Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

But the remarkably stupid thing—if I can pick up on the comments from other speakers—is that the definition being used is a race based definition. Schedule 2 defines an Indigenous person as a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia or a descendant of an Indigenous inhabitant of the Torres Strait Islands. This is so far removed from the accepted definition that has been around, as I said, from the 1980s and which is used by universities, government agencies, the Commonwealth, the Aboriginal community and, in particular, land councils to provide certificates of aboriginality. So there is quite a serious edge to this, and I want to make sure that people understand.

Another problem that we have with this definition is its preoccupation with race and descent. Labor notes that the most widely accepted definition is about descent, identification and acceptance. This is also internationally accepted. I have participated, as other members have as well, in forums within the United Nations specifically to do with first nations people, and this is the definition that is used. That makes this one of the most ridiculous arguments I think I've heard in this place. There should be no issue at all with the government accepting its own definition. Why it's digging its heels in about this suggests to me nothing other than wedge politics and a waste of people's time. Maybe there is nothing else the government has time to spend time on. Oh, that's right—drug testing! We'll talk about that down the track.

The definition defines an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander as a person of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as being from Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin and who is accepted by the community. The member for Jagajaga's in the chamber. If there's anyone in this place, along with the member for Lingiari, who understands the importance of this it's the member for Jagajaga. One of the things that very much engages the discussion is people who claim Aboriginality but are not accepted by the community and, in fact, in some cases, are not Aboriginal people. That is why that third part of this definition is so important—that the person is recognised by the community as someone of first nations descent.

We're not trying to make problems here. We're trying to fix up a potential problem that the government is making for itself that it actually doesn't have to have. There's absolutely no controversy about this. I think the wise thing for the government to do would be to take a breath and, particularly for the men and women sitting in the advisers' box, to listen to what we're saying. I don't want to have a fight about this. It shouldn't be a fight. It is the accepted definition. So just go back and fix it up—it's really easy—and you'll have no problem from the Labor Party in relation to that.

The focus on and preoccupation with race and biology is particularly backwards, and I think other people have outlined that. The old view of how we thought about multiculturalism and social inclusion is reflected in this race based definition. It is not reflected in what everyone in this chamber who has an interest in this believes. If I said to most people in this chamber, 'Tell me what the definition of Aboriginality is,' they would tell me the three-part definition. They wouldn't tell me the two parts that are part of this legislation.

The race powers featured in sections 51(xxvi) and 25 of the Constitution are reflected here, and the so-called race powers are underpinned by strong racial connotations. That is another consideration that I would like people to think about. This is taking us backwards 40 years, and there is just absolutely no need for it. I really urge the government to reconsider its definition and to consider what the conventional definition is when we proceed with our detailed amendments to the Senate. I cannot see what the problem with that is. There would be no fallout at all if the government has a look at that and redefines what it's actually putting forward.

Other members have talked about the Indigenous space, the first nations space, that we seem to be moving into policy-wise in relation to the Commonwealth. I hear other members reiterating in this debate the principles of self-determination and the principles of first nations people choosing for ourselves and also, in relation to working with this parliament, having a voice to the parliament. The idea of bipartisanship and trying to preserve that notion of bipartisanship is being sorely tested by the government, and that is a dangerous space for us to be getting into in 2018. It is not something I have ever contemplated in the 40 years that I have been involved in Aboriginal affairs—that there would not be a bipartisan approach to looking at the issues facing the most disadvantaged group of people within our community. Aboriginal people are saying: 'Come walk with us. We want to share what is an amazing story, and it is everyone's inheritance of 60,000 years. It is something we should be celebrating.' If we don't have bipartisanship, if we don't have an agreed way forward, then they are the things that are at stake.

The losers will not be people in this chamber. The losers will be people out in the broader community, and, more specifically, in the Indigenous community. So, in light of schedule 2, we ask the government to take the step towards giving bipartisan support to the voice in the parliament, but also bipartisan support to what is the conventional, administrative and accepted definition of Aboriginality. It just seems remarkable to me that we're even having this particular discussion.

I will finish up by saying to the government that we welcome, in principle, the purpose and function of schedule 2, but the way it is drafted now is not acceptable. We are simply saying: let's be sensible about it and redraft it. I finish up by saying, once again, that Labor is committed to bipartisanship, but it has to be a two-way process and it is not a race to the bottom.

See this speech in context