George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The passage of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012, which has the bipartisan support of the opposition and, I believe, also has the support of the minor parties and the Independents, is an important moment in the history of our nation. It is symbolically important, as the Prime Minister and others have said. More importantly, it is a measure which will have practical consequences. When it comes to Indigenous Australians, we have had, I think, too much symbolism dressed up as if it were practical achievement, too many gestures without outcomes, too many ceremonies in which many fine words have been uttered, all of which has made us feel better about ourselves but which has improved the everyday lives of Indigenous Australians not one iota. So, while not underestimating the power of symbolism in the life of the nation, symbolism without more will never be enough. Indeed, on occasions the obsession of some of the participants in this debate with symbols alone has almost been an excuse to neglect more useful practical measures.

It is important that this bill does serve a practical purpose by committing both sides of politics to a course of action which, it is envisaged, will result in a successful constitutional referendum sometime during the life of or perhaps at the conclusion of the next parliament, to give appropriate recognition of Indigenous Australians in our nation's founding document. If that comes about during an Abbott government, as I rather suspect it might, then nothing could be more fitting because there are few politicians in Australia who have shown a more long-lasting devotion and commitment to helping Indigenous Australians than Mr Tony Abbott. His has been a commitment manifested not merely in fine words—although Mr Abbott's speech on this bill in the House of Representatives on 13 February 2013 should live in history as one of the noblest parliamentary speeches ever given in that chamber—but, just as importantly, in practical action manifested by voluntary manual work over many years, unadvertised and in his own private time, in Aboriginal communities in Cape York. Both sides of Australian politics have a genuine commitment to this issue, but I am particularly proud that the leader of my party is a person whose commitment has, for so long, been manifest not merely in words but in the sweat of his brow, the dust in his eyes and the dirt under his fingernails.

I will say a few words about the provisions of this bill in a moment. Before I do, I want to put this in its proper historical perspective. No side of Australian politics is without blemish when it comes to the treatment of our Indigenous peoples. For too long, particularly in the first half of the last century, their needs, their aspirations and their basic human rights were neglected or ignored by conservative and Labor governments both state and federal. Nevertheless, wise ministers from both sides of politics became increasingly sensitive to the needs of Indigenous Australians and, with changing attitudes and values, developed policies to redress Indigenous disadvantage and unequal treatment. Although the Labor Party, in the relentless prosecution of its one-sided view of history, claims the credit for these initiatives, the truth is that most of them were in fact pioneered by Liberal governments.

Sir Paul Hasluck, one of our nation's very greatest cabinet ministers, used the 12 years he spent as the Menzies government Minister for the Territories between 1951 and 1963 to pioneer enlightened policies which, with the passage of time and the demonstrated failure of Whitlam-era welfarism, seem truly farsighted. Hasluck was only the first of a series of distinguished Liberal ministers for Aboriginal affairs, including William Charles Wentworth, Fred Chaney, John Herron and Mal Brough, each of whom achieved great advances for Australia's Indigenous peoples. It was of course the Liberal Party which, 42 years ago, selected, through a regular preselection process, the first Aboriginal Australian to sit in this parliament, a man whom it was my privilege when I was a young man to call a friend, the great Neville Bonner. It was the Liberal Party which, at the last election, again through a regular preselection process, selected the first Aboriginal Australian to sit in the House of Representatives, my colleague Ken Wyatt, appropriately the member for Hasluck.

At the state level, it is often forgotten that it was the Queensland National Party which selected the first Aboriginal Australian, Eric Deeral, to serve in a state parliament as long ago as 1974.

Last year, we saw in the Northern Territory Indigenous Australians turn in droves to the conservative side of politics and elect no fewer than three new Indigenous members of parliament to sit with the Country Liberal Party.

The Prime Minister and other Labor politicians and apologists are fond of reciting the various steps to Aboriginal advancement, for which Labor governments claim to have been responsible—although many of those policies, by creating a culture of welfare dependency, in fact destroyed Aboriginal communities and retarded rather than advanced their development. But, curiously, the Prime Minister routinely fails to mention the greatest single step ever taken towards the goal of achieving equal rights and status for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians: the 1967 referendum, an achievement of the government of Harold Holt.

This was the vital moment which gave Aboriginal Australians true constitutional recognition, equal standing in the Constitution and full membership of the Australian body politic. Nothing that has happened before or since was as important as the 1967 referendum, yet Ms Julia Gillard routinely seeks to airbrush it out of history, no doubt because, like so many of the great progressive achievements in the history of Australian nationhood—indeed, like Federation itself—the Australian Labor Party had absolutely nothing to do with it.

This bill will, I hope, set in train a process which will culminate in a constitutional referendum as successful as the 1967 referendum—the most successful referendum in Australian constitutional history, by the way, which recorded a remarkable 'yes' vote of 90.77 per cent. In a sense, the referendum which this bill envisages will be the historical bookend of the 1967 referendum and carry to fulfilment that which the 1967 referendum began. But it will only succeed—and this is acknowledged by all participants—if it has widespread community support; not just bipartisanship—for referendums have sometimes failed despite having bipartisan support—and not just support from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities but support across the whole of the Australian community. Which means that it is just as important that people with conservative views be persuaded as people who consider themselves to be progressives. If that is to happen the proposal must be modest and the tone of the debate must be respectful.

Nothing is surer to defeat the referendum than if the public discussion of the proposal is conducted in a hectoring, angry or righteous manner. Every citizen who participates in the discussion has the same right to be heard because although this proposal has a special significance for Indigenous people, the Constitution belongs to every Australian equally. In particular, people of a conservative frame of mind who are sceptical and suspicious of constitutional change will need to be convinced of the desirability of the measure; and their scepticism is every bit as legitimate as the proponents' enthusiasm.

It is important to stress that the bill before us is neutral on the question of how recognition should be achieved. It does not propose a form of words. It is agnostic on the question of whether the recognition should take place as a preamble in the substantive provisions of the Constitution, or both. The settlement of those questions and the finalisation of the words of the referendum proposal are matters with which the process set up by this bill will deal. In that regard, I remind the Senate of the wise words of the unanimous report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. In paragraph 2.39 of its interim report, tabled last month, it said:

…the Committee does not underestimate the difficulty of securing the passage of appropriate amendments to the Constitution recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Only eight out of 44 proposals to amend the Constitution have succeeded. It is 36 years since the last successful referendum. Controversial proposals are invariably foredoomed to failure. For that reason, the committee cautions that if the proposal is the victim of over-reach, it will fail. While the Committee does not seek to limit the scope of public discussion, it nevertheless considers that only a relatively modest proposal is capable of engendering the bipartisan consensus which is a pre-requisite to success.

Our objective, in short, is to recapture the spirit of 1967. To do so, we must build community consensus in a careful, respectful, cautious fashion. If a proposal is put to referendum and the referendum fails, then that will create a legacy of bitterness and division which could last for generations. It would not only defeat our efforts, it would actually erode the important achievement of the 1967 referendum itself. It would be better to have no referendum than one which became a platform for divisiveness and ended in failure.

Our purpose is to ensure that we do not fail; that some time in the life of, or perhaps at the conclusion of, the 44th parliament, we will—as did the 26th parliament in 1967—have achieved a nationwide consensus which will give appropriate recognition to our first peoples and advance in a material way the cause of reconciliation.

In closing, I want to acknowledge the work of the members of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Peoples: in particular, the co-chairs, Mr Mark Leibler AC, and Professor Pat Dodson; my Labor colleague, Senator Trish Crossin, the Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, who, if I may say so, has done more to advance the interests of Aboriginal people, especially in the Northern Territory, than any other Labor politician I can think of and whose premature departure from the chairmanship of the committee at the time of the next election will be a great loss—just as the circumstances which brought it about were a disgrace; and on my side of politics, my friend Senator Nigel Scullion, the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, and the only Indigenous member of the current parliament, Mr Ken Wyatt, the member for Hasluck. All of them are great Australians and all are committed to the same end. I commend the bill to the Senate and look forward to its unanimous passage through this chamber.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to the debate over the bill that we are currently discussing. The Australian Greens have a long history of supporting and campaigning for Aboriginal rights and promoting constitutional recognition and reconciliation. Not only do we believe that we need to recognise Australian and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our constitution; our policy is also to ensure that we have treaties with and recognised sovereignty for Aboriginal and Torres Strait people. We recognise that sovereignty was in fact never ceded by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. However, we do believe that the treaty and the sovereignty issues need to be addressed a bit further down the track. I will come back to those issues later on in my speech.

The Greens have worked tirelessly to progress the issue of constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We believe that not only is this important as a further step in reconciliation but also we need to include substance in those amendments. We have been committed to recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our constitution, as I said, for a significant period of time. In fact, I would go so far as to say that as long as the Greens have existed there has been support for constitutional recognition. It was in our agreement with the Gillard government that there would be a referendum either before or with the next election. We were very disappointed that in fact this could not occur, but we realised that it was not achievable and so acknowledged that we needed to put in place another process.

It is clear to us that there has been significant progress in the national conversation, but we are not there yet. There is still significant work to be undertaken to reach agreement not just on what would be a model that is supportable through a referendum but also to ensure that it is a good model. It cannot be just any model; it must be a good model or a good set of questions and good changes to our constitution. Very importantly, it must have the support of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. That was one of the key things that the expert panel took as one of its guiding principles: any model, or any question, for a referendum had to have the support of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

I was a member of the expert panel and I would like to acknowledge the work of the expert panel, which I think—I probably need to display a bit of modesty here—presented a very good report to the Prime Minister in January 2012. I would like to acknowledge the people that put a year's worth of their life into this report, both those members of the expert panel and people who were part of the secretariat—some of whom I notice are in the chamber today. I would also like to acknowledge the work that they put in, because I know it was also a year of their lives that they put into this report.

While we are disappointed that we cannot achieve a referendum by the next election, we do acknowledge that this recognition by parliament is an important step along the path to constitutional change. The bill has provided an opportunity for reflection on the purpose of an eventual referendum, has enabled more consultation and has enabled a discussion by the parliament on the importance of constitutional recognition. As we have heard, we hear multiparty support for constitutional recognition and constitutional change. There have been many submitters both to the expert panel and to the select committee's inquiry into the bills. We heard from the National Congress, ANTaR, the Human Rights Commission and a whole range of people who made submissions to the inquiry.

I would like to read out a quote that is from the expert panel's report about constitutional recognition:

Constitutional recognition is an important step that must be taken in order to redress the discrimination and disempowerment Indigenous Australians have suffered since settlement.

There have been repeated comments, both to the inquiry into the bill and to the expert panel, about the need to address constitutional recognition and the discrimination that Australia's first peoples have felt ever since colonisation.

The Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law told the select committee inquiry into the bill that:

Recognition needs to deal with the fact that the Constitution was drafted on a premise of racism, essentially. It was drafted at a time when, in the words of our Prime Minister, Edmund Barton, we needed a power in the Constitution to enable the federal parliament to pass laws against 'the coloured and inferior persons' within the Commonwealth. Those words in the Constitution and that racist power have now been extended to Aboriginal people. Section 25 still recognises the possibility that states might enact laws that disenfranchise people on the basis of their race. Certainly from my dealings across the community, including with very conservative groups, it is that element of racism that most motivates people to think that they need to fix the Constitution to move beyond the values of the time.

ANTaR told the committee that:

… inclusion of language which recognises the need to remove or reform racially discriminatory elements in the Constitution should be added, confirming parliament's support for changes which go beyond the symbolic—again, a key recommendation of the panel. The inclusