program, is the government looking to 



develop opportunities such as this and build on the success of a program like the Clontarf Foundation and Dudley 

football club partnership? 

Senator Scullion: We make substantive investments right across Australia. The Clontarf Foundation is clearly 

for targeted young blokes, but we have a number of other investments. We have the Girls Academy. We now 

have the Stars Foundation that targets the engagement of young women. We certainly see the Clontarf model 

being a very, very successful model and we are going to continue to make some investments. For some of the 

details, perhaps one of my officers may assist. 

Ms Hefren-Webb: We provide funding to the Clontarf Foundation of $34.4 million, which assists around 

7,900 boys in multiple locations across Australia. As the minister indicated, we also fund a number of providers 

who work specifically on girls academies, role models and leaders. We also fund the Stars Foundation, and we 

fund some specific girls academies like at Kormilda College in Darwin. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: The department helps fund those programs? 

Ms Hefren-Webb: That is correct. 

Mr Matthews: It would be about $120 million overall for about 2½ years, with broad support for a range of 

initiatives from scholarships through to mentoring of students and in-school support. It is a range of things. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Regarding the program on Kangaroo Island, I am aware that some of the 

local community contributed about $1,000 each to help pay wages and cover the costs of board and food for the 

boys who came over. Is the department able to provide funding at that sort of detailed level to help with jobs? 

Ms Hefren-Webb: We can probably provide you with detail of funding going to Clontarf and what specific 

locations that is for. I do not know if it would get down to each project activity, but we can have a look at that. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: If you could take that on notice it would be great. 

Mr Matthews: I am not sure of the specifics of the Kangaroo Island one—whether it comes under what we 

fund or if it is something separate. I am not sure, but we can chase that up. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: I think it might be separate, so I would like to know. 

Senator Scullion: We can offer you a comprehensive brief at any time on matters, as we offer the committee 

and other members of parliament. If you have a particular interest in Kangaroo Island and some of these other 

matters, we are happy to provide an additional briefing on that on notice. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Thank you very much. 

Mr Matthews: What I would say is that, generally, most of them—Clontarf, Role Models and Leaders 

Australia, Stars Foundation and even Australian Indigenous Education Foundation—work on government 

contributions, some contributions from parents and corporate contributions. So quite often there can be a mix of 

funding sources going into those organisations. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: In the interests of time, I would like to go to the issue of employment, 

particularly for Indigenous women. I note that in a report from 2014-15 the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait 

Islander social survey showed that only 52 per cent of Aboriginal women were participating in the labour 

workforce. Given the importance that has been placed on encouraging greater participation by women in the 

workforce—in particular, by Indigenous women—what plans does the government have to increase that number 

from 52 per cent? 

Mr Eccles: Maybe Ms Hefren-Webb could talk about some of the programs we have to support women, and 

then we can talk a little bit more about some of the programs that are predominantly around employment. It will 

be sort of a combination of the both that would go to the issues that you raise. You are exactly right. 

Ms Hefren-Webb: We do have a lower level of Indigenous women in the workforce than would be optimal. 

A lot of them are undertaking parenting and caring responsibilities, so that is part of the equation we need to 

understand. Indigenous young women do outperform Indigenous young men in terms of educational attainment 

through school, but then we do not see the same translation to the workforce. So we do have a number of 

programs that target women. As I said earlier, Role Models and Leaders Australia fund programs for girls to 

encourage them to think beyond high school, their future and their future career pathways. We have programs like 

the Wirrpanda Foundation, which runs the Deadly Sista Girlz Program in WA. Overall, we have about $21 

million in female-specific programs happening in the IAS. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Is that $21 million in funding specifically for this? 

Ms Hefren-Webb: Specifically for supporting young women in their career development and aspirations. As I 

said, the reasons a lot of Indigenous women are not in the workforce are complex and related to family 



responsibilities and other matters. So it is about understanding that story, encouraging Indigenous women to 

participate if that is what they are keen to do and if it is the right time in their lives, and also encouraging them to 

complete their education. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Does the department work with the Office for Women? 

Ms Hefren-Webb: We work very closely with the Office for Women on their gender strategy. We have done 

some really good work with them on understanding trends in the labour force, trends in caring, trends in 

parenting, Indigenous women's ownership of business, entrepreneurship and also Indigenous women's 

accumulation of retirement incomes. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: If you cannot tell me now, you can take this on notice: are there are any 

specific projects that are on foot at the moment that you could give me a little bit more information on? 

Mr Eccles: I will start at the broad end and then maybe Ms Anderson can go into a little bit more detail. Our 

employment programs are one of the cornerstones of the work that we do. It is based on the view that a job is so 

fundamental to someone's wellbeing and aspirations—looking after family and other things. We have a number of 

employment programs that really are depending on an individual's personal circumstance across all our programs. 

We have some like the VTEC program where we work with people with multiple barriers to employment and 

give them training and then place them into jobs. We work with the VTEC— 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Can you tell me how many participants there have been in that specific 

program? 

Mr Eccles: Yes, sure. We have just hit the milestone of 5,000 permanent jobs arising from the VTEC 

programs. All in all, across all of our programs, since September 2013, there have been over 44,000 employment 

instances or commencements. We do not have the number who are women but we will certainly endeavour to 

take that on notice. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Are there plans to roll out VTEC in Ceduna? 

Mr Eccles: Not at this stage. We do have other programs in Ceduna. One thing we could do on notice is to get 

you a fairly detailed outline of the Ceduna employment programs that we have in place. There are quite a few 

things we are doing in that area. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: The feedback I had while I was there was that VTEC might be a goer 

there. So perhaps this is some feedback for you, but I would appreciate if on notice or during a briefing we can 

have a further discussion. 

Senator Scullion: A lot of people say: 'Oh VTEC, that goes well. Look at all the jobs they have created.' But 

if you have a VTEC in a place, it does not affect the jobs that are actually available, and it is predicated on finding 

a job first. So somebody has to put their hand up with a real position, somewhere, and then we find someone with 

a trade for the position. But in places like Ceduna, one of the challenges is that there just aren't any jobs. I would 

love to have more jobs. Sometimes it is a critical mass issue. I think it is a process that we should move more and 

more to rather than just a VTEC model. Right across the board, we should be trying to identify a job and then put 

someone in it. The issue around VTEC in Ceduna is probably more about critical mass and the availability of jobs 

than the model we use. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: My final question is in relation to the Women's Safety Package. In 

particular, I understand that $100 million were allocated to reduce Indigenous family and domestic violence. Are 

you able to provide me with a breakdown of how that funding is being spent? 

Ms Hefren-Webb: The $100 million related to the whole package. I might pass to my colleague, Tarja 

Saastamoinen, to answer the details. 

Ms Saastamoinen: Of the $100 million in the Women's Safety Package, $21 million has been set aside for 

PM&C to manage, in particular, Indigenous initiatives. It is funding a number of different types of initiatives for 

women and to support women's safety in communities. It includes things like support services for women in 

communities who are affected by violence, it includes other types of services around addressing attitudes and 

behaviours toward women and girls in communities and it— 

Ms Hefren-Webb: I will also add that it funds some improved police responses to domestic violence in 

Queensland and the Northern Territory, some activities to reduce the likelihood of perpetrators reoffending and 

some training for nurses who are delivering services as part of the Australian Nurse-Family Partnership Program. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: With regard to training for police and nurses, you mentioned that the 

funding has been allocated to police in Queensland and in the Northern Territory. Will it be rolled out to other 

states? 



Ms Hefren-Webb: We have funded some specific activities in Queensland and in the Northern Territory. I 

might mention that the $100 million package was the package announced last year. There was a further funding 

commitment made as part of an election commitment so we are currently scoping how the Indigenous component 

of that will work. We will be having conversations with jurisdictions around what is the most useful way that that 

funding can contribute, including to policing responses but not just policing responses. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: Perhaps on notice I could have a list of where the funding has gone. 

Ms Hefren-Webb: Yes, absolutely. 

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: That would be great. Thank you. 

CHAIR: We will now move to the minister's opening statement, and then we will proceed to general 

questions. 

Senator Scullion: I thank the committee for the opportunity to make an opening statement. I would like to use 

it to set the record straight on events leading up to the ABC report into the appalling treatment of young people in 

the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre and the subsequent announcement by the Prime Minister of a royal 

commission into youth detention in the Northern Territory. 

Significant issues in the youth detention system the Northern Territory have been raised by the Northern 

Territory Children's Commissioner with the Northern Territory government as far back as 2010 when the Labor 

Party was in government in both the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth jurisdictions. The ABC Four 

Corners program has reported that Dr Howard Bath, former Northern Territory Children's Commissioner, had 

written a confidential report documenting the treatment of Dylan Voller since 2010 following an incident at the 

Don Dale Youth Detention Centre in 2012. This report was provided to the Northern Territory government at that 

time. I only became aware of the Bath report when it was referenced in the Four Corner program. This report has 

never been publicly released. 

On 2 October 2014 the Northern Territory government announced that it would undertake an independent 

review, known as the Vita review, into the Northern Territory's youth justice system. The findings were released 

on 18 February of 2015. The report made 16 recommendations about how to improve the youth justice system, 

but it found no evidence of a systemic culture of unreasonable force or intimidation of youth detainees. The report 

also found the actions of the NT commissioner in authorising the use of chemical agents to be justified. 

On 17 September 2015 the office of the NT Children's Commissioner released the findings of its own review 

on the use of CS gas, also known as the Gwynne review. The Northern Territory government subsequently 

released a media statement accepting all of the 16 Vita report recommendations and indicating that all but one of 

the recommendations had been implemented. The Northern Territory government also announced the 

establishment of a Youth Detention Reform Advisory Group that included the NT Children's Commissioner, 

NAAJA, the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service and the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission 

to oversight the implementation of the Vita report recommendations. 

I have already acknowledged what documents I have received, but I am happy to repeat this for the benefit of 

the committee. I have acknowledged that my office received briefing information about the Don Dale Youth 

Detention Centre going back to 2015. I have acknowledged, including in the Senate, that my office received a 

question time brief about the Don Dale centre in 2015. This advice noted the use of CS gas, the unlawful transfer 

of detainees to the adult prison, the allegations relating to guards forcing young people to fight, making one 

inmate eat bird faeces and threatening detainees with retribution once released from detention. These were serious 

allegations. However, public statements made by the Northern Territory government at that time indicated that it 

was actively engaged in addressing all of the issues raised in the two reports. 

Following an exhaustive search for briefs carried out in response to freedom-of-information applications, I was 

also made aware that there was a reference to the Don Dale centre in the background of a meeting brief from 2015 

as well. Importantly, none of these documents referenced the graphic footage broadcast by the ABC Four Corners 

program. The Youth Detention Reform Advisory Group that was set up to oversight the implementation of the 

Vita report's recommendations did not raise any issues publicly or with my office to suggest that the Northern 

Territory government was not fully implementing all recommendations. In fact, as late as 16 June 2016 the NT 

Children's Commissioner provided advice at a Northern Territory government estimates hearing on the 

implementation of recommendations of the Gwynne report, stating that she was satisfied with the way the 

department of correctional services was working towards full implementation. It is probably because of this 

understanding that no-one has ever asked me a question about this issue either here in Senate estimates or, in fact, 

in the Senate. 



On 25 July 2016 the ABC Four Corners program broadcast its allegation of mistreatment of children at the 

Don Dale Youth Detention Centre, including abuse by prison guards and the use of tear gas, spit hoods and 

restraint chairs. The footage shown during that program was deeply disturbing in a way that no written report can 

fully convey. I was not the only one confronted by this footage, which I had previously not seen. On 26 July the 

Prime Minister announced a Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern 

Territory. The Four Corners report raised serious questions about whether the previous reports had truly 

established what had happened or was happening in the youth detention facilities in the Northern Territory and 

whether the response from the Northern Territory government was enough to make significant improvements in 

the current conditions to the children detained there. This is why I strongly supported the Prime Minister in his 

decision to swiftly establish a royal commission to investigate these matters. A royal commission is the highest 

level of inquiry that can be established. It will leave no stone unturned in the pursuit of truth, and it reflects the 

coalition government's commitment to preventing inappropriate treatment of children in detention. It is important 

we now allow the royal commission to proceed with its inquiry. 

I would also like to highlight that I have a longstanding commitment to improving the absolutely appalling rate 

of Indigenous incarceration and detention in this country. The facts are stark. As we know, Indigenous adults are 

13 times more likely to be incarcerated and juveniles are 24 times more likely to be in detention. We need to hold 

the states and territories to account for the treatment in these facilities, as they are the ones who run the facilities. 

We do not have a formal role in oversighting these facilities and systems. I believe the royal commission and the 

separate inquiry in Queensland will greatly assist in this. 

I have written to all relevant state and territory ministers to seek their assurance on practices in their detention 

facilities, and to offer to work with them on these issues. In addition, the Prime Minister is committed to raising 

this issue at a future Council of Australian Governments meeting, to ensure all jurisdictions hear the message that 

the treatment displayed in the Four Corners report should never happen again. One aspect that is clear from this is 

that I must do more to raise these types of issues formally with the states and territories, where needed. Since the 

Four Corners report I have taken a more direct approach with the states and territories, seeking advice from 

responsible ministers on every incident that has come to my attention—including, regrettably, a number of deaths 

in custody—to offer the Commonwealth's assistance wherever this may be of help. 

However, it is also vitally important that we focus on what is needed to reduce the number of people who come 

into contact with the juvenile and adult justice systems in the first place. My government is working to bring 

together a package of actions that I believe will make a genuine improvement. This will be on top of our already 

considerable effort, principally constructed in three elements. First, we have to work in partnership with the states 

and territories to reduce the number of people who become incarcerated for minor offences, particularly related to 

the non-payment of fines. I have written to the state and territory ministers seeking their support to better use the 

welfare system to assist with the collection of fines. The second element is ensuring that people are protected 

when they do come into contact with the justice system. I have written to all ministers in states and territories that 

do not have a mandatory custody notification scheme, offering funding support to help them set this up so that we 

have a nationally consistent approach that ensures all Indigenous people get this vital support at that critical time. 

