Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I begin by recognising country of the Ngunawal and Ngambri people. Each year we see many anniversaries—for example, the 100-year anniversary of World War I and, of course, in 2015, the 100-year anniversary of Gallipoli. But this year, 2017, for me is the most important, with the marking of 50 years since the 1967 referendum and 25 years since the High Court decision in Mabo that established native title and did away with the legal doctrine of terra nullius in this country. I had the great honour just a few weeks ago of attending the Mabo dinner in Townsville as the special guest of the Mabo family, along with Cathy O'Toole.

Aboriginal people of course are tied to country, just as it is tied to us. Not so long ago we had two distinct historical narratives: a white one and a black one. White Australia, as it was then, had no interest in Indigenous history and black Australia had no stake in engaging with the white future. Now this map is better known. Thanks in part to the High Court finding, more young Australians than ever before know the truth. Eddie Koiki Mabo knew that. His community knew that. But the broader Australian community did not; they denied it.

On 3 June 1991 the painful truth was exposed for this nation, but it was one we sorely needed to be told. So determined was this great man that he and the other litigants overturned more than a century of legal orthodoxy and tore apart the fiction of terra nullius, 'nobody's land'. Of all the cruelties inflicted on an Indigenous people after the arrival, none was more insulting than the presumption that this place did not belong to anybody. That denial was not only a cruelty in denying us ownership but a cruelty in denying the very existence of our ancestors and our history. The High Court finding in Mabo was a victory for First Australians, a victory for the Meriam people and a victory for the broader Australian community. We all remember the day after the Mabo finding and the fight over native title. The scare campaigns and divisions that followed certainly were our poorest national moment.

The truth is that while Eddie Mabo won a substantial battle the broader fight for justice continues today. On 27 May this year was the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, which afforded us the right to be counted in the census and afforded us some equality in the law. These things exist not as a single victory but as events in—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:05 to 11:25

Before the division I was recounting the importance of the High Court decision, which this year we celebrate 25 years of in Australia. I was also speaking about the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum which, as I said, afforded us the right as Aboriginal people to be counted in the census and afforded us some equality in the law.

I have said to this House before that it is interesting that this is not ancient history—in fact, I was 10 years old when the 1967 referendum took place. These things exist not as a single victory, but as events in a long journey towards social justice and reconciliation. I think it is very important that we see these two events in the context of the whole story of Australia and in the history of social justice and reconciliation. We have to take heart from these victories, but we must also take the lessons that they give us. In particular, the 1967 referendum was not a referendum that just came overnight; it took 10 years, three prime ministers and Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of goodwill working together, without the resources or the infrastructure that we have today, to bring about a yes vote in the 1967 referendum.

That yes vote was the most successful referendum this country has ever seen, and the genius of that campaign is that, whilst the questions that were put into the referendum did not, in many ways, seem groundbreaking, the campaigners were able to turn it into a decision for the Australian people about rights for first peoples and the unacceptable position that first peoples were in. That was the genius of the 1967 referendum. I am glad the member for Herbert has just joined us, as I have recounted that we attended the Mabo dinner up in Townsville. The 1967 referendum involved people like Jessie Street, Faith Bandler and many, many others who campaigned over the 10 years and three prime ministers. Holt was Prime Minister when the referendum actually took place. These people knew that they were playing the long game and knew that the only way this referendum would be successful was if it captured the imagination and the decency of the Australian people.

We need to remember just how difficult it is to pass referendums in this country. We are very bound up by the Constitution, but the referendum in 1967 was, as I said, the most successful. When you have a look at the outcomes of that referendum, you can see it is just extraordinary; absolutely extraordinary. In New South Wales 91.46 per cent of people voted yes; in Victoria it was 94.68; in Queensland it was 89; in South Australia it was 86; in Western Australia it was 80; in Tasmania it was 90; and of the total Australian population, 90.77 per cent of people voted yes, which had never happened in a referendum prior to that. Of course, the questions asked of the people in that referendum related to sections 51 and 127 which, essentially, went to the issues of Aboriginal people being able to be included in the census and the Commonwealth government being given the responsibility and the power to make laws on behalf of Aboriginal people. A lot of people say that the referendum gave Aboriginal people citizenship and the right to vote, but that is not actually correct; it is something that has emerged. In fact, it is not out of the realm of reason to hold that belief because, in many ways, it felt like citizenship. If you were denied the right to be counted in the census, then it felt like you did not really count anyhow, and that is very much the way in which it was seen.

The other thing to say, of course, with these anniversaries that we have paid homage to in this parliament and across this country is that we are on the eve of—and the discussions are taking place about—a proposed referendum to recognise Aboriginal people in the Australian Constitution, hopefully some time next year. Of course, that is going to be a very interesting debate for Australians and we, as members of parliament, have to be very clear about our determination there. It is, in the end, up to this parliament to make the decision about what the question will be and the time frame for this referendum. There are three or four pieces of work that we will be required to look at. We will be required, of course, to take heed of the outcomes of the Uluru gathering and the Uluru Statement. There will also be the expert panel's work, led by Patrick Dodson, in that time. There is also the work of the parliamentary committee that went around this country and talked to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. There is also a fourth piece of work, which I am sure my colleague the member for Lingiari will speak about. Those are the things that will need to inform us in our very important deliberations and discussions over the next few months in this parliament, where we will be making monumental decisions on the continuation of the nation building of Eddie Mabo and, of course, of the '67 campaigners. It is a great honour to speak in this debate; it is historic. It is very important that we remind ourselves of our great responsibility.

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to acknowledge the 50th anniversary of the referendum that took place on 27 May 1967—a referendum that did two very important things: it amended section 127 of the Constitution to count Aboriginal people in the census for the first time and it also amended section 51(xxvi) to give the Commonwealth power to make laws with relation to Aboriginal people.

I note that this was a referendum that was supported by both sides of politics, but, in my contribution, I particularly want to note the involvement of Liberal members in this issue. That is not to downplay the bipartisanship, but just to note that Liberals should be proud of the role that we played and that, in 1967, it was a Liberal Prime Minister in Harold Holt that put this referendum. It has become fashionable in some circles on the left to believe that all progress happened in 1972 with the election of the Whitlam government, but as Donald Horne in, probably, his best book, A Time of Hope, points out, the period between 1965 and 1972 was a great period of reform in Australian history, and one of those key reforms was this referendum. The Liberal Party, of course, is the party of Neville Bonner, Joanna Lindgren and Ken Wyatt, and the party that put forward the referendum in 1967.

Indeed, Sir Robert Menzies is often criticised for not having done this, but in November 1965, he put forward a proposal to amend section 127. He told the parliament on Remembrance Day in 1965:

… the matter can be simply put by saying that section 127 is completely out of harmony with our national attitudes and with the elevation of the Aborigines into the ranks of citizenship which we all wish to see.

In cabinet, Bill Snedden, who had been his Attorney-General at the time, also tried to put forward a proposal for the amendment of 51(xxvi), but he was unsuccessful. At the same time, Billy Wentworth and Dudley Erwin had put forward a private member's bill, not only to amend section 127 and 51(xxvi) but also to put forward a proposal that spoke about the advancement of Aborigines. It would have been a version, in some respects, of the one-clause bill of rights—the anti-discrimination clause proposal, which is currently put forward. Wentworth's contribution is in this whole debate is so interesting. Wentworth was a virulent anti-communist, one of the most anti-communist members of our party, but he had a very intimate and personal interest in Indigenous policy and he, of course, became the first Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Wentworth pointed out, as my friend the member for Barton did, that Aborigines already had the right to vote before this referendum. He said of the Menzies government:

In this matter of Aboriginal welfare the present government has a good record. It has given Aborigines the right to vote, it has extended the social services accorded to them and it has reduced discrimination. I believe that by establishing the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies the Government has recognised the importance of the background and culture of these people and has restored to them something of their inherent dignity. This is perhaps only a psychological factor, but I believe that it is of great importance if we are to make these people fully participators with us in the benefits of Australian citizenship.

That was Bill Wentworth talking in the 1965 proposal to amend section 127.

Menzies retired at the beginning of 1966, and Harold Holt became Prime Minister. In cabinet discussions, the Attorney-General, Nigel Bowen, put forward his submission not only to amend section 127 but also to amend section 51.26. Bowen said that there would be 'a large area of dissatisfaction' if the Commonwealth failed to improve include an amendment to section 51(xxvi) in any referendum, and that removing 'words alleged to be discriminately against Aboriginal people' would do meet the demands of those 'urging action with respect to Aborigines' and 'would be welcomed by a very large section of the Australian people'.

Putting forward the referendum proposal in March 1967, Harold Holt told the House of Representatives:

The simple truth is that section 127 is completely out of harmony with our national attitudes and modern thinking. It has no place in our Constitution in this age.

