Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

[by video link] I'd like to associate myself with almost all of the remarks that have been made this morning, and I'd also like to acknowledge the traditional owners. I want to address three things. The first is this national agreement. I also want to talk about some of the financial commitments that have been made and the way forward on the Indigenous voice to parliament.

The first thing I'd say is that I think the fashioning of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, which is being done in conjunction with the state and territory governments and the Coalition of the Peaks, is a genuine attempt to try to move from the idea of 'doing to' to 'doing with'. For people who follow these issues closely, the success the Indigenous community has had in managing COVID-19 provides a very good example of why it's important to put Indigenous people in control of their own affairs, and I think it is quite a simple concept. So much of the effort of the new national agreement and partnership is going into community capacity building and Indigenous decision-making and control. I think it is a very important and urgent reform. People are aware that priorities have been identified out of the 17 Closing the Gap targets. As I say, I think a good deal of the additional financial contributions are going into building up the capacity of Aboriginal medical services, health services, childcare services and the like.

It is important that the data is clear and that we can all be held to account here. I do think that getting the Productivity Commission involved to help us track and better understand the progress that is made in these areas is critical. People who have looked at the recent report done by the Indigenous productivity commissioner, Mr Mokak, would know that the Productivity Commission's view is that this is not a question of how much money is spent in this area; it is a question of getting the investment right so that it provides the outcomes that the community is seeking.

I want to turn to the billion-dollar commitment that has been made as part of the Closing the Gap agenda. I think supporting the justice targets and the language targets is very important. There is $378 million to support the stolen generations, where people had been stolen from Commonwealth territories—the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. This is an important commitment, and I know that it has bipartisan support. No-one is saying that $75,000 can replace your life, but I think it is an important gesture. There needs to be—and I think there is—additional support put around that. I urge the other states of Australia to put in place a system which is at least as good as this. I do welcome the bipartisan leadership from the Commonwealth. Indeed, the Commonwealth has led in the past. The Commonwealth was the first jurisdiction to put in place a land rights regime in the Northern Territory, which was decades ahead of some of the other Australian states. I think it's important, where there are states that have not put in place redress schemes for the stolen generations, that they do so quickly. It is only fair.

In relation to language, $22 million has been allocated to supporting Indigenous languages, recognising that Indigenous languages are endangered. In fact, they are some of the most endangered languages in the world. I think supporting the idea of children's books is important. I've had my own experience with this in engaging deeply with the work of AIATSIS, which is an organisation that was set up by the Menzies government to conserve and preserve Indigenous culture and language. AIATSIS has been working with local communities to ensure that languages are preserved and then able to be used.

One such concept that I'm aware of is the Dhurga dictionary, which has been published by the Yuin people of the South Coast of New South Wales. Some of the community elders have developed a dictionary which is now being used around towns like Moruya, which is incredibly transformational when you think that the kids that go to those schools will learn basic Dhurga, as well as learning English. The traditional owners were kind enough to allow me to use their language for some work I've been doing lately.

The other thing that is being put on the language agenda is the dual naming of places, which I know in the past has caused some consternation. But, if people are serious about reconciliation, I think it's a very fair and very reasonable idea that you could have dual names for places. I think, in fact, that it would only enrich us all.

Finally, I want to turn to the issue of the voice to parliament. Effectively, the idea of having an Indigenous voice, which was put forward formally by the Uluru Statement from the Heart and had previously been put on the agenda by the Cape York Institute, is simply that you would consult Indigenous people over laws and policies that are made about them. I think that is an entirely reasonable and quite conservative idea. I don't think it was handled well at the time, in 2017, when the Uluru statement was handed down, but I do think that there has been some important progress since then.

Senator Dodson and Mr Leeser co-chaired a report which was a bit of a framework for how a voice could be developed. The government followed the progress of that report. In recent times Marcia Langton and Tom Calma have been asked to develop a report in conjunction with Indigenous communities about what, in fact, a voice would be.

A voice at the local level could be about giving advice on service delivery, again working in conjunction with Indigenous communities to drive capacity building and control. The second thing it would be is a national voice which would provide advice on laws and policies. I've often thought, when I've sat in the Senate and we've dealt with things like native title amendments: 'Wouldn't it be good if we knew what the people who these laws are made for thought about these proposals?' I think we could do so much better in this space if we had a national voice to advise the parliament and the government about national Indigenous issues. I'd say to the people who are concerned about this: why on earth would we be afraid of getting more advice from citizens? I think it is such a good idea.

That co-designed report is sitting with the executive government, with the minister. I think that is the meat on the bones for the voice. I hope that that report can be the basis for us putting in place a voice in conjunction with a referendum to be held in the next term after a process to consider constitutional amendments.

We are getting towards the point where we need a process where Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people can put forward their views on what they think would be the most appropriate way to put the voice in the constitution. There is a range of different models that people should be able to look at and consider that take into account the concerns of constitutional conservatives and the like. My view is that you can definitely put in place an obligation on the Commonwealth to consult with Indigenous people on laws and policies that are made about them, which is effectively a voice. Then you could legislate the voice, thereby maintaining parliamentary supremacy.

I know these are important issues. I agree with the Prime Minister that we shouldn't be trying to rush this reform; it's too important. It's very important that we work with the Labor Party to maintain bipartisanship. I'd like to acknowledge the Labor Party's efforts in this area. I ]think they've been very good. This is an important reform that shouldn't be rushed. I'm glad it won't be. I'd like to thank the Senate for its time this morning.