The third element is to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. About four in five Indigenous prisoners reoffend, 

and we need to make sure we break this pattern. This is why the Prime Minister committed to national action to 

better transition Indigenous people from prison to work. We have done a great deal of very positive work in this 

area, and this is going to be a focus of discussion in the COAG meeting later this year. This is on top of our 

existing effort where we provide $18.5 million over three years to support 10 prisoner through-care providers who 

work with offenders to ensure that we reduce their likelihood of reoffending. 

I am also focusing on supporting practical measures that improve community safety in Indigenous 

communities and address the underlying issues of disadvantage that drive much of the contact young people have 

with the criminal justice system. For example, under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy Safety and Wellbeing 

program the government is providing nearly $105 million over three years—that is for 2015 to 2018—for 

activities in the Northern Territory to reduce young people's contact with the criminal justice system, as both 

offenders and victims, and to improve their wellbeing. The funding in a broad sense includes youth leadership and 

sport and recreational activities; youth healing and advocacy services; alcohol and other drug rehabilitation 

services; rehabilitation, reintegration and support for young people exiting youth detention; night patrols; and 

social and emotional wellbeing activities. Through the IAS Children and Schooling program, the government is 

also providing nearly $72 million over three years—that is in 2015-18—in the Northern Territory for activities 

that are geared towards getting children to school, improving educational outcomes and supporting families to 

give young Aboriginal people a good start in life. 



I welcome the scrutiny and the heightened focus on these issues in the public arena that has come about as a 

result of the Four Corners report. This attention rightly holds the government accountable for how they treat 

children and young people in their care. I intend to work closely with state and territory governments to ensure 

that the incidents that happened at Don Dale Youth Detention Centre cannot ever be repeated anywhere 

throughout Australia. This will include working with jurisdictions on how the findings of the royal commission 

can be used to inform future reforms across youth detention facilities nationwide. I thank the committee for 

allowing me to make an opening statement, and I now welcome questions. 

Senator McALLISTER: Could we get a copy of that? 

Senator Scullion: I am happy to table my opening statement. 

Senator McALLISTER: Thank you for providing that overview, Minister. I think you will be unsurprised 

that committee members wish to talk about the set of issues you have canvassed. I would perhaps like to 

understand first the circumstances around the screening of the Four Corners report. When did you first find out 

that Four Corners was intending to screen a program about Don Dale detention centre in the Northern Territory? 

Senator Scullion: About midday on the day that it was aired. 

Senator McALLISTER: So there was no advance notice? You had no indication from other sources? 

Senator Scullion: I had advance notice at 12 o'clock in the middle of the day that it was to be aired that 

evening. 

Senator McALLISTER: How did you find out about it at 12 o'clock? 

Senator Scullion: I am pretty sure it was from my media adviser. I am not sure whether the ABC had rung 

him or he had rung the ABC. I am not sure exactly how that came to be. My media adviser told me that there was 

a matter, and that generally the matter was youth detention in the Northern Territory. I clearly have an interest in 

it. 

Senator McALLISTER: What did you do then? 

Senator Scullion: I asked him to ring the ABC and say, 'Listen, I am not able to watch it tonight. Can I have a 

forward copy? I would really like to see it now.' 

Senator McALLISTER: What was the response? 

Senator Scullion: They were not able to allow me to see something earlier than when it was shown on the 

night. They said that I would have to see it with everybody else. 

Senator McALLISTER: Did you speak to anybody about the prospect of this program airing? 

Senator Scullion: Sorry—'about the prospect'? 

Senator McALLISTER: You knew the program was about to air. Did you speak to anyone in the government 

about it? Did he speak to any of your colleagues or ministerial colleagues? 

Senator Scullion: No. All I had was the information that something was going to air about youth detention. 

That was it. I said, 'Yes, I have an interest. I would really love to have a look at that program. I won't be able to 

see it when it runs tonight. I would love to have a look at it immediately up-front.' 

Senator McALLISTER: So you did not speak to the Prime Minister at that time? 

Senator Scullion: No. 

Senator McALLISTER: Or the Attorney-General? 

Senator Scullion: No, nobody. I have already said I did not speak to anyone. That would obviously include 

the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. 

Senator McALLISTER: Did you speak to anyone in the Northern Territory government? 

Senator Scullion: I did not speak to anyone. 

Senator McALLISTER: When did you watch that episode of Four Corners? I think you said you watched it 

on iview. When was that? 

Senator Scullion: I did. It was later in the evening. It was close to when it aired. It was not long after it aired. 

It was probably an hour and a half or so later. I am not sure what the time was. I watched it on iview when I 

returned home. 

Senator McALLISTER: I think you indicated in some of your media comment that that was after the Prime 

Minister rang you. 



Senator Scullion: No. I had a missed call from the Prime Minister. After I had been where I had been, I rang 

the Prime Minister. It is something you do straight away, invariably. He said, 'I've seen this. Have you seen it?' I 

said, 'No, mate. I'm going to see it when I get home.' He said, 'Great. Give me a ring when you've seen it,' so I did. 

Senator McALLISTER: So he rang you. It was a missed call. You rang him back. He said, 'Take a look at 

the footage.' You went and looked at the footage in the late evening. Did you call him back later that evening? 

Senator Scullion: Yes, that is correct. It might have been the next morning, but to the best of my recollection 

I called him back after I had watched it at home. 

Senator McALLISTER: Was that the only contact you had with the Prime Minister that evening—those two 

phone calls? 


Senator McALLISTER: Did any of your office staff see the footage at the time that it aired? 


Senator McALLISTER: Right. So they had seen it. I think the answer to this based on your earlier evidence 

is no, but they did not have advance access to the footage? 

Senator Scullion: Not to my knowledge, no. 

Senator McALLISTER: I will come back later on to talk a bit about the process of establishing the royal 

commission, but was that canvassed in the conversations you had with the Prime Minister that evening? 

Senator Scullion: Sorry? 

Senator McALLISTER: Was the decision to establish a royal commission canvassed in the conversation you 

had with the Prime Minister that evening after you had seen the footage? 

Senator Scullion: I am not going to go to those conversations. I think, as a matter of principle, I would rather 

not provide the answer to the question about a conversation I was having with the Prime Minister. 

Senator McALLISTER: Were you consulted about the establishment of a royal commission? 

Senator Scullion: I was. 

Senator McALLISTER: Did you speak to any of your other colleagues that evening after you had seen the 

footage, or after you had received notice of the missed call from the Prime Minister? 


Senator McALLISTER: Anyone in the Northern Territory government? 

Senator Scullion: I did not speak to anyone; that would include the Territory. 

Senator McALLISTER: Just the Prime Minister, on that evening. 

Senator Scullion: Indeed. 

Senator McALLISTER: You mentioned in your opening remarks the Vita review. That report, as you said, 

was publicly released in February 2015. Was the minister's office ever briefed on the content of that report? 

Senator Scullion: I think it is useful to preface my answer by saying there are principally three types of brief. 

There is a brief which is a formal brief, which you read, and you sign that you have received that information as a 

brief—as all ministers would have. There are generally two other sorts of briefs. Both are information briefs. 

Generally speaking they are for meetings with people or as a preface to meetings, or they are—as we would 

know—question time briefs to anticipate questions in the Senate—and for meetings, to anticipate what may be 

discussed in a meeting. So no, I did not receive any formal briefs on that matter, but I did receive a question time 

brief. And, as I have indicated in my opening statement, there was a later, exhaustive process that revealed that in 

the background of a meeting brief with NAAJA I had received some information on those matters. 

Senator McALLISTER: I am asking specifically about the Vita report and whether you were briefed on that, 

in any form. To be honest, Minister, I understand the reasons why you may seek to distinguish between 

information provided to you in different formats, but I think the common understanding of the term 'be briefed' is 

that somebody who works for you provides you with information about an issue that is relevant to your portfolio 

responsibilities, and I think that probably encompasses all three of the briefs that you describe. I am happy for you 

to distinguish between those in answering, but I would hope that you would not— 

Senator Scullion: Well, the reason I am, Senator, is that the question is that when I said publicly, 'I have not 

received a brief on the matter,' I was not saying that I had not received a briefing, it was 'a brief'. And that is what 

I was referring to. A brief is significantly different from a briefing. A briefing is what people would invariably say 

is when someone comes and visits you and provides a briefing. This is not about semantics, because it is about 



what I said. I am just ensuring that we keep to what we were actually talking about, rather than trying to drift into 

areas where we are saying, 'a briefing is a briefing; they are all the same'—they are not. In my response at the 

media interviews the following morning, I said that to my knowledge I had not received a brief on it. And that is 

exactly what I was referring to. 

Senator McALLISTER: Minister, I do not accept a semantic narrowing down of the kind of information that 

constitutes a brief. It may be a difference of opinion, but I personally do not consider that a— 

Senator Scullion: I was just providing an explanation, for the wider benefit of anyone who is interested in this 

area, that there are considerable differences between a meeting brief or something that is going to be in question 

time, and a briefing on a matter. There are significant differences. It is just useful for people to know that, 

Senator. 

Senator McALLISTER: Minister, do you think that is what the people of the Northern Territory would think, 

if you asked them what the meaning of brief is? 

Senator Scullion: No—actually, we have really been focused on getting kids to school, getting people to 

work, getting people prepared so they do not have to be incarcerated, making sure Kormilda College stays open 

so it ensures the opportunities for Indigenous people—that is what they want to talk to me about, Senator. I do not 

think anyone has ever asked me about a brief in the Territory in the time that I have been minister. 

Senator McALLISTER: They may not have, but that may have been concerned—I am fairly confident that 

they want to know that you provide accurate answers to questions, and I am— 

Senator Scullion: I am, Senator. I hope you are not asserting that I am not. 

Senator McALLISTER: I am suggesting to you that a narrow reading of 'brief' may not be an acceptable way 

to proceed. 

Senator Scullion: I was just providing the complete context. 

CHAIR: Perhaps let's move on from this. I think it is getting a bit technical. 

Senator McALLISTER: We can move on. Can I ask whether you were provided with any information—a 

question time brief, a meeting brief or a 'capitalised letter' Brief—about the review of the Northern Territory 

youth detention system that was prepared by Mr Vita. 

Senator Scullion: As I have said on the public record, as I have said in the Senate and as I have said in my 

opening statement: yes, it was. The most important thing about those briefs was that it was absolutely no different 

at all to the media at the time. As I have indicated in my opening statement— 

Senator McALLISTER: What do you mean it was no different to the media at the time? 

Senator Scullion: That there was no additional information that was publicly available at the time and in the 

suite of the matters it was the time, as I have indicated in my opening statement. This matter was being dealt with. 

The facility had been closed. Sixteen of the recommendations had been accepted. All of that information was 

there at that time. 

I am saying that the difference, which is what the question is, between the meeting briefs where it seemed 

everything was being dealt with— the Northern Territory government was doing all these things, everything was 

fine, the commissioner had said that and we had a committee made up of these very aux bodies that was dealing 

with all those matters—that was in stark contrast to what we saw on Four Corners, where we saw that clearly 

there was a culture of brutality and there was a culture of cover-up, and that is the difference. You certainly would 

not have had a royal commission into those matters that were in either of the reports or anything that was on the 

public record. But we certainly would have. Which is why the government acted to have a royal commission on 

the basis of the Four Corners report, because it was graphically different to the matters that were contained in the 

reports and what was available both to me—in question time briefs and meeting briefs—and on the public record. 

Senator McALLISTER: I might come back to that difference. I have a copy of those briefs, which were 

released under FOI . I am trying to find where it says that everything was being dealt with. 

Mr Matthews: You will probably find it will be in one of the question time briefs—probably the one from 

around October—in the October, November and March question time briefs that will be in there. From memory, it 

is in the background there that it summarises some of the broad claims and notes that the NT has accepted the 

findings and has put in place the oversight group. 

Senator McALLISTER: Yes. It says there is a response. It does not make any reference to the adequacy of 

the response. 



Mr Matthews: No. It did note that the NT has accepted the recommendations and put in place the oversight 

body. 

Senator McALLISTER: I will come to the Children's Commissioner report. You were briefed about that. I 

think you have acknowledged that. That appears in this question time brief. 


Senator McALLISTER: Have you read the report? 


Senator McALLISTER: When did you read it? 

Senator Scullion: I would have read it in the week following the Four Corners report. 

Senator McALLISTER: It is pretty graphic isn't it? I have read it. 

Senator Scullion: It is nowhere near as graphic as the Four Corners report. It only had two still photos, 

neither of which included human beings. It is a complete contrast to the Four Corners report. 

Senator McALLISTER: It talks about the use of tear gas doesn't it? It quotes the commissioner as saying, 

'Use as much chemical as you want,' or words to that effect doesn't it? 

Senator Scullion: No. The report did not say that at all. The Four Corners footage showed that, yes. That 

makes my point that there seemed to be this culture of, 'She'll be right, mate. Ha-ha. Bit more chemicals; don't 

worry about the budget.' That certainly wasn't met in the Vita report. Have you read the report, Senator? 

Senator McALLISTER: I have read both of the reports. I am speaking now about the Children's 

Commissioner report. 

Senator Scullion: It was not in either report but it was in the footage. 

Senator McALLISTER: Page 19 of the Children's Commissioner's report, which I will remind you was 

released in August 2015, said: 

The dog handler— 

because, of course, they were preparing to use dogs on these children— 

can be heard to ask: 

'You going to gas the lot of them?' 

It goes on to say: 

The Commissioner is then heard to say to someone: 

'…Mate, I don't mind how much chemical you use, we gotta get him out …' 

It then goes on to say: 

CCTV footage … shows 'A' and 'B' running to the back of their cell and hiding behind a mattress and sheet. 

I think these were the prisoners who were playing cards at the time of the incident. The report goes on: 

'A' later informed his case worker that ''he thought they were going to die'' and that he and 'B' ''said their good-byes''. 

CCTV footage in BMU cell 1 shows 'C' covering his face with his shirt and running to the back of his cell and spitting, and 

possibly vomiting into the toilet. 

The report goes on to describe what happened to the officers working in the facility who entered the cells 

without protective equipment and were themselves affected by the CS gas. This is on page 20 of the report that 

was released in August. Then it talks about the Handycam footage captured on the basketball court that shows the 

young people coughing and spitting on the ground. 

That information was in the public domain, and I suppose it may be in writing rather than in pictures, but I 

would say that it is still pretty graphic. Would you accept that? 

Senator Scullion: Well, what are you saying? Is a giraffe a giraffe? Are you asking a question? You have just 

told me a bunch of things, but if you ask me a question I will be able to be of assistance. 

Senator McALLISTER: In your earlier remarks, you said that the cavalier approach to the use of force was 

not evident in the reports published prior to the Four Corners program. The report I have read you extracts from 

was published almost a year before the Four Corners program. Why then did you say to the committee that those 

comments about the gas were not included in the report published in August 2015, when they plainly are included 

on page 21 and page 22? 

Senator Scullion: I would appreciate it if you did not verbal me. I read it from a process, but what I said was 

that it was not evident from any of the reports that there was a culture of brutality or cover-up and that it was not 



evident or stated in the reports. I was making that point to differentiate the Four Corners report from the two 

reports. The Four Corners report required us to have a royal commission, because a royal commission has the 

powers, if there is obviously a culture within something, to be able to pull those matters apart. And it certainly 

was not evident at all from the two reports, and that was the point I was making. 

Senator McALLISTER: There are reports that were in the public domain almost a year before the Four 

Corners program. They go to the very limited training for the officers in those facilities that was completely 

inadequate in the face of the task they were assigned. The acting general manager in the report, on page 25, talks 

about the fact that a youth justice officer receives three days training and that there is no way in the world the 

training is adequate. That was the response to the culture of brutality, that I would assert is evident in the report. I 

think the report is chilling. Were you aware of that element of the report? 

Senator Scullion: Certainly, it was on the public record that there had been a number of recommendations. 

When this came out in the media there were the reports, and not only had sixteen recommendations, including 

issues around training, been accepted, but 15 of them had been adopted. The training was a fundamental part of 

that, and it is good to see that the Northern Territory government has implemented those changes. That was 

monitored by organisations like NAAJA and the legal aid commission, a group of obviously independent people, 

ensuring that those changes were real. That is what we knew at the time. 

Senator McALLISTER: On 23 September the Northern Territory News and the ABC reported claims of 

abuse of children by staff at Don Dale, and you referenced those in your opening remarks. The ABC report 

quoted that: 

… some staff made young people fight, with the winner getting extra soft drink and chocolate. 

And: 

There was poo sitting on the ground one time and a young fella got dared to eat its shit and they videoed it and put it on 

SnapChat to all their friends and they gave him a Coke and a chocolate. 

Were you made aware of the article at that time? 

Senator Scullion: I can remember in general terms, particularly because of the reference to bird faeces. It is 

not something you forget in a hurry. But I can also remember in that same report that those matters were being 

dealt with, and that was the context of those reports. Those reports had come out and those matters were being 

dealt with as part of those recommendations by the Northern Territory government. Those were the news reports. 

It was not in isolation—that 'this has happened' and they are not talking about anything else. This had happened, 

those are the sorts of things that were happening, and the news report went on to say that those recommendations 

had been accepted and implemented. 

Senator McALLISTER: So you accept that that is a fairly graphic description of a problem, because it is so 

memorable—faeces? 

Senator Scullion: That is correct. Of course it is. 

Senator McALLISTER: Of course. And you were fully aware of it at the time? 

Senator Scullion: I was made aware at the time in the media, and the media were saying two things. They 

were saying, 'This happened, and this is what is being done to ensure it doesn’t happen again.' They were released 

on news media at the same time. That was the context of the media articles at the time. 

Senator McALLISTER: So you were fully aware, but confident that others were dealing with it? 

Senator Scullion: That seemed to be the indication in both the media and the meeting brief. 

Senator McALLISTER: There was another report on 12 November in 2015, last year, that appeared on the 

ABC and contained claims about the use of spit hoods and mechanical restraint— 

Senator Scullion: I am sorry, can you remind me which report that was? 

Senator McALLISTER: Yes, I can table it. 

Senator Scullion: No, that is not necessary. There were a lot of reports and stuff and different dates, and I am 

just not that agile. 

Senator McALLISTER: There have been a lot of reports, it is true. This was well documented in the public 

domain. On 12 November 2105 another report appeared on the ABC and it was published by— 

Senator Scullion: A media report? No, that is okay. I thought it was actually a report report. My apologies. 

Senator McALLISTER: Sorry. It was published by Kate Wild. 

Senator Scullion: Just a media report. I understand. 



Senator McALLISTER: I can table the document if that would help you. 

Senator Scullion: No, that is okay. I thought you were referring to one of the other reports. My apologies. 

Senator McALLISTER: It was published by Kate Wild, and it talked about the claims of the use of spit 

hoods and mechanical restraint chairs at Don Dale. Were you aware of that report? 

Senator Scullion: I cannot recall reading that particular report, that particular piece of media. I cannot recall. 

Senator McALLISTER: Can anyone in the department assist? Were you aware of that report? 

Senator Scullion: They cannot assist in whether or not I read it. But that is to the best of my recollection. 

Senator McALLISTER: No, I am certainly not asking them that. Mr Tongue, was the department aware of 

those reports? 

Mr Matthews: Without seeing the exact article, I could not tell you exactly. 

Senator McALLISTER: I can table it. 

Mr Matthews: With the QTBs that we had done around the time—the first one was October, then 

subsequently in November and into March next year—it is possible that it would have been picked up in the 

media scanning we have done and updated in one of the QTBs, possibly. Without seeing the exact article, I do not 

know. I would have to go back and check. 

Senator McALLISTER: Right. You may have known about it, but you were not asked to provide a brief to 

the minister? 

Mr Matthews: I would guess that, if we were aware of it, if it had changed, it would have been something we 

would have looked at to see whether it would change the tone of the background material or something in the 

question time briefing. That would be the normal process. 

CHAIR: Since you have mentioned question time briefs, Minister, in between the release of this report that 

Senator McAllister has been referring to and the Four Corners episode airing, how many questions did you 

receive in question time in the Senate from opposition members on the Don Dale detention centre? 

Senator Scullion: I can recall that there were none on the specific issues around this. 

CHAIR: So, as Senator McAllister said, this was an issue that was in the media and was reported on, but was 

not raised with you once in Senate question time? How about in Senate estimates? 

Senator Scullion: No, there were none in Senate estimates and, as I said, I have perhaps made an assumption. 

I do not wish to verbal any of the committee, but we had the children's commissioner giving evidence at an 

estimates hearing in the Northern Territory saying basically, 'I think all of these things are in hand; they are all 

being done.' No doubt, my colleagues around the table would have had a level of comfort from that and other 

assurances that yes, this might have been horrid, but this is being done. I guess a lot of people would find it 

difficult to make the direct connection in a jurisdictional faction between the Commonwealth and correctional 

services in the Northern Territory. 

CHAIR: There have obviously been a lot of questions since the airing of the Four Corners report. In your 

view, would it be fair to say that the Four Corners report piqued the interest of opposition members? 

Senator Scullion: You would have to ask them. There is no doubt that everybody felt that it was just 

shocking. 

CHAIR: Agreed. 

Senator Scullion: The Four Corners report was just horrible and shocking, and it has given us all a shake. We 

are doing our best within our capacity, as I indicated in my opening statement, to ensure that those circumstances 

never happen again, and we have all got to play our part in it. It might be state and territory jurisdiction, but, for 

me particularly, because we have such a high level of Indigenous incarceration in this space, we have to have a 

particular and much higher level of interest. In my opening statement I outlined those actions that we have taken 

to ensure that we know about everything, and we have certainly been at great lengths to assist the states and 

territories at those peak levels—at those particularly pointed places on entry to incarceration—to ensure that we 

know about the recidivism and all of those matters that I dealt with in my opening remarks. 

Senator DODSON: Chair, on your use of the term 'piqued interest', from memory it was a term that the 

minister used in response to these matters and not necessarily relevant to members of the opposition. 

Senator Scullion: Again, I was disappointed with the opposition's fantasy in the Federation Chamber 

yesterday, where the fantasy was that I was actually offered the opportunity by the ABC to see it early. That is the 

fantasy. That is how twisted this stuff gets. In fact, I asked to see it and they denied me the opportunity. You 



would reckon that is a pretty polarised set of facts. My remark 'piqued my interest' was about the media; it was 

not about the facts—and that is what I said. 

Senator McALLISTER: What do you mean by the media? 

Senator Scullion: When I said, 'It didn't pique my interest,' I was referring to the media, not the matters of fact 

around the children. 

Senator DODSON: But somehow or other the media had woken up and this terrible thing was upon us, 

despite a royal commission. 

Senator Scullion: I am just saying that I had been in a situation, and no doubt you had, almost of shock of 

seeing what we had seen on the Four Corners report. In comparison, the matters that were in the media at the 

time did not add up. They did not, and that is why we now have a royal commission. 

Senator DODSON: I can appreciate how that happens. There was a report—I am not sure whether there was 

a press release, but there was a report—on 5 October, which one of the officers might recall, where it was 

suggested that the NT police were investigating the reports of abuse at Don Dale. Were this matter and what had 

taken place ever reported on in any of the numbers of categories of briefs that you may have had? Were there any 

charges laid? 

Mr Matthews: It is possibly an NT government press release or report. I think it probably is referring— 

Senator DODSON: It is an ABC one. 

Mr Matthews: I think it is probably referring to investigation by the NT government Child Abuse Taskforce, 

which is through NT policing. There were specific instances, I think, that are particularly around that set of 

circumstances— 

Senator DODSON: In relation to that report? 

Mr Matthews: Not so much the report, but they would have been through the chain of events through that 

period in August. Some of those matters, and I think possibly some from prior, had been referred through to the 

Child Abuse Taskforce, and so in the normal course of events— 

Senator DODSON: I understand. I am just asking a very simple question. There was a report that the police 

in the Northern Territory were investigating the allegations that had been raised in relation to the Don Dale centre. 

Mr Matthews: I believe the background of one of the question time briefs that have been released under FOI 

notes that the Child Abuse Taskforce is investigating some of the matters of those incidents. 

Senator DODSON: So you cannot tell me whether there were charges laid or not? 

Senator Scullion: We can take that on notice; that was some time ago. But I agree, there was— 

Senator DODSON: It would have been useful if charges were laid. It may have arrested the awfulness that we 

have been seeing. 

Mr Matthews: It is always a difficult thing for us to get a line of sight on a jurisdiction's policing matters 

from the Commonwealth— 

Senator Scullion: But we will find out what happened to that investigation, if that would be of use to you. 

Senator DODSON: Yes. 

Senator McALLISTER: Can I come now to the question time brief that I think we are talking about. Just for 

clarity, that is question time brief 15/794. I assume you all have that in your papers. Do you recall receiving that 

brief, Minister? 

Senator Scullion: No, I recall it being in my question time pack. I carry it down there dutifully every day. 

Senator McALLISTER: Do you read them before you go into question time? 

Senator Scullion: I am across most of them, yes. I understand that they are available. Usually, you become 

more across them if somebody shows sufficient interest to ask a question. There were no questions asked, but I do 

know they are there, yes. 

Senator McALLISTER: You had read it. Presumably, you would read it privately before you read it in the 

chamber. 

Senator Scullion: Correct. 

Senator McALLISTER: How did that brief get generated? Did your office ask for it? 

Senator Scullion: I am not sure. They generally get generated because these are issues du jour in question 

time. Sometimes you will have a broader question time brief—it might be incarceration issues. Within that, there 



might be five subsections. That gets added to and changed, but there are different reasons why they would be 

generated. If it was a matter that had been canvassed in the media at the time, which it had been, it may have 

attracted attention from the other side by way of a question. So that is why it would have been— 

Senator McALLISTER: I am really not asking for a general description about how that function works 

between you and the department. I am asking: on this occasion, did you or your office request a question time 

brief on this set of issues or did the department initiate it? 

Senator Scullion: I did not request a question time brief. That is not usually how it works. 

Senator McALLISTER: On this occasion you did not? 

Senator Scullion: You will have to ask the department. If the department can assist, they should do so. 

Mr Tongue: We would have to go and check. Some question time briefs we initiate; some question time 

briefs we are asked by the office to generate. There is no indication on the documents of question time briefs how 

that process occurred. I would have to make some inquiries to establish that. 

Senator Scullion: I will have to check because the other side of it is whether my office asked, and you can get 

the answer from them. It is probably easier to get it from us, but to the best of my recollection that will not be the 

case. 

Senator McALLISTER: What will not be the case? 

Senator Scullion: I do not recall my office saying, 'Listen, let's go and have a question time brief,' on that 

particular matter. 

Senator McALLISTER: To the best of your recollection, it was not something generated by your office, but 

you would like the opportunity to check your records. 


Mr Matthews: To clarify, in terms of generating them and of the background material, they would be drafted 

in the department. 

Senator McALLISTER: I understand. The brief refers to a number of specific announcements, including the 

Law Council calling for urgent action over the report into the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre. Do you recall 

that aspect of the brief? 

Senator Scullion: What was that date? I am sorry, there are so many documents I just cannot get them in front 

of me. 

Senator McALLISTER: There are many documents, it is true. 

Mr Matthews: It is a media article attached to the question time brief. 

Senator McALLISTER: Do you recall that? 

Senator Scullion: I can recall in general the question time brief that talked not only about those issues but 

about those people who were obviously finding it equally— 

Senator McALLISTER: For completeness, can I confirm that this is the first brief that the minister received 

on these issues? 

Senator Scullion: I am not sure if somebody has the chronology. 

Mr Matthews: That one is, I think, the one that was put up on 12 October as the first of the question time 

briefs, but, subject to the FOI, as the minister said in his opening statement, the issue around the Vita report was 

covered in a meeting brief of a meeting with NAAJA on 18 February 2015. 

CHAIR: I note that we are just about due to break, and I am sure we will be coming back with this issue, so, 

Senator McAllister, if you are happy, we will resume in 45 minutes. 

Senator McALLISTER: I have just a couple more questions I would like to ask. 

CHAIR: If they are very quick, I am happy for you to, but I am sure we will be revisiting this issue at length 

after lunch. 

Senator McALLISTER: Can we just confirm that the question at the top of the question time brief—because 

of course a question time brief anticipates a question in the chamber—is: 'Are you aware of the report by the 

Northern Territory Children's Commissioner into an incident at the Don Dale juvenile detention centre'? If you 

had read the brief, which you said you had, you must have been aware that there was a report by the Northern 

Territory's Children's Commissioner into the incident at Don Dale as early as 12 October 2015. 

Senator Scullion: Sorry; can you ask me just the question? There was a lot of— 



Senator McALLISTER: The brief is dated 12 October 2015. Its title goes to the report by the Northern 

Territory Children's Commissioner into an incident at Don Dale. You were aware of that report at 12 October 

2015, were you not? 

Senator Scullion: Indeed. It has been provided. 

Senator McALLISTER: Yes. Thanks, Chair. 

CHAIR: We will now suspend until 1.30 pm. 

Proceedings suspended from 12:46 to 13:31 

CHAIR: We will resume questions under outcome 2 in the general category. Before I hand back to Senator 

McAllister, I should note, I know there are a number of senators who have an interest in this topic and want to ask 

questions. Perhaps, Senator McAllister, if you have got a good block to ask and we can then move on. We can 

certainly come back to you. However, if there is a good block and we can move onto others, that would be 

appreciated. 

Senator McALLISTER: That is no problem, Chair. Minister, you held a press conference on 26 July in 

Canberra. You were asked by the journalist: 

Did you get briefings on those Northern Territory inquiries and, if not, why not? 

Your answer was: 

Well, you know, you don't know what you don't know. No, I didn't and I don't know why I didn't but the fundamental of why 

I didn't was that it is in the jurisdiction of the Northern Territory. 

Do you stand by those remarks that you made on 26 July? 

Senator Scullion: Absolutely. Do you know what I was asking questions on, Senator—and that is the 

important thing, isn't it? I was asking questions about the 7.30 report material. That is what the media conference 

was about. 

Senator McALLISTER: Minister, the question you were asked was: did you get briefings on those Northern 

Territory inquiries? And you said: 

No, I didn't and I don't know why I didn't … 

Yet, in your evidence today, you have confirmed that, as early as October in 2015, you were in possession of 

briefings from the department that set out the fact that the Northern Territory Children's Commissioner had made 

a report on horrific activities at the Don Dale centre. I ask you again: when you were asked, 'Did you get briefings 

on those Northern Territory inquiries?' and you said, 'No, I didn't and I don't know why I didn't,' do you stand by 

that statement? 

Senator Scullion: I had read neither of those reports at that time, which I have acknowledged. 

Senator McALLISTER: Had you read the briefings though— 


Senator McALLISTER: because earlier in your evidence you said that you had. 

CHAIR: Please allow the minister a bit of an opportunity to answer the question before asking another one. 

Senator Scullion: I am, as always, trying to be as helpful as possible, Senator. I had acknowledged that I had 

not actually read those reports. When I made that utterance, I had not read the report but I had seen the 7.30 

report, how shocking it was and I had not received any briefing on that—that was for sure. The briefings, the 

conversations and what I had seen in the media had nothing to do with what we saw on the 7.30 report. 

Senator McALLISTER: Minister, you weren't asked whether you were briefed on the 7.30 report. You 

weren't asked whether you were briefed on Four Corners. You weren't asked whether you were briefed on 

anything except this: did you get briefings on those Northern Territory inquiries? That was the question from the 

journalist, and you said no. How can you reconcile that with the evidence you have provided to the committee 

today? 

Senator Scullion: Because the conference and the context of all the questions were around the graphic 

brutality— 

Senator McALLISTER: So you misunderstood the question. 

Senator Scullion: Senator, if you will let me finish. 

CHAIR: Please allow the minister to answer the questions. 



Senator Scullion: which was in stark contrast. What I was portraying was that I had not seen any of this 

before. We had not heard of any of this before, and I had not had briefings on any of this before; I certainly had 

not. There have been plenty of others around the place who wish they had, but I had never received any briefings 

at all that matched any of the graphic circumstances that we saw on the Four Corners report. Perhaps clumsily, 

that was the point I was making then and that is the point that I am making now. You would try to make the point 

that somehow in a word here and a word there I had sought to mislead and all these sorts of things. This is very 

simple. I had no briefings that would lead me to suspect that those matters that we had seen on the 7.30 Report 

were occurring, and I stand by that. 

Senator McALLISTER: Minister, you told us earlier today that you had checked your records but you do not 

have a recollection of asking the department to generate a media brief for you or a question time brief for you on 

this issue of the Children's Commissioner's report and Don Dale. Have you checked your records? 

Senator Scullion: No, but I would be very surprised if my suspicion, which I have indicated earlier, that that 

was not the case, is not the case. But, no, we have not completed checking our records. 

Senator McALLISTER: Minister, on 3 August you gave an interview with Radio National Drive and you 

said that you had asked the department back in October to provide some information and it was essentially what 

was in the media. 

Senator Scullion: That is right. 

Senator McALLISTER: How can you reconcile your evidence today that you did not ask for the brief that 

was generated by the department with the statement you made on 3 August, which was that you had asked the 

department to provide you information? Those two things are completely inconsistent. 

Senator Scullion: Indeed they are. Can I just go to their importance. I was speaking on Drive— 

Senator McALLISTER: On the radio. 

Senator Scullion: On radio. I can remember I was in a remote part of Arnhem Land standing in a place where 

I could actually have some coverage. In my mind I know, at some stage, I wanted to say at the very first 

opportunity that I had had a question time brief. I knew I had read the question time brief and I read it in the 

media, but I wanted to acknowledge immediately that there was a brief and that is exactly what I did. 

Senator McALLISTER: But you said that you had asked for the brief, and yet today you say you did not ask 

for the brief. 

Senator Scullion: When I say I asked for the brief, my office may have asked for the brief— 

Senator McALLISTER: You said earlier that you did not believe that was the case. You said you believed it 

had been generated by the department. 

Senator Scullion: Look, perhaps I misled Drive. Perhaps it was the department that provided us a brief in any 

event, but to be fair and frank to Drive I was just simply saying and making the point that we had received a 

question time brief. Who actually generated that was in a conversation where I was saying, 'Look ,Patricia, to the 

best of my knowledge' whatever I said 'I think we either asked for one or we provided one'. I did not think that 

was particularly material. You might not think that and we will later find out today whether that actually came 

from the office. It certainly did not come from me, but when I say 'I' I mean the office generated a brief. The 

reason that sparked that was that I was told by my office, 'Yes, we did have a question time brief'—I can 

remember that now—and I said, 'All right, I will do the best I can do to clarify that,' at the time. 

Senator McALLISTER: Well, you have either misled the ABC or you have misled this committee on the 

question of who generated the brief. Is that correct? 

Senator Scullion: Well hang on— 

Senator McALLISTER: It cannot be both. 

Senator Scullion: I have said we have taken that matter on notice and we will be able to get an exact answer. I 

am just trying to be fair dinkum here. I do not think it came, necessarily, from my office. I did not actually think 

that it was important at the time to the Australian people whether my office said to the department 'can you get it' 

or the department said to my office 'can you get it'. I thought this was actually about kids in detention—a really 

important issue to Australians, particularly to Territorians. That is what I thought this issue was about. You may 

place importance on saying I misled people, but that is absolute garbage. What I actually said is what I thought 

happened at the time. 

Senator McALLISTER: Do you consider being truthful with the Australian people and being accountable to 

the Australian people is important? 



Senator Scullion: I certainly do and that is why I am an absolutely honest person and I have been absolutely 

honest about these matters. As I indicated, you might try to say, from an interview I gave with Drive where I did 

not know—and you are probably right, I did not know exactly whether it was 'I', 'office' or 'department' that put 

those matters into a brief. Do I think it is important whether it was 'I', 'we' or 'they'? It is simply not important. I 

said today that I will actually, because it is obviously an important issue for you—although I am not sure it is for 

anyone else—take that question on notice and then you will be able to know exactly who it was, whether it was 

the office, myself or the department. 

Senator McALLISTER: Minister, do you accept— 

Senator Scullion: It is just surprising that that is a matter that is important to you. 

Senator McALLISTER: Minister, do you accept that having a range of statements which are in conflict with 

one another in the public domain about this most significant issue would be of concern to the citizens of 

Australia? 

Senator Scullion: It would be if it were correct, but I just do not accept the premise of your question. You just 

have not made the case. 

Senator McALLISTER: You have given a range of evidence today in this hearing which is inconsistent with 

statements that you have made previously in the media and in the chamber— 

Senator Scullion: I do not accept that. Perhaps you can go through my inconsistencies? Or point one out? 

CHAIR: I think this question has been taken on notice. I think we will all be able to better judge this once the 

response comes formally. Why don't we wait for that and move on to another issue? 

Senator McALLISTER: I do wish to indicate that this is important. Minister, you knew enough about the 

Children's Commissioner's report to ask for a briefing from your department. You thought it was sufficiently 

serious to get a briefing for the purposes of managing question time. But the day after Four Corners screened, 

you told the Australian people that you had received no briefings on this abuse or relevant reports. That is a 

significant and non-trivial discrepancy in your story. I am giving you the opportunity again to clarify your 

position. Did you receive briefings? Did you know? What did you do about it when you knew? 

Senator Scullion: As I indicated this morning, what was clearly on my mind—and you can look carefully at 

the words to try, and I suspect that you cannot—was that I had not received a brief on these matters. 

Senator McALLISTER: It is hard to tell what was clearly on your mind— 

Senator Scullion: Let's not play semantics about this, Senator. I knew about the matter: I probably knew as 

much from the media as I knew from the meeting brief—the one background meeting brief I had and from the 

question time folder that I had—because they were completely consistent. There was no difference. I did not need 

a brief; it was in the media. Everything we know in there was in those briefs. 

Senator McALLISTER: The media reports were horrific, Minister. So you knew about these horrific media 

reports. What did you do about them? 

Senator Scullion: Indeed. Well, the issue is—and you have talked to me about the brief. What the brief says 

is: 

The report also explained that approval was given to transfer five young people to the adult prison, however, six young 

people were transferred— 

That is very concerning— 

despite one only being 14 years old. This is in breach of the Youth Justice Act … 

Then it goes straight into a report, and it says: 

The report recommended the NT Correctional Services develop an appropriate training for staff— 

And you talked about that earlier. So in the same piece of information that I am providing it says: 

… consider the recruitment process, they review the operational practices and ensure the rights of the young person as 

specified in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.' 

Then it goes straight on— 

Senator McALLISTER: Can I just check—are you tabling that? 

Senator Scullion: in the same report question time brief— 

Senator McALLISTER: Chair, is he tabling that? 

Senator Scullion: In the same question time brief it goes on to say: 



The NT government announced … that a Youth Justice Advisory Group, including the Peak Indigenous bodies, was set 

up— 

NAAJA and all of those bodies, so I was feeling a bit more confident; read the yucky stuff—same brief— 

to oversee the recommendations made by the 'Vita Report' … 

It then goes on to say—and I am wondering what happened to these correctional people: 

The Northern Territory Child Abuse Taskforce is also investigating a number of other allegations of mistreatment of youth 

in relation to the Centre. Allegations have been made that guards at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre forced young 

people to fight, made one inmate eat bird faeces and threatened detainees … 

So, yes—horrible—but what it actually says is that something is being done. And, of course, in the same brief that 

you have you will note that it also goes on to say: 

The advisory group has met four times this year and is scheduled to meet every two months until the recommendations … 

are fully implemented.. 

It goes on to say: 

To date 15 recommendations of the Vita Report have been completed with 

Three requiring no further action. 

Seven of the completed recommendations now forming on-going practice. 

Five of the completed recommendations requiring on-going action and monitoring. 

Both reports are public documents. 

When I read these reports it is okay, Senator, to glibly take one part of them and ask, 'Why didn't you respond?' 

It is because a comprehensive overview of a comprehensive response is included in these documents. But, 

Senator, the whole issue is that what was reported in the media and in all of these documents, including that this 

has all been resolved, was nothing—nothing—to do with what was really happening, because that was only 

exposed by the Four Corners material we saw on that night. 

CHAIR: Minister, just to clarify Senator McAllister's question, is that document something you are able to 

table or you are seeking to table? 

Senator Scullion: No. This is an FOI document. I was just quoting from the question time brief. That was 

what was in the question time brief. 

CHAIR: Right. So it is a public document. It is a public document already. 

Senator Scullion: It is a public document, yes, and the senator has been quoting from that. 

Senator McALLISTER: I just wanted to clarify it was the question time brief. I do not have access to the 

meeting brief which you have made reference to. Are you willing to table that or to provide it to the committee? 

Mr Matthews: Yes, we can. It should be on the PM&C disclosure log. 

Senator McALLISTER: You have disclosed it? 

Mr Matthews: Yes. 

Senator Scullion: I assumed you had— 

Senator McALLISTER: That is fine. 

Mr Matthews: It is on PM&C's disclosure log. 

Senator Scullion: You can have it now, too, if you like, Senator. 

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. To clarify, Senator McAllister, we are nearly at the end of this series of 

questions? 

Senator McALLISTER: I am close to finishing, but I think they are fairly serious issues. But I am close to 

finishing. 

CHAIR: Great. I just to want to be able to pass the call around— 

Senator McALLISTER: I understand. 

CHAIR: because theoretically we have 15 minutes left on this issue, although we can and, I suspect, will need 

to extend. 

Senator McALLISTER: Minister, you have said, helpfully, that you canvassed the information that was in 

the question time brief that you received. Why then, when you were asked the question on 26 July in Canberra, 

'Did you get briefings on those Northern Territory inquiries,' did you say, 'Well, you know, you don't know what 

you don't know'? You did know. You have just run us through what you knew. You knew a great deal. 



Senator Scullion: When you said 'you don't know what you don't know', Senator, you said, 'Well, why weren't 

you given a brief?' That was the question. I do not know why I was not given a brief; I was not given a brief. And 

that would have been great. As I have said before, I am sure there were plenty of people that only wished we had 

known what was really going on. 

Senator McALLISTER: You knew about the children eating faeces. That is pretty graphic. 

Senator Scullion: Yes, but I also know at the same time— 

Senator McALLISTER: What did you do about that? 

Senator Scullion: what has been the response. Within inches, Senator—and I am sure, since it was your FOI, 

you would have read the question time information—of that, maybe centimetres, there is a resolution. A child 

abuse task force has taken those particular correctional officers through a rigorous process. As I indicated to 

Senator Dodson earlier, we will get back to you on that. I am not sure—it is not our process; it is the Northern 

Territory government's process—about actually what happens. The fact is that I am sure the royal commission, as 

we speak, will be looking into those matters. 

So, when you are referring to 'why didn't you act', well, you read something but then you read the next 

paragraph—and if you had read it, Senator, I would have thought it was pretty self-evident that a pretty serious 

task force was investigating the matters around the bird faeces. And so, yes, it was a concern. I have no reason to 

doubt that that was the case, because I had heard that the task force was out and about. So, as to any particular 

action from a Commonwealth minister, the Northern Territory government have jurisdiction and are obviously 

acting on it. 

CHAIR: Senator McAllister, you can ask one final question, and then I am going to give the call to Senator 

Smith. 

Senator McALLISTER: Minister, you have said you wished that you knew the graphic detail earlier. 


Senator McALLISTER: What would you have done, had you known? 

Senator Scullion: What detail would I have liked to have known? 

Senator McALLISTER: No. What would you have done, had you known? 

Senator Scullion: I would have ensured that the right people knew about that. It is a hypothetical. We do not 

normally like to deal with hypotheticals in that place. 

Senator McALLISTER: But you established the hypothetical. 

Senator Scullion: But I would have acted. Not only I would have acted; Jenny Macklin would have acted. She 

would have acted. Senator McCarthy would have acted. They would have acted. I do not know what we would 

have done, but we would have done something if we had seen and known about the content of the Four Corners 

report. There are a whole range of things we can do. I have already laid out what I did afterwards. It is not 

anywhere near as much use after the fact as it is before. In my opening statement, we have laid out what this 

government is doing. We have acted decisively in a number of areas, in critical areas, and all I am saying is that, 

yes, I think that is going to change a lot of the environment around the territory and state jurisdictions. But, 

clearly, I would love to have known because Dylan's treatment would have been different if we had all known, 

and we did not. Certainly the report— 

Senator McALLISTER: I simply do not accept that you didn't. 

Senator Scullion: What? 

Senator DODSON: Senator Scullion— 

CHAIR: Sorry, Senator Dodson, but I did flag that Senator Smith had questions. We will move to him now. 

We will come back to you. There will be ample opportunity, I assure you. 

Senator DODSON: Okay. Thank you. 

CHAIR: I know Senator Siewert is very keen to ask questions too. Senator Smith. 

Senator SMITH: Mr Tongue or Mr Matthews, who do I direct questions to about the brief? 

Mr Tongue: Mr Matthews is best placed, I think. 

Senator SMITH: Mr Matthews, did the brief contain any suggested course of action for the minister? This is 

brief QTB15/794. 

Mr Matthews: I do not believe so. I think in the background information normally we do not put a suggested 

course. I would have to read it. 



Senator Scullion: It is not that sort of brief, Senator. 

Senator McALLISTER: The minister would have had to request an actual substantive briefing, not just a 

media briefing. 

CHAIR: Senator Smith has the call. 

Mr Matthews: I do not think there is anything there. 

Senator SMITH: Senator McAllister, you are getting particularly excited about this, but I suspect for all the 

wrong reasons. Mr Matthews? 

Mr Matthews: I am just looking at the brief now. I do not believe it has a suggested course of action in the 

background. 

Senator SMITH: If the matters were serious enough, would you have put a course of action in or suggested a 

course of action? 

Senator Dodson: You must be joking, Senator. Seriously? 

CHAIR: Senator Dodson, Senator Smith did not interrupt any anyone else's questions. Please allow him to ask 

his questions. 

Mr Tongue: I might dive in there. Question time briefs usually deal with media matters of the day. Sometimes 

in a question time brief we might indicate to a minister a suggested course of action, under a heading that says, 

'Subject to your decision, you may wish to'. It is in the nature, as the minister has outlined, that we were all faced 

with a Northern Territory government that appeared to all of us to be addressing the matters in an appropriate 

way. 

Senator SMITH: So the department was of the view that the Northern Territory government was dealing with 

the matters? 

Mr Tongue: That was all the information we had to hand. 

Mr Matthews: We were conscious of the reports, conscious of the contents of the reports, conscious that the 

NT government had accepted the findings and has in place a body that is responding to the issues and has a body 

oversighted with the Children's Commissioner, NAAJA, the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service and 

the NT Legal Aid Commission. In that context—that there was an appropriate response from the jurisdiction into 

it—we would note what is happening at that stage and keep a watching brief. 

Senator SMITH: So you believed that there was an appropriate response being implemented by the Northern 

Territory government? 

Mr Matthews: That is what it would have appeared to us at the time. 

Senator SMITH: The information that Senator McAllister is talking about, in the document—about a youth 

justice advisory group, including peak Indigenous bodies—dated 24 September 2015, is part of the question time 

brief. But I am curious to know why the critical information that reports about the progress that the Northern 

Territory government was undertaking, had been undertaking, is buried at page 6. I have not been a minister so I 

do not have much control over how I would like my question time briefs prepared, but I am just wondering why 

that information is not brought more thoroughly to the second page of the brief, because it seems pretty critical, 

because it was quite clear to yourselves and the department that the Northern Territory government had been 

responding to issues around Don Dale and youth justice et cetera. 

Mr Matthews: In the brief 15/794, it is on page 2, up the top: 

The NT Government announced on 24 September 2014 that a Youth Justice Advisory Group, including Peak Indigenous 

bodies, was set up to oversee recommendations made by the 'Vita Report' … 

Senator SMITH: It does not say that, to date, 15 recommendations of the Vita report have been completed, 

with three requiring— 

Mr Matthews: The reason we— 

Senator SMITH: Excuse me, Mr Matthews. With three requiring no further action and seven of the 

completed recommendations now forming ongoing practice. 

Mr Tongue: The idea of a question time brief is to convey as much of the relevant information in as brief a 

space as possible. So— 

Senator SMITH: So the progress that the Northern Territory jurisdiction was making was not relevant? 

Mr Tongue: I am not saying that at all. 

Senator SMITH: That is what it sounded like. 



Mr Tongue: What I am saying is, for a question time brief, we are trying to give a minister a picture, in a page 

and a bit, of key points. Certainly with some question time briefs we attach material, particularly— 

Senator SMITH: Which is what you have done here. Senator McAllister is talking about a document that is 

attached. 

Mr Tongue: That is attached material. That is correct. The reason we tend to do that, particularly for ministers 

who are senators, is that the form of question time in the Senate is slightly different, and there can always be 

follow-up questions. So we tend to provide a little more information behind our initial quick one-page question 

time brief—or page-or-so question time brief—should there be follow-up questions. That is why the particular 

structure of a brief like that. 

Senator SMITH: So, to summarise: the department was confident that the Northern Territory government 

was doing everything that it needed to be doing? 

Mr Tongue: Senator, that is the way it appeared to us. Everything we had seen—our engagement with 

Indigenous groups in the Northern Territory and our engagement with Northern Territory government 

counterparts—indicated to us that they had taken the two reports seriously and they were implementing 

appropriate responses at the time we were negotiating. And around this time we were negotiating a major national 

partnership agreement with the Northern Territory that included money for policing, youth justice initiatives and 

so on. The view we had at the time was that the Northern Territory was responding adequately to this and the 

Northern Territory Children's Commissioner was saying the Northern Territory was responding adequately to this. 

We had no reason to believe that something else may have been going on. 

Senator SMITH: Wouldn't the revelation that a previous Northern Territory government had removed powers 

to investigate child protection have been something valuable to put in the question time brief? Or did you not 

know about that? It went back to 2011. 

Mr Matthews: Generally we would cover the most topical issue at the time. We would not cover everything 

in one particular— 

Senator Scullion: The question time brief is for the issues of the day. I think it might have been a bit out of 

scope. 

Senator SMITH: I am well aware of what the question time briefs do. I want to turn to 26 July as well. There 

has been some commentary about the minister's appearance on radio. Were you surprised to learn that the former 

minister for children and protective services had also said on radio that she was surprised to hear about the report 

and said that she was certainly unaware of those issues that were raised in the Four Corners program? 

Senator Scullion: I do not think anybody should be surprised that the ex-minister was surprised. She was as 

surprised as I was. I do not think that anybody in Australia was not surprised. In other words, when you are 

surprised—we did not have a clue what was really happening. We had read reports and we had read those things, 

but we did not really know what was happening until we saw that vision. 

Senator SMITH: But you are being held accountable for being surprised when you had no responsibility and 

the minister that was responsible is not being held responsible. 

Senator Scullion: Is there a question there somewhere, mate? 

Senator SMITH: Do you have a view? 

Senator Scullion: These are horrible circumstances. 

Senator SMITH: I agree. 

Senator Scullion: We have done everything we can after the expose. We have got a royal commission; it is 

sitting now. It is going to get to the very bottom of all of this material. I am very confident now that the plan for 

the future will be on a lot of evidence of what is happening, where we do not need to go again and, most 

importantly, the sorts of things that we can do. So those self-evident things, as I have talked about in my opening 

statement, are the things that this government can do, and we do not need a royal commission to tell us that with 

the jurisdictions. That is very much a focus of COAG in November. We have done everything we can do. As I 

suspect, whoever is surprised—as I said, if only we had known what was really happening, not what these reports 

had told us, we all would have been a lot better off. 

Senator SIEWERT: I want to go a bit more broadly than the Don Dale situation and ask about comments you 

made in your opening statement. One of the comments was that you are bringing together a package of actions. 

First off, does that include budget line items or additional expenditure commitment? 

Senator Scullion: Which page was that on? 



Senator SIEWERT: Page 5, where you were saying: 

My government is working to bring together a package of actions that I believe will make a genuine improvement. 

I want to ask about a number of those measures. Is there a funding commitment that goes with this package, and, 

if so, what is it? 

Senator Scullion: One of the fundamental tenets of this government is that we very carefully plan on actual 

investment. All of this plan is fully funded and much of it is predicated on not only the actions of the 

Commonwealth, of course, but also a partnership approach with the jurisdictions. Much of that will be nutted out 

at the next COAG meeting. 

Senator SIEWERT: How do we know it is fully funded when you have already committed funding? 

Senator Scullion: We understand what the Commonwealth's role is in this. Because we have not had the 

meeting yet, we are not able to understand what level of commitment the states and territories will accept as theirs 

and at what level they are prepared to fund it. In terms of some of our rules, we are very confident those 

investments are going to be able to be funded. But you are right: my level of confidence has to be put in the 

context that we are yet have the meeting. In terms of the Commonwealth contribution to those partnerships, we 

are confident that we have the funds. 

Senator SIEWERT: Have you done a budget on how much it will cost the Commonwealth? 

Senator Scullion: The Commonwealth contribution is in a number of programs. I identified a number of the 

programs that we are doing now. I identified that in this statement, and, if you go on, there are a number of line 

items. All of those funds have actually been budgeted for and are in fact identified over the forward estimates. 

Senator SIEWERT: This includes funding for youth leadership et cetera. What is the funding, for example, 

for the mandatory custody notification offering funding support to assist them to set this up so we have a 

consistent national approach? 

Senator Scullion: That is only going to be funded if somebody actually does the right thing and says, 'Yes, 

Minister, I am happy to accept your offer of funding.' Yes, if states and territories do—and I really hope that they 

do accept this very generous offer—we have budgeted for that, but I had to budget that before I made the offer. 

Senator SIEWERT: How much have you budgeted and which program is it coming out of? 

Ms Hefren-Webb: It would be out of the safety and wellbeing program—program 2.3. I do not have the 

figure for the exact costing, but we will have made provision in the forward estimates for that. 

Senator SIEWERT: For the program itself? 

Ms Hefren-Webb: For the cost of a custody notification service—as the minister said, before the offer was 

made. So we have made provision. As you know, the IAS operates as a flexible funding pool, but we have put a 

notional provision in there and we will see how the states respond and, to the extent they respond, we will fund 

that activity. 

Senator SIEWERT: Can you take on notice to tell me how much that is. 

Ms Hefren-Webb: Absolutely. 

Senator SIEWERT: You are funding support to assist them to set this up so we have a consistent national 

approach. Is it only to set it up and not to run it? Otherwise we are going to get into the same situation as New 

South Wales. 

Ms Hefren-Webb: I think it is in the sense that we would be looking for a co-contribution from the states, but 

we have provisioned some ongoing funding. 

Senator Scullion: Just in broad terms, our funding is tied to them changing legislation—similar to the issues I 

know you are across in New South Wales. It has to be legislated, first of all. The second part of it is that they have 

to guarantee in the legislation—because I have been caught before, as you know—post three years of funding. I 

think it is very generous, but it has to be conditional or, as you would know, it will not work. 

Senator SIEWERT: Otherwise I will be back here in three years time lobbying for more money. 

Senator Scullion: That is the deal. They have to sign on the line to get those funds. 

Senator SIEWERT: Thank you for that. Have you spoken to the states and territories? I think you have been 

raising this with them in the past, haven't you? 


Senator SIEWERT: Where are you up to in that process? 



Senator Scullion: I have been in this process for probably the last 18 months or so, as you would be aware— 

and thank you for your assistance. We have not had anybody say no, but a number of people have shown some 

level of interest. I think it is fair to say we really would not be able to say, with any level of confidence, one way 

or the other, but we have not had anybody actually accept the offer at this stage. 

Senator SIEWERT: Is there a plan to step up the level of encouragement to states and territories? 

Senator Scullion: I always have a plan to step up the level of encouragement. I will let you know at the next 

set of estimates how that plan is going. 

Ms Saastamoinen: We—the department—are also now following up with each of the state and territory 

government departments with responsibility for justice issues to try to get a response to the letters that the 

minister has actually sent to them. 

Senator SIEWERT: Not that I do not care about every state in Australia, but I would like to ask about my 

home state of Western Australia. Where are we up to there? 

Ms Saastamoinen: Western Australia has sent an initial response arguing that the arrangements they have 

currently got and have recently introduced would be sufficient. We are planning to follow up with them, because 

the advice we are getting from the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia is that they do not agree. 

Senator SIEWERT: That is my understanding. 

Senator Scullion: There is a small, but—we know from our evidence and work we have done in New South 

Wales—significant part that is missing. It is actually an essential part of ensuring that it works. I do not want to 

get into the detail. I do not think there is any mischief in that, but adding that extra part, if you like, to where their 

policy is at, will vastly increase it to the level of confidence we have with the CNS in New South Wales, when it 

is used. 

Senator SIEWERT: I presume you are referring to the unfortunate situation that occurred in New South 

Wales? 

Senator Scullion: Yes. Where the CNS was not triggered. 

Senator SIEWERT: Are you or the department having a look at what happened there, or working with New 

South Wales on that? 

Senator Scullion: Yes. I have obviously had a fair bit to do with that. I was very distressed to hear about that. 

The CNS has a legislative loophole, and it has been around for the whole 15 years, in that it applies when 

someone is taken into custody in terms of arrest, which is fair enough, but it does not apply when someone is 

taken into custody for protective custody. In this case, it was protective custody because they were not sure what 

was wrong. That was the legislative difference. So, obviously, I have been keen to ensure that that process is 

changed. I think that is happening at the moment. 

Senator SIEWERT: That is happening in New South Wales? 

Senator SCULLION: Only in New South Wales. 

Senator SIEWERT: I would presume, then, that you would be wanting the other states, when they are doing 

their legislative— 

Senator Scullion: Ensure that for all custody, that there is a notification system. 

Senator SIEWERT: Can I please move to point 1 in your package, which was, 'I have written to state and 

territory ministers seeking their support to better use the welfare system to assist with the collection of fines.' That 

sends shivers up my spine, quite frankly, hearing that you are going for the welfare system in order to pay fines. 

That literally takes food out of the mouths of kids and families because you are taking money straight from their 

income support. There are alternative ways that were looked at, and we heard about those during the Senate 

inquiry into Aboriginal access to legal services, which just reported last week, and I am wondering whether you 

are looking at alternatives rather than just garnishing money from the income support payments? 

Senator Scullion: In a broad sense, no. We are focusing on ensuring, that whilst this is available, we would 

only make it available under certain circumstances. On some of the evidence we have around how much a 

payment is, the general feedback from jurisdictions is they just want to ensure that the system has some credibility 

about it; they do not care, really, how long it takes to pay back just the fact that it is being paid back—which was 

useful; it was not an assumption I had originally made. But, as you know, there is a Centrepay system. Currently, 

the Centrepay system is voluntary and the voluntary system has some weaknesses, in that, you can 'un-volunteer'. 

But when it comes to actually having the option in Western Australia, for example, we just think we would like to 



have an additional choice because some people no longer have a choice—they pay it or they go to prison. We are 

just looking carefully at what additional choices might be provided, but— 

Senator SIEWERT: That will be made compulsory in the end, won't it? 


Senator SIEWERT: You are saying choice— 

Senator Scullion: Not at all. I am just saying, the nature of the choice of payment will always come from the 

individual who has to pay the fine. This is not about any compulsory payments or deals with the states about that. 

If they choose to pay their fine and at the time the evidence is that they have no choice as they do not have the 

money—'I can't pay the money so I've got to go and serve some time'—we would like to add to that suite of 

choices an option around Centrepay that they can choose, if they wish. It is about ensuring that we discuss those 

matters with the states to ensure that the payments are sufficiently small to not have a huge impact, but the state 

has the confidence that they will be collected. 

Senator SIEWERT: What about looking at the other choices that are available? For example, we heard there 

are some good programs in New South Wales that, instead of taking money out of people's income support 

payments, which are low enough as it is, have other ways of working off your fine or making sure that you are 

paying your fine in other ways. 

Ms Hefren-Webb: We are looking at a wide range of options around this. As the minister said, we have a 

particular interest in a range of strategies that can prevent people becoming incarcerated. We have looked closely 

at the report that your committee has done. All of these matters are being considered. As the minister said, this is 

something the Prime Minister wants to bring to COAG at the end of the year. So we are supporting that work 

through looking at a wide array of options, and there has been no final settlement on any particular suite of 

options. 

Senator SIEWERT: Thank you. Does it also include looking at the way that people are being fined in the 

first place? A lot of the work is done at the other end. A number of them are driving offences, driving without a 

licence because it is too hard to get a licence. It is well known that is a significant issue. There are many other 

small offences that they end up getting charged for through particular sets of circumstances. Are they also being 

looked at? 

Mr Tongue: For some of those circumstances, particularly in remote areas, we are looking at the use of CDP. 

For example, getting a driver's licence is something that we can fund under CDP. That, as you say, is often the 

cause. So, where we can support the acquisition of licences, permits and those sorts of things, we are hoping we 

can use CDP to support people in a remote situation. For some of the other matters it is a little harder, but we are 

trying to think creatively about how we can create opportunities for people. 

Senator SIEWERT: Thank you. I am purposely not biting on the CDP, because I know that that is the first 

item after we have finished this area. If it expedites us moving on to the broader program, I will cease there. 

CHAIR: Are there many more questions in the general category before we move on to the specific programs? 

Senator DODSON: I would think that some of the fantastic commissioners in the Royal Commission into 

Aboriginal Deaths in Custody who have since passed, including Elliott Johnston, would be absolutely horrified to 

listen to the discussion here today—an appalling demonstration of ignorance about the criminal justice system 

and its interface with Indigenous peoples, and about existing cultures within prisons and within police 

departments. This was over 20 years ago. This is an appalling display of the lack of comprehension. 

The government of the day paid a lot of money for a Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. 

Some of the matters about which the minister has indicated he is now seeking to get collaboration with the state 

were subject to the recommendations that were made at the time—imprisonment as the last resort. We just had a 

discussion about fines and how to pay them—fine defaults and incarceration levels. I would suggest, Minister, 

that the people that advise you go back and read the report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in 

Custody, reacquaint themselves with the 339 recommendations that were made, and have a serious look at the 

principles that underlie it: the notion of duty of care and imprisonment as the last resort. If those matters can be 

seriously inculcated into the good intentions you have in relation to collaboration with the states, we may in fact 

get some traction to eradicate, or at least impact upon, the levels of incarceration rates, the levels of children being 

held in out-of-home care, and some of those matters that go to domestic violence and other issues. 

You cannot pretend that you have amnesia. There is a culture here that was inquired into after a lot of pain in 

the Indigenous community and amongst some of those officers—police officers and custodial officers—who had 

to deal with these matters. We are now back at the inquiry into Don Dale, and I have got no doubts, Minister, this 



is going to spread beyond Don Dale. So I would encourage you to exercise your leadership or take stock of the 

leadership and collaborate with your cabinet colleagues, particularly those ministers who have portfolio 

responsibilities in Indigenous affairs. Let's see if we cannot deal with this. Thank you, Minister. 

Senator Scullion: I will just respond briefly. I would like to acknowledge that you were a part of that process. 

It is useful sometimes to look back historically. Not all of it is useful, because a number of things change. As you 

would be aware, in the last three years there were 75,000 domestic violence incidents. That is not reports, and it 

does not count all those that were not reported. That is 75,000 women, of which 82 per cent were Indigenous. 

Senator DODSON: I am aware of that, Minister. 

Senator Scullion: We share that disbelief that 17 women were murdered at that time, and every one of the 

perpetrators had a blood alcohol level of over 0.15. The circumstances change. The reason I make these 

comments, Senator, is that there has to be a balance, because some of the women in the community say, 'The only 

time when I'm safe is when my husband's locked up.' We are dealing with a difficulty in one area and the 

challenges of another, and I acknowledge what you say. I am not trying to escape; I am just saying that I think 

things are worth a revisit from time to time to have a look at them in the same context as you would have looked 

at them 20 years ago. We have had some significant trends that we need to have a relook at. 

Senator DODSON: I only say that because the things you are putting forward are things that were raised in 

the public space under those 339 recommendations. 

Senator Scullion: I accept your advice. It is sage advice. We will have another look at those matters. 

Senator McCARTHY: Senator, in your opening statement you said quite a few things. One of the things that 

I wanted to clarify was the custody notification scheme. Are you saying that that is going to be implemented right 

across Australia? 

Senator Scullion: No. I would love to, but I cannot. When you pass legislation, what the legislation says is 

that as soon as an Aboriginal person, or someone you think might be an Aboriginal person, comes into custody 

the first thing you have to do is ring this number. It is a legal aid number, but it may not only be legal services that 

need to be provided. So they make contact. What I am paying for is, in effect, is a 24-hour service in addition to 

other legal services. So they are there and they network. They ring your family. They can bring people. They give 

you the comfort that someone else outside of this system is looking after them. They often go in and see them and 

generally play an 'amicus' role, and we know that, in those first hours, that is just so important. The evidence is 

that for the first 15 years of its implementation in New South Wales—New South Wales has legislation for this— 

there has not been a death in custody, and I am talking about before you get incarcerated, so this is a death in 

custody issue. But the sad thing, again, is that it is pretty well known that I and those who run that process have 

been at loggerheads because I am currently paying for something they legislate for. I think it is very useful, and it 

is very sad that they have not agreed to fund it themselves. We will continue the conversation. On that basis, we 

have made an offer to all the states and territories that they pass legislation to ensure that you do that. It catches 

not only whatever the police may get you for but also protective custody. The deal would be that we would pay 

for a three-year period and after that the agreement would be that they fund that service themselves. 

Senator McCARTHY: That is in letters you have written? 

Senator SCULLION: Yes. All of the jurisdictions have that offer now. 

Senator McCARTHY: Is that public? Can we have a look at it? 

Senator Scullion: Well, it is now, Senator. 

Senator McCARTHY: Thank you. We could have that on notice. In terms of the royal commission, we 

certainly know that there were many calls across the country for it to be broadened. Is there scope for the royal 

commission to expand beyond the Northern Territory? 

Senator Scullion: I think that is a matter for the commission. But in terms of the scope and the timing, 

historically, you can get a bit mission creep in these things, and what happens with that is not that they are not 

doing the right thing but there is a timing issue, and I think everybody would like to be provided with some 

recommendations quite shortly. As for the scope of the remainder of that, that is entirely a matter for the 

commission and the Attorney. 

Senator McCARTHY: Thank you. 

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator McCarthy. I am just seeking an indication from senators about how many 

questions we have under health issues, which will help us manage the rest of our time under outcome 2. Senator 

Siewert, do you have many questions on health issues? 



Senator SIEWERT: Yes. We have 40 minutes left and maybe we should be looking at what are the key 

issues we want to address. I would, for example, suggest that it is really important that we address the issues 

around suicide prevention, and I am particularly keen to also look at CDP, given they are two key issues. I do 

have a lot of questions, but I will put the rest of my questions on notice if we could perhaps address those two 

issues. 

CHAIR: They are your priorities. Just to clarify, because I have not been in this committee before on this day, 

are they health issues or are they under— 

Senator SIEWERT: CDP is the jobs program, so in fact it would be up under 2.1. I suggest we address the 

issues around suicide, which you could argue could come under safety and wellbeing, but it is really health, isn't 

it? 

CHAIR: In that case we will move to the programs and I will go through them now. Stop me if there are 

questions you have under each of these and if no-one stops me then we will presume there are not. Senator 

Siewert will have the CDP questions under program 2.1, so why don't we start with those. 

Senator SIEWERT: I want to go to CDP and get some of the most recent data, if you have it, in terms of the 

issues around the number of people that have been sanctioned and received breaches through the process. There 

are alarming figures in the research report from CAEPR around the number of penalties that have been increased 

and the significant increase in the proportion of Aboriginal people that are being breached. 

Mr Eccles: We will take you through the statistics of the breaching, then we also take you through the impact 

that breaching has as people progress through CDP. So we will give you the numbers but then also what the 

material impact is on the people. 

Senator SIEWERT: That would be useful. 

Ms Williams: You talked a little bit about the CAEPR research, so I think that is probably a good place to 

start. There are probably two types of penalties that people can incur under the national compliance framework 

within CDP. The first is the no-show no-pay penalty, which is essentially a penalty that a person incurs when they 

fail to turn up to an appointment or an activity; and the second is a more serious failure penalty, which is 

essentially the eight-week penalty. Those are the two types of penalties that are broadly captured in the CAEPR 

research that you mentioned. 