In relation to 51(xxvi), he said:

In coming to this conclusion, the Government has been influenced by the popular impression that the words now proposed to be omitted from section 51(xxvi) are discriminatory.

And that popular impression had been largely created by the work of the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, which was led by Faith Bandler.

Wentworth, speaking on the 1967 referendum proposal, said:

I think we in this parliament should realise our responsibilities to the Aboriginal people. If the referendum proposal is adopted and this Bill becomes law, we have to realise that responsibility even more fully.

Wentworth's contribution in this space was quite important. Although not a member of my party but a member of the Country Party, Bob Katter senior urged the following:

I am 48 years old and I have been associated with them all my life. I have been to school with them, grown up with them and mixed with them. Psychologically we can never see any difference. This may sound a little silly to people who live in the cities but it is perfectly true.

… … …

There is consideration of international importance in this legislation. This Bill will do something to counteract the very bad reputation we have among people overseas who have heard of the White Australia policy.

… …

We are showing tonight in a very decisive way that we are doing something about the matter. I am very proud to be associated with the House in what it is doing on this issue.

In his final plea to voters the day before the referendum, Harold Holt told people:

Anything but a Yes vote to this question would do injury to our reputation among fair-minded people everywhere.

That was the very important contribution of Liberals to this vote.

As the member for Barton pointed out, this was a historic referendum in terms of the result that has achieved. 90.77 per cent of Australians voted yes. It is unheard of. I was saying to the member for Barton the other day that I was surprised in my own electorate that the vote had been even stronger. Berowra did not exist as an electorate in 1967 but the booths that make up Berowra today voted very strongly in favour of it. In Beecroft, the yes vote percentage was 96.9; in Castle Hill, it was 95.1; in Dural, it was 92.9; At Normanhurst, it was 96 per cent; at Pennant Hills, it was 94.8 per cent; At Berowra, it was 94.3 per cent; at Hornsby, 94.3 per cent; and only at Wiseman's Ferry did the vote fall below the national average at 89.1 per cent. Those booths now making up the electorate of Berowra voted in total 95.1 per cent as a yes vote in the referendum. I think that says something about my electorate. Sometimes people think that my electorate is a purely conservative electorate. My electorate was more progressive on this issue than the rest of the population. It is worthwhile noting that the youngest people to vote in that referendum are now 71 years old today so it is a long time since people voted yes on that referendum.

The 1967 referendum took place during a liberal age. It was the post-war period, a period after which Australia had fought wars against two powers—Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany—which had fundamentally race-based policies based on racial superiority. It was a time of the civil rights movement in the United States—the Great Society and the Winds of Change speeches—and, although some of those things had consequences that were not seen by their proponents at the time, it was, in Donald Horne's phrase, 'a time of hope and optimism'.

The proposals that Australians voted on in 1967 were very specific: the power to make laws about Aboriginal people and to have Aboriginal people counted in the census—and that was very important. Today, the atmosphere around our politics is more angry, more individualistic and less tolerant, so a referendum is much more difficult.

I want to put on record the fact that I support Indigenous recognition. Although I am a person who has voted no to and would campaign against most changes to our Constitution, I think there is something special about this. Indigenous people are unique to Australia. They are our only indigenous people. Their culture, heritage and traditions have survived and prospered for 60,000 years. They have a remarkable continuity and remarkable culture. The purpose of Indigenous recognition is to make the culture of Indigenous people the culture, heritage and traditions of all Australians. I think it is incumbent upon us to find a way forward to achieve this.

I want to say something about the Uluru Statement from the Heart because I see the Uluru statement as being very significant. A lot of the debate and discussion on this issue have previously focused on having some form of recognition in the preamble to the Constitution or a racial non-discrimination clause. I have written elsewhere about why these particular ideas are unsuitable. I think it is particularly important and we should take note of the fact that Indigenous people at Uluru are saying to Australians, 'These are things that we are not interested in.' What they are giving us instead is a direction, an important direction. They are telling us that they want to be consulted and have a voice in the way in which policy is developed, and consultation is good. When you consult, you are less likely to have unintended consequences. You are more likely to get buy-in. You are more likely to have better quality public policy. Fundamentally, I think that is what this needs to be about, because, of course, among Indigenous communities we have suicide rates and incarceration rates which are too high and life expectancy rates which are too low. If we can do something through the recognition process that can address these things then we are well and truly serving the memory of 1967.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I acknowledge the last two contributions, by the member for Barton and the member for Berowra, and I will just make some observations about both of them, if I may. Firstly, I want to congratulate both of them for their expositions on the 1967 referendum. I do not intend to repeat that story in detail, but I think it says a lot about where we are currently that the member for Berowra could eloquently quote the words of former leaders of the Liberal Party in advancing the cause for change of the Constitution to recognise Aboriginal people as part of our population. It is worth just recalling that the question which was asked in the 1967 referendum was:

Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled 'An Act to alter the Constitution so as to omit certain words relating to the people of the Aboriginal race in any state so that Aboriginals are to be counted in reckoning the population'?

That had enormous implications for the country.

I note that the member for Berowra and also the member for Barton referred to Jessie Street, Faith Bandler and FCAATSI and the work that they were doing. There were a lot of people involved in this project over a decade. They were not only Aboriginal people. I recall one person who I knew very well, Stan Davey, who was part of FCAATSI. Stan spent much of his life after that process working as a community development worker in Fitzroy Crossing, in Western Australia, and then later at Daguragu, in the Northern Territory. He is a man for whom I have the greatest of respect.

The other person I want to comment just briefly on was Joe McGinniss. Joe was a Kungarakanman who came from Paperbark People. He came from outside Darwin. I was involved in his family at one point, living with one of his nieces or grandnieces—he would say daughter. I met this man in the 1970s and was forever grateful that I had that meeting because he was a man of such stature, influence and quietness but such determination. And so were these others.

It led to promoting through the church and through the community the need for change to the Constitution, which took a long while. As the member for Barton said, the extraordinary success of that Constitutional referendum was down very much to their work but also, as I might say to the member for Berowra, to the leadership that was then shown by the leaders of the country in acknowledging the need for change. It took a long time to get them there, but they did. We find ourselves now at a point where we are talking about recognition. I noted the words of the member for Berowra and also those of the member for Barton.

It is worth recognising with the Uluru statement—whilst historically very important, and we should not downgrade its importance—that for a decade now there have been discussions around constitutional change. The expert panel did a lot of great work canvassing the country around the need for change in the Australian Constitution. They did it over a long period of time. Those important words, which they came to find, need to be part of our current deliberations, as do the words that were produced by the joint parliamentary committee, which was led by Senator Nova Peris and Ken Wyatt. They will inform us here, in this parliament, of what the debate has been over a period of time, not just recently—as important as that Uluru statement is—but over a period. We need to be contemplating, as members of parliament, the whole package of things that have been discussed over a period of time.

I am looking forward to those discussions and I am very much looking forward to participating with our colleagues on the other side. Ultimately, if we are to get fruitful change to our Constitution, it can only happen if there is largely bipartisan support. It is very simple. It will not happen if there is a division in the parliament. I countenance those who may be listening to this debate and those elsewhere in the community, who may have an extreme view or may have a very strong view that their view is the only one that should be prevail, that they need to actually relax a bit and allow this parliament to have due consideration of all views and then come down and sit down in a way where we can collaborate. No doubt, there will be differences. But ultimately it is our responsibility to give proper recognition to the Australian Constitution to the Australian first peoples. It is as simple as that.

I am totally behind the idea of structures, the importance of having s national representative voice and all that stuff. After all, I can understand the yearning that people have for such collaboration and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to have their voice properly heard. We saw with the demise of ATSIC, in such an unseemly way, that that voice was just diminished. Since then, it has been encouraged to come back through the National Congress Of Australia's First Peoples, but it is not listened to by the government. They have defunded it. There is an important element here for how we make sure that Aboriginal voices are properly heard.

We are so lucky that in this parliament we now have five Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We are so lucky, but it has taken us so long to bloody well get here. What we need to do is recognise their eminence in this place and understand that they bring with them a great depth of knowledge, background, experience and cultural heritage. The member for Berowra talked about 60,000 years worth; it is the oldest living culture on earth. Then we go back to the other reason we are here today, which is to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Eddie Koiki Mabo and the Mabo decision.

Let us reflect for a moment, and I am going to unashamedly use the words that Pat Dodson used in the Senate. We need to understand Aboriginal people have always regarded this place as theirs. This always was and always will be Aboriginal land. There is nothing that we can say that will change that. The fact that we have a bunch of whitefellas arrive here a couple of centuries ago and claim it on behalf of someone who lives in England did not matter a tinker's cuss to the traditional owners of this country, and that has been their view ever since.

What we saw in the Mabo decision was the whole concept of terra nullius being given the boot, as it should have been. As Pat said in his speech in the Senate:

The first peoples were in this land as owners and governors of their respective countries before and when the colonists 'arrived' and began to gradually occupy their territories and rule over them. Today those native title holders under the Native Title Act are evidence of their descent from their ancestors and are the living testimony of their prior occupation of their lands and waters.

It is true. There is nothing we can say in this place that will change that construct. I think we benefit a great deal as a nation from the recognition of native title.

I was in the parliament. I was a member of the cabinet subcommittee led by the venerable Gareth Evans, who did a stint of 45 hours on his pitch here in the Senate to get the legislation through. I remember those discussions. I remember the representations of Aboriginal leaders, such as Pat Dodson and others, to the parliament around the importance of recognising native title. I remember the debates vividly. And I remember the division that it created.

Subsequently, we had the Wik decision—some of you here will recall that—and the shameless attitude of the then Deputy Prime Minister in attacking the High Court judges for the Wik decision. Shamelessly! And then there was the Howard government's 10-point plan to amend the Native Title Act, and the same Deputy Prime Minister talking about 'bucketloads of extinguishment,' trying to take back what the court had recognised in terms of native title to prevent Aboriginal people being given proper recognition of their land.

We have a unique responsibility in this place, but it is a unique moment in time. We have a confluence of events that have happened over the last 25 and 50 years. We now have the capacity and opportunity to carry on that discussion and to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people the next step: recognition in our Australian Constitution in a way which meets and suits our aspirations and needs. I say to those who may be listening to this debate: we need, in this place, to take our responsibilities very seriously and to understand that we have a responsibility, all of us, to address our minds to what this means for us and for the nation, because if we do not we will be forever damned.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, their leaders past, present and emerging.

The history of Australia is peppered with memories that make us, and memories that break us. Today, I am rising to speak on the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum and to mark 25 years since the High Court's Mabo decision. These were moments that defined Australia as a nation. They defined us as a people, and they defined our notion of sovereignty.

The 1967 referendum was a foundational shift and resulted in the Australian Constitution officially recognising Indigenous people as members of the Australian population. In 1962, the Australian Labor Party, in opposition at the time, submitted an urgency motion seeking a referendum to include Aboriginal people in the census. This followed the 1962 decision to permit all Indigenous adults to vote in Commonwealth elections. 'Permit'; what a word! It seems absurd that just 55 years ago a supposedly modern Western democracy like Australia did not 'permit' all of its first peoples to take part. It seems incomprehensible that as white Australians and immigrants citizens lined up to cast their votes, Indigenous Australians, with their culture going back thousands of years on this land, were denied a full say in its future.

But the 1960s were a time of great passion, upheaval and conflict. Values were being reshaped. Australians had different opinions on Vietnam, but on the urgent need to acknowledge Indigenous rights they were at least united. With both the coalition government of the time and the ALP opposition urging a 'yes' vote, more than 90 per cent of eligible Australians said yes.

History remembers the politicians, but we often come late to the party. We need to honour and remember names such as Jessie Street, Faith Bandler, Pearl Gibbs, John McGuinness, Pastor Doug Nicholls, Stan Davies and so many more. The change to the Constitution also and crucially amended section 51 of the Constitution, which had prohibited the Australian government from making laws specifically for the Indigenous people of any state.

Australian governments have enacted a number of important pieces of legislation over subsequent years, including the Native Title Act 1993. The trigger has worked in some cases, and in others it has failed miserably. Twenty years ago the Bringing them home report provided a damning assessment of the forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families under the misguided attempt to forcibly assimilate children of mixed race into white society. Children were ripped from their mothers' arms, taken to cities and fostered out. Many never recovered; many never stopped trying to get home.

The Bringing them home report made many findings and recommendations. A review has just been conducted into the 20 intervening years, and it is clear that much remains to be done to bring effect to those recommendations. The report marked a pivotal moment in our national consciousness, but for some in positions of national leadership at the time the burden of shame and guilt was too much to bear. There was a preference by some to pretend that those times were not really all that bad and that the report was detailing a 'black arm band' version of Australian history that did not align with the preferred Australian narrative of Anzac heroism, FJ Holdens and laid-back mateship.

But the truth is that we are all these things. We are a great nation but we are not perfect, and the road that we have taken to get here has had its twists and its potholes—and there are more ahead. We do ourselves a disservice when we look at our history through rose-coloured glasses. It is a history that did not start in 1770, with Captain Cook supposedly discovering Australia, but tens of thousands of years before that. We owe it to ourselves, to our children and certainly to the Indigenous people of this nation to be as honest as we can with the story of Australia and all its chapters.

The importance of the 1967 referendum cannot be overestimated. It represented a seismic shift. As the member for Barton remarked, it is a popular myth that before the referendum Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people could not vote. The truth is more complicated: as British subjects, Aboriginal men in most states, other than WA and Queensland, have been able to vote in state elections since the 1850s. In 1895, the same right was extended to Aboriginal women in South Australia. After Federation, the 1902 Commonwealth Franchise Act allowed only Aboriginal people who had been enrolled as state voters to vote federally.

In 1949 the Chifley government legislated that anyone eligible to vote in state elections could vote federally. In 1962 legislation extended the vote in federal elections to all Aboriginal people of voting age, but it was voluntary and it was not well known nor well advertised. Incidentally, it was not until 1962 that WA extended its state vote to Aboriginal people, while it took Queensland until 1965 to do the same. So the real import of the referendum in 1967 was not so much voting rights but a universal acknowledgement that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were no longer 'them', to be counted separately, but 'us'. We are one people.

Twenty-five years ago I was at the High Court to hear the Mabo case handed down. At the time I was on the staff of Roger Price, the then member for Chifley. I had ducked out to go to hear what I knew would be a watershed moment in Australian history. My memory is swiss cheese at the best of times, but I do recollect that day with some measure of clarity. The long room was packed, and on the steps outside there was a great buzz.

Mabo challenged the Australian legal assumption that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had no concept of land ownership before the arrival of the British colonists or—for want of a better word—the British First Fleet in 1788. This was the concept of terra nullius: that sovereignty delivered complete ownership of all land in the new colony to the Crown, abolishing any rights that might have existed previously. The premise of terra nullius could never be defended, because it was a fiction—terra nullius, 'empty land' belonging to no-one—but that did not stop many from trying. This was not for moral reasons but to protect financial interests. So the Mabo victory shook the Australian establishment to its foundations. It changed the lives of so many, it drew a line in the sand and it recognised Indigenous sovereignty of this land.

'Mabo' has become shorthand for Aboriginal land rights, but it is a person's name—Eddie Mabo. He was a man of the Meriam people in the Torres Strait and had launched the legal case to have his people's traditional ownership rights to the Murray Islands recognised. Eddie Mabo did not live to hear the judgement, but his name will live for ever.

A display here in the parliament showcases Eddie Mabo's drawing of the shape of the island of Mer, noting the family names associated with tracts of the island, including his own family name. There are also other important documents and paintings on display: the Yirrkala bark petition, the Barunga petition and the Kevin Rudd apology.

Subsequent to Mabo, this parliament in 1993, under the Labor government of Paul Keating, enacted the Native Title Act, and that sought to build on the common law as redefined by Mabo. It was not a universally accepted piece of legislation, but it has stood the test of time. Much land has been handed back to traditional owners. There have been deals and contracts struck with commercial lessees, and there are many cases still going through the courts. It takes time to address 200 years of theft.

We have seen our nation changed, values reshaped and prejudice diminished as our reconciliation journey has rolled out. Our political leaders have both led and responded to events. In 1975 Gough Whitlam poured red soil into the hand of Vincent Lingiari at Wave Hill in the Northern Territory; in 1992 Paul Keating delivered his Redfern speech, acknowledging the destruction of Indigenous culture and society; in 2000 Peter Costello marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge for Sorry Day; in 2008 Kevin Rudd delivered his apology to Indigenous people for the stolen generations; and in 2016 Linda Burney, Pat Dodson and Malarndirri McCarthy joined Ken Wyatt and Jacqui Lambie as Indigenous MPs and senators of this parliament, and Ken Wyatt was appointed this nation's first Indigenous minister at federal cabinet level.

We have a long way to go. As this nation now grapples with the concept of including Indigenous recognition in the Constitution, I hope we can come together as a parliament in tripartisan spirit—the Greens, the Liberals, the Nationals and Labor—for the future of this nation, just as we did in 1967, and recognise Aboriginal people in the Constitution.

Debate adjourned.