A blanket exemption from freedom of information legislation provided to Aboriginal land councils allows them to operate as “secret societies” and should be removed, an Arnhem Land clan group has told the attorney general, George Brandis.
Aboriginal land councils and land trusts are entirely exempt from operation of the FoI Act, alongside the auditor general, government solicitor, government intelligence agencies, the Office of National Assessments, the Parliamentary Budget Office and officer, and the National Workplace Relations Consultative Council.
The Rirratjingu Aboriginal Corporation, which has been locked in a long term dispute with the Northern Land Council over leases and mining royalties, has called for Brandis to end the legislative exemption which it says allows the NLC and other councils to operate as a “secret society”.
The corporation’s chairman, Bakamumu Marika, said the current system allowed the NLC to dictate Aboriginal borders and royalties, without transparency or disclosure of its decision making process.
“If we want to access their anthropological data on our clan and our history – which in accounting and property terms is the native title equivalent of title deeds, they can refuse to provide it,” Marika said.
“If we believe they are holding money that is ours, they can not only refuse to provide it – an accounting dispute, but refuse to confirm they have it – which is where the FoI Act comes in. It is a joke that the NLC enjoys the same exemptions to basic levels of scrutiny and transparency as our most important national security, defence and counter-terrorism agencies.”
Joe Morrison, the chief executive of the NLC told Guardian Australia the council would “strenuously resist” attempts to change the law.
“The commonwealth law which exempts land councils from FoI applications is there for the very good reason of protecting Aboriginal cultural knowledge and property,” he said.
Marika acknowledged the NLC would have some sensitive material of a cultural or commercial nature which needed to be protected, but said a blanket exemption was “a bridge too far”.
Marika pointed to a 2012 submission by the Law Council of Australia to a federal review of the FoI Act, which said it was not clear why Aboriginal land councils and trusts, as well as the Workplace Relations Council, had blanket exemptions on par with the security agencies.
“The committee recommends that these two bodies should be asked to demonstrate to the attorney general why they should remain subject to the blanket exemption,” it said.
“If they cannot so demonstrate, then they should be removed from this part of Schedule 1 and be subject to the operation of the FoI Act, subject only to the specified exemptions.”
The subsequent report agreed and recommended that all exempted organisations other than security and defence intelligence services “ should justify their exclusion from the FoI Act to the satisfaction of the attorney general”.
“If they do not do this within 12 months, they should be removed,” it said.
The attorney general’s office has been contacted for comment.
The Rirratjingu Aboriginal Corporation is locked in a bitter dispute with the NLC over the distribution of mining royalties between it and other clan groups. The NLC had determined that 74% of royalties went to the Gumatj Aboriginal corporation.
In August the federal court dismissed Rirratjingu’s case, in which they claimed they were entitled to 50% of royalties from the Gove bauxite mine and refinery. It launched an appeal the following month, claiming the decision essentially made them “wards of the state” because it created a “two-tiered system” which blocked Indigenous groups from the same dispute resolutions that non-Indigenous groups had.