There has been an increase in the penalties. I think there have been around 146,000 or thereabouts in terms of 

penalties imposed over 2015-16, so that is an increase from under the RJCP. The majority of those were no-show 

no-pay penalties—about 86 per cent. 

Senator SIEWERT: Could you tell me how many they are again. I have written it down wrong. 

Ms Williams: I think the exact number is 146,700 penalties. 

Senator SIEWERT: And that is no-show no-pay? 

Ms Williams: That is a combination of no-show no-pay— 

Senator SIEWERT: That is a combination. And over what period of time? 

Ms Williams: That is over the full financial year, so 2015-16. 

Senator SIEWERT: Do you have year to date? 

Mr Eccles: For the current financial year? 

Senator SIEWERT: For the current financial year. 

Ms Williams: The data goes up until June at this stage. 

Senator SIEWERT: So you have no idea whether the situation is continuing over the last quarter? 

Mr James: The Department of Employment and Training actually published the report that the CAPER 

research is based on last Friday. It is called Job seeker compliance public data—June quarter 2016. Probably 

most of the data you are after is in that report. 

Senator SIEWERT: June quarter? 

Mr James: Yes, 2016. 

Senator SIEWERT: You will be surprised to know that I have not actually found that report yet. 

Ms Williams: That is the most up-to-date data. 

Senator SIEWERT: Can you split that? Eighty-six per cent were no-show no-pay. 



Ms Williams: About 86 per cent were no-show no-pay penalties, and the remainder were the more serious 

failure penalties—the eight-week penalties. 

Senator SIEWERT: What was the average number of days people were on no-show? 

Mr James: This is not published, so this is unpublished data we have looked at. If we look at the second 

quarter of this year, which is the June quarter, 68 per cent of people who had a no-show no-pay penalty in the 

CDP region had three or fewer penalties in the quarter. Only 1.6 per cent had 10 or more in the quarter. So most 

people are getting a small number of penalties in a quarter. 

Senator SIEWERT: Three or more—does that mean days? 

Mr James: Yes, that is right. Each day is a penalty. That counts as a penalty. 

Senator SIEWERT: So 68 per cent had three or fewer. 

Mr James: That is right, and 1.6 per cent had 10 or more. 

Ms Williams: I think it is important to note that there are process steps in that that ensure there are protections 

around the way in which people are penalised. If an individual receives three no-show no-pay penalties within a 

six-month period it automatically triggers a comprehensive compliance assessment process. 

Senator SIEWERT: That is just the normal rule. 

Ms Williams: That is correct. DHS looks into what is causing the penalty and what is happening in that space 

for that individual. During that period, no further penalties are applied. So if a person incurs three penalties in a 

six-month period it automatically triggers that comprehensive compliance assessment process. 

Senator SIEWERT: How many people have had a comprehensive compliance assessment? 

Ms Williams: I would have to take that on notice, Senator. I do not think I have that data with me at the 

moment, but we can certainly provide that to you. 

Senator SIEWERT: Could you take that on notice and see if they are receiving their comprehensive 

compliance assessment? 

Ms Williams: Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator SIEWERT: So we have had 146,700 penalties applied—that is correct, isn't it? 

Ms Williams: That is right. 

Senator SIEWERT: How many people is that? 

Ms Williams: I do not know that we necessarily have that data on us at present, but I am happy to also take 

that on notice for you. 

Senator SIEWERT: In terms of the number of people that are participating in CDP, can you provide the 

current figures for the number of people that are participating in the program as compared to 1 July 2015? 

Ms Williams: We have probably around 33,000 participating in the program at the moment. I think it is 

important to break that down a little bit. That number includes people who come on and off the program because 

they volunteer into the program. We have around 7,000 people at present who have volunteered into the program 

and it is important to note that those volunteers are not subject to any penalties. They are doing the activities 

because they are interested in participating, but they are not part of the compliance framework and they are not 

penalised. 

Senator SIEWERT: Sorry, I missed the number you said volunteer. 

Ms Williams: There are around 7,000 at present. There are 7,204 people as of October. 

Senator SIEWERT: Of the 33,000? 

Ms Williams: Of the 33,000. 

Senator SIEWERT: How many are required? 

Ms Williams: In terms of people who are actually required to undertake activity and are therefore able to be 

penalised, it is around 16,893 people—about 51 per cent of the case load. 

Senator SIEWERT: So who are the others? That does not add up to 33,000. 

Ms Williams: No. There is a proportion of people who do not actually have Work for the Dole requirements 

who are serviced by the CDP. They receive basic support such as resume and interview assistance, job search 

assistance, mentoring, et cetera. They do not have activity requirements, but they are counted as part of the case 

load. 



Mr Eccles: We can give you the breakdown of the case load. Forty-one per cent have full-time activity 

requirements; 10 per cent have less than 23 hours a week requirements; 22 per cent—that is the 7,200—do not 

have work-for-the-dole requirements and are volunteers; and the remaining 28 do not have any requirements, and 

they are the ones who also receive the basic support that Ms Williams was talking about. 

Senator SIEWERT: That is as of now? You said 7 October, didn't you? 

Ms Williams: That is from 5 October. 

Senator SIEWERT: What were the numbers when the program started at the beginning of July 2015? 

Ms Williams: Sorry, I do not have that number in front of me. From memory, it was around 36,000. 

Senator SIEWERT: So there has been a decrease? 

Ms Williams: Yes. 

Senator SIEWERT: What was the decrease— 

Ms Williams: The case load tends to go up and down. It tends to sit at around the 33,000 to 36,000 mark— 

35,000 or thereabouts—and people go on and off the case load, obviously for a range of different reasons. 

Mr Eccles: Including achieving employment. We do have some statistics. It is in the order of 10,000 people 

have gone from the CDP case load into employment. 

Senator SIEWERT: Are there any statistics on that work? 

Mr Eccles: On the type of work? 


Mr Eccles: No, I do not know what type of work. We might need to take that one away and drill down a little 

bit more. 

Senator SIEWERT: What is part time; what is full time; whether that 10,000 is totally off or whether they 

have done some work and came back on. 

Mr Eccles: Of the 10,000, we know that very close to 4,000 in the past 12 months—it is a 12-month figure; 

we will get the precise figures—have hit a 26-week employment outcome. A significant proportion of those have 

hit the 26 weeks within the financial year. They are sticking, so to speak, in the employment— 

Senator SIEWERT: Could you take on notice, if you can, giving, as close as you can, locations or at least 

states? 

Ms Williams: Certainly, we can look into that. We will also take it on notice the breakdown between parttime 

and full-time employment. 

Senator SIEWERT: That would be great. Thank you. Going back to the penalty units that have been applied, 

do you have a dollar value on how much that is? 

Ms Williams: We do not have a clean dollar value. We have looked to some extent at those penalties. At this 

stage, we are still working through that. Generally, one no-show no-pay penalty equates to one-tenth of a person's 

income support. 

Mr Eccles: For a fortnight. 

Ms Williams: For a fortnight. It would vary, depending on the amount of income support that the individual 

received. 

Senator SIEWERT: Of the 14 per cent that were eight-week breaches, do you have statistics on how many 

are back on income support? 

Mr Eccles: How many reconnect once they have started the eight-week—I know the number is significant. 

Mr James, do you have the number of people who have been subject to the significant post-assessment penalty 

reconnect in a period of time? 

Mr James: The department of employment publication gives you—I think it is on page 12—the number of 

people who get a full eight-week penalty. If you look at the CDP area, 94.4 per cent of those who had potential 

serious failures had their penalty either partially or fully waived. So 94.4 per cent had the eight-week penalty 

either fully or partially waived and, of that 94.4 per cent, 94.1 percentage points of that was because the jobseeker 

engaged in a relevant compliance activity. 

Mr Eccles: That is, reconnected to their activities. 

Mr James: When they reconnect, the penalty of course stops. The non-payment period stops straight away. 



Mr Eccles: Which is the impact that the program is intending to have—to keep people in activities when they 

are able to participate. 

Senator SIEWERT: Do you have a current list of the activities that people are engaged in? 

Mr Eccles: We can do that. 

Senator SIEWERT: That would be great. 

Mr Eccles: As we have discussed before, it is extremely broad and very much tailored. It can be traditional 

training activities, it can be work for the community, it can be getting your drivers licence, it can be volunteering, 

it can be food preparation. It is a very wide range of activities. We leave a lot of the discretion as to what is 

counted, if you like, to the communities to work with the providers to make sure that there is provision for that. 

So first aid certificates, volunteering at the childcare centre, rehabilitation, study, training—a whole range of 

different things. It is a very broad range of activities. The list that we will provide is not completely definitive 

because there is that flexibility. 

Senator SIEWERT: I understand that. I understand it was not a prescriptive list, that is why I am interested in 

where the list is at now. The CDP is different to the wider community Work for the Dole requirements; however, 

the same approach is being taken with them once they have been penalised for no show, no pay and the reconnect. 

That is the same process that is being used across the board? 

Ms Williams: Yes, that is right. 

Senator SIEWERT: That is correct, isn't it? 

Ms Williams: It is consistent. 

Senator SIEWERT: I want to go back to these 10,000 jobs over that period of time. That is not reflected in 

the numbers that are going on and off, or the 33,000 that are currently being on and the 36,000? 

Mr Eccles: The team can give you a lot more detail, but the numbers of people vary significantly. There are 

seasonal issues. There are people coming in and out of CDP for a whole range of reasons. It is nonlinear, if you 

know what I mean: just because there are 10,000 people coming into employment, there could inevitably be 

others coming out of employment and there could be another reason. If we say 10,000 people are coming in for 

employment, it does not mean that it is X minus 10,000 is the stock. 

Senator SIEWERT: All right. 

Senator McKENZIE: Do you have an idea of the number of participants involved in the Work for the Dole 

program? Has that been increasing over time? Is it regionally specific? Could you give us some more detail? 

Mr Eccles: The program that we administer, the CDP, is constrained to remote Australia. We try not to use so 

much of the language of Work for the Dole because there is so much more to it. We also provide incentives to 

employers to take people from CDP stock to get them into work, and we provide incentives to the providers, who 

are doing the CDP activities and training, to help push people into work. So there is a lot more wraparound than 

anything that is comparable in nonremote areas. So it is not completely comparable. 

Senator McKENZIE: Sorry, my apologies for using the wrong language there. 

Mr Eccles: That is okay, but it is around 33,000 and it is in the areas of Australia that are classified as remote. 

Senator McKENZIE: And has that been increasing or decreasing over the last couple of years? 

Ms Williams: The overall caseload has been sitting at around that 33,000 to 36,000 mark. The number of 

people on activity tests of benefits, which we were talking about earlier, has broadly remained consistent over the 

last three years or so. It does tend to go up and down as people come in and come off the caseload. 

Senator SIEWERT: In terms of the administration of the program, during the inquiry into the bill there was a 

lot of concern expressed by some providers around the administration of the process. I have continued to receive 

expressions of concern since then. What is the feedback to the department, and have you made any attempts to 

address that issue? 

Mr Eccles: We are hearing things that, frankly, will never diminish the impact that a penalty has on an 

individual. But some of the things that we are hearing, such as lower turnover in stores, are not substantiated by 

evidence. As we have taken you through, the relative impact on an individual—again, not to diminish it—is not 

very significant before the safety net clicks in, so it might be three instances of no-show no-pay in a period of 

time, which would be three-tenths of their fortnightly welfare payment, before they get triggered into an 

assessment and, as soon as that trigger happens, the welfare payments recommence. We are working very closely 

with our providers. We are absolutely paying attention to, and working with them on, those issues we are hearing 

around administration and red tape. 



Senator SIEWERT: That level of penalty is still a lot of money. 

Mr Eccles: I am not diminishing that at all, but we do get very high levels of reconnection. They have their 

comprehensive assessment once they have triggered those three days. The whole idea behind that assessment is to 

make sure that the activities they are doing are tailored to their needs and that they are able to do the level of 

activity that is prescribed—and it might be lowered. So it is important to bear in mind the point in time that that 

more comprehensive assessment comes in. It is three-tenths of the welfare payment for persistent no-show nopay—and 

I am not diminishing the impact that that has—but the genesis of the program is mutual obligation. 

Senator SIEWERT: I understand what the genesis of the program is. 

Senator McKENZIE: What was the program it replaced? 

Mr Eccles: The RJCP, the Remote Jobs and Communities Program. 

Senator McKENZIE: How does the percentage of the caseload that we spoke about earlier attending the 

activity compare with the percentage of the caseload under RJCP? 

Mr Eccles: Ms Williams can give the details, but it has increased dramatically. 

Ms Williams: I think there are two things to note there. Compared to the RJCP in the first instance the number 

of jobseekers who have actually been placed in activities and are being serviced by providers has increased rather 

dramatically. When the RJCP ceased at the end of June 2015 that was sitting around the 45 per cent mark and 

now there are around 84.3 per cent of jobseekers who are actually being serviced by providers, which is a really 

significant leap and I think actually a significant marker of the way in which providers are now working to 

actually service jobseekers, have contact with jobseekers et cetera. 

In terms of attendance, when the program started on 1 July 2015, attendance in activities was relatively low. It 

was sitting around the seven per cent mark, which is very low. That has really lifted. Actual attendance is sitting 

around the 30 per cent mark now. When you combine that with actual attendance and valid nonattendance—so 

essentially people not turning up but having a really good reason for it, because they are sick or otherwise—that is 

sitting around the 60 per cent mark. So we have seen really strong engagement in the program over the last 18 

months that the program has been in place. 

Senator SIEWERT: Is the 45 per cent engagement figure you gave for RJCP recorded somewhere? 

Ms Williams: That is the number of jobseekers who were placed in activities at the beginning of the CDP on 1 

July 2015. 

Senator SIEWERT: That was the number that were placed in activities? 

Ms Williams: That is right. We have measured placement from the commencement of the program up until 

now. 

Senator SIEWERT: I will put the rest of my questions on notice. 

Senator McCARTHY: Ms Williams, I want to clarify some of those figures. There were 146,700 no-shows. 

That was the penalties. Is that correct? 

Ms Williams: There were 146,700 penalties. That includes no-show no-pay penalties but also the longer 

serious failure penalties—the eight-week penalties that Mr James was talking about. 

Senator McCARTHY: That is the number of penalties yet you have 33,000 participants; is that correct? 

Mr Eccles: A penalty could be one day, so if someone does not turn up for the first three days of a period that 

is counted as three penalties. 

Senator McCARTHY: Will you be able to provide on notice the number of people who receive penalties out 

of the 33,000? 

Ms Williams: That is what we were looking to provide. 

Senator McCARTHY: I was just clarifying that. I thought that was what you were referring to there. I think 

Senator Dodson just wanted to check on breaches. 

Senator DODSON: If you could give us the demographic breakdown of where the maximum breaches are 

occurring—you may not be able to do that today, but if you could take that on notice—that would be useful. Also, 

is there an assessment process for the contractors that deliver these programs and an assessment of the quality of 

their capacities in delivering the programs? Obviously, we would also be interested to know: at what stage is the 

renewal—if there is to be renewal—of contracts for the delivery of the services? There are a couple of other 

questions. You may want to take that on board as well. I think we are going to have some matters on board, Mr 

Chair, because we are not going to get through the many other questions that we have here. 



I just want to ask a couple in relation to work health and safety rights. Are the participants being informed of 

their work health and safety rights and the responsibilities of their respective workplaces? Is this happening? 

Ms Williams: Absolutely. That is a condition or a requirement of the funding agreement that the CDP 

providers operate under—to ensure that they undertake an appropriate risk assessment for the activities that they 

are running and to ensure that the jobseekers that are participating in those activities fully understand their work 

health and safety— 

Senator DODSON: Are there representatives appointed to undertake that task? How does that get done? Are 

there representatives that do this? 

Ms Williams: The CDP providers have arrangements in place to ensure that that occurs—yes; that is correct. 

Senator McCARTHY: Does that include insurance? 

Ms Williams: That does include insurance. The department holds insurance for all job seekers that are in the 

department's employment programs—not just the CDP but all of our other broader employment programs as well. 

Senator McCARTHY: So the 33,000 participants? 

Ms Williams: That is correct. They are covered by the department's insurance— 

Senator McCARTHY: They are all covered by insurance? 

Ms Williams: That is correct. 

Senator Scullion: There are only about 16,900 that have the work obligations in that demographic. 

Senator DODSON: What is the injury rate, if there are any injuries from these tasks that are undertaken? 

Ms Williams: There are very few injuries. I think we have had one incident or no incidents or— 

Mr Denny: Zero claims. 

Ms Williams: zero claims on the insurance policy. 

Senator DODSON: There would be other questions, but I am conscious of time, Mr Chair. 

CHAIR: Thanks, Senator Dodson. So, just to clarify: that is jobs, land and economy—no further questions 

from committee members. Are there any questions under 2.2, children and schooling? 

Senator SIEWERT: To clarify: I do, but I will put them on notice. 

CHAIR: Understood—any that do not need to be asked at this moment. 

Senator SIEWERT: I have questions on all of them. 

CHAIR: Fair enough. 

Senator DODSON: We would love to detain the minister. I can't get a plane out of here until tomorrow 

morning, so it doesn't worry me! 

CHAIR: On safety and wellbeing? If none, other than those on notice, we will move on. On culture and 

capability? We will discuss suicide under health; I have pencilled that aside. Remote Australia strategies? And, 

finally, program support? If there are no further questions, other than those that we have put on notice, we will 

move to health issues and welcome Department of Health officials. 

Mr Eccles: While there are people shuffling, I might just update the committee on something I took on notice 

earlier about the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations and the assessment. The matter has been resolved and 

closed, and there were no adverse findings. 

Department of Health 

[14:49] 

CHAIR: I welcome Dr Wendy Southern, Deputy Secretary, National Program Delivery Group, Department of 

Health, and officers, to join the officers of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for this session on 

health issues. Dr Southern, do you wish to make an opening statement? 

Dr Southern: No, thank you. 

CHAIR: Just for the record, we have 11 minutes. I have received notice of interest in questions on this from 

Senator Siewert and Senator McCarthy. We will start with you, Senator McCarthy, but please be mindful of 

Senator Siewert's questions as well. 

Senator McCARTHY: Hello, Dr Southern. I would like to ask about the Indigenous Health Clinical 

Committee. Have organisations or potential members of the committee been approached yet? 

Dr Southern: Are these committees in relation to Primary Health Networks? 



Senator McCARTHY: Yes. The government has committed to review all 5,700 items. 

Dr Southern: Senator, I do not know the answer to that question. I do not know if my colleague knows. 

Ms Cole: Unfortunately, we will have to take that on notice. 

Senator McCARTHY: So you cannot provide a list of MBS items to be considered as part of the review? Is 

that what you asking for to be on notice? 

Dr Southern: Yes, we would have to take that on notice as well. I am sorry, Senator. 

Senator McCARTHY: Is the department aware of any existing proposals for new Indigenous-specific MBS 

items? 

Dr Southern: Not at this stage. The MBS review is looking at existing MBS items rather making 

recommendations around new MBS items. They would come through the normal MSAC process—the Medical 

Services Advisory Committee. 

Senator McCARTHY: I know we are running out of time, but I have one question on suicide before I hand 

over to Senator Siewert. It is a question on the Indigenous suicide summit in Broome. Minister, when did you 

receive the final report of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander suicide prevention project? 

Senator Scullion: Someone behind me will tell me the exact date—I have been working with ATSISPEP 

throughout the process and I have had a number of drafts—but it would only have been weeks before. It was part 

of the intention to provide that to all the members. 

Senator McCARTHY: Will it be made public? 

Senator Scullion: It will, of course, but not quite at the moment. 

CHAIR: Before I give the call to Senator Siewert, as an indication, are there any other senators who have 

questions on this? If not, the floor is yours, Senator Siewert. 

Senator SIEWERT: Following the summit, can you briefly update us on what happens now? I have other 

questions too, so I apologise that I am asking you to respond quickly. 

Ms Cole: Minister Ley made a commitment that she would come back to the Kimberley to continue the 

conversation around the suicide prevention trial announced. I understand that she is considering coming back in 

December with dates yet to be confirmed. She will be looking to establish a community based advisory group to 

advise on the trial. Those details are in the communique that came out after the meeting. 

Senator SIEWERT: So the communique has everything. There is nothing besides that? 

Ms Cole: I beg your pardon? 

Senator SIEWERT: There is nothing besides the communique? 

Ms Cole: Aside from the communique, no, not at this stage. 

Senator SIEWERT: In terms of the funding that has already been quarantined for Aboriginal and Torres 

Strait Islander suicide prevention, my understanding is that that has gone into the flexible funding pool for the 

PHNs. Is that correct? 

Ms Cole: Yes, that is correct. It has gone into mental health funding for PHNs. The suicide prevention money 

is tagged separately from other money. 

Senator SIEWERT: So it is quarantined? 

Ms Cole: Yes, suicide prevention as a whole is quarantined. 

Senator SIEWERT: Suicide prevention is quarantined but is the money for Aboriginal and Torres Strait 

Islander suicide prevention quarantined out of that money? 

Ms Cole: It is not quarantined in the sense that a PHN may use more of their suicide prevention money for 

Indigenous issues and they must report separately on activities relating to Indigenous suicide. 

Senator SIEWERT: Can they use less? 

Ms Cole: Theoretically, they could use less. 

Senator SIEWERT: Right. So, in other words, it is not quarantined for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 

suicide prevention? Sorry, you cannot use more and use less and it be quarantined. 

Ms Cole: The PHNs have a strong understanding of the needs around Indigenous suicide prevention activities, 

and they are encouraged to use more of the money as appropriate. 



Senator SIEWERT: With regard to the minimum amount of money that has gone in, on average, for suicide 

prevention, why was 'This is the minimum spend' not said? In other words, you quarantined that. If they want to 

spend more, that is fantastic. 

Ms Cole: Yes. It was, in some cases, a very small amount of money for some PHNs because it was distributed 

on a population basis. So, for that reason, there was not a specific quarantining requirement put in for the PHNs in 

general. 

Senator SIEWERT: I heard—I will not say I understand—your comment about what you have just said, but 

why not put into place the safeguards to ensure that they are not reducing the allocation? 

Ms Cole: In some cases it can be under $100,000, so there is a reporting requirement, in a sense, to indicate 

what a PHN has done with that money. We did not quarantine it because of the administrative inefficiencies in 

doing so for that level of money. 

Senator SIEWERT: How will you know it is spent then? 

Ms Cole: They have to report on the level of funding that they spent against priorities, including the six 

priorities that they have, which includes Indigenous health and suicide prevention. 

Senator SIEWERT: Quite frankly I do not get why it would not be easy then, if they are doing that anyway, 

to make sure that they have at least spent the money that has been allocated. 

Ms Cole: We believe that they will spend that money and that they will spend more than that on suicide 

prevention in any case. 

Senator SIEWERT: Have they actually been given any directions that requires them to spend that money on 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander suicide prevention? 

Ms Cole: They understand that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health and suicide prevention is a 

very major priority for their expenditure and that they have to report separately against that priority and provide 

activity plans to indicate how they are going to spend that money against that priority. 

Senator SIEWERT: Are the existing services that are currently underway in the Kimberley that are 

successful going to continue? 

Ms Cole: Yes. There are two sources of money in the Kimberley, in a sense. The PHN has its allocation of 

funding under the suicide prevention money, which was provided to it prior to the trials being announced, and 

then it has additional money for the trials. It is possible that, with the discussion with the community, there may 

be elements that are currently funded that might be expanded using the trial or it may be brought into a whole 

package. That is for discussion with the community as a whole. 

Senator SIEWERT: Okay, thank you. Those next round of discussions on that is going to be earlier than 

December when the minister will be there, though, I presume? 

Ms Cole: We expect that the advisory group will be established by that point for our local community 

advisory group and that that would start to shape the priorities that the local community has in the suicide 

prevention trial. 

Senator SIEWERT: Is that advisory body a new body beyond the groups that they already have operating 

together up there? 

Ms Cole: It may be an existing body or it may be a combination of existing bodies. We have to talk to the 

local community in the Kimberley area and negotiate how they think we could best do the trial. 

Senator SIEWERT: You have not done that yet? 

Ms Cole: No, the first meeting where Minister Scullion was there was really about indicating commitment and 

a way forward. 

Senator Scullion: All those questions were actually directed at the meeting to try to seek the advice of all of 

the local Indigenous organisations. So instead of just PHN advice—how it may normally work—they will be 

providing advice on who we should get to do what. So, again, this is unique in the sense that this is the first time 

we are all sitting in the room—all the players—and making the decision. We are not seeking advice and then 

going on to make the decision—the decision-makers are in the room. 

Senator SIEWERT: What is the timeline beyond December for rolling out the trial? 

Ms Cole: As soon as we have some decisions from the community about how they would like that trial to run, 

we will be able to assist them in funding activities. 



Senator DODSON: Minister, you have a fair grasp of how Aboriginal people think on many of these things, 

that these matters are all interconnected. This seems to deal with a very narrow part of the portfolio. I am 

wondering whether you would be open to considering the presence of officers who have responsibilities for other 

allocations to address Indigenous people's needs. There are matters that we cannot raise today, like legal service 

concerns and the congress, but it seems to me that with your valuable time and the time of these officers and the 

others it would be useful if we could bring a comprehensive approach to all of these matters, subject to your 

consideration. 

Senator Scullion: With our approach post the Redfern Statement group meeting, this was a reflection in the 

terms of the meeting but there are a couple of critical practical matters about how many people you are going to 

get in the same room for a day and have anything sensible come out of it. One issue discussed was how do we 

involve the other groups that are informed in this synergy; how do we manage to have a process to get that 

together. The remainder and non-government participants, the majority of people there, said, look, they were 

going to go away and try to nut that out themselves, so they are thinking about that now and I understand they are 

having some meetings to work out how they can input and direct us. Again, we are not the ones making the 

decisions anymore—this is a shared decision. They are going to come back and tell us how that might be 

achieved, to get more than just those particular providers in the room. 

Senator DODSON: I may not have been clear, but I am more interested in the comments in the annual report 

from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that say that the largest portion of the budget for 

Indigenous people goes to other portfolios. 

Senator Scullion: My sincere apologies. We have a subcommittee of cabinet, now chaired by the Prime 

Minister and me. All other cabinet members can be called to that. There are a number of tasks that have already 

been provided, so they will have to come back to the subcommittee of cabinet about what they have done. This 

was a very important part of the entire process. A fraction, in effect, of the total budget is spent on our first 

Australians, and that is one of the most fundamental processes that will ensure that the remainder of the portfolios 

are doing it the right way. That will take a bit of cultural change, I will have to acknowledge, but I think they will 

be following very swiftly on the example that has been provided by the arrangements of the Department Health 

that are now in place and that my own portfolio has in place. 

Senator DODSON: I was wondering about dep secs not being here when we have discussions that are 

relevant to the execution of the public sector moneys that they have carriage of. 

Senator Scullion: It is not something that came up at the meeting. I think it is a good suggestion, and when 

the group come back together they have got, if you like, their mob sorted out in the other areas like legal and all 

those sorts of things. Perhaps we can ensure that my mob join in. Actually being there, I agree with you—I think 

we will have a terrific impact. 

CHAIR: That concludes the committees hearings for supplementary budget estimates 2016-17. I would like to 

thank the minister and officers who have given evidence to the committee today. I would also like to thank 

Hansard, Broadcasting and the secretariat for their assistance. I now declare this meeting of the Senate Finance 

and Public Administration Legislation Committee adjourned. 

Committee adjourned at 15:04

SENATE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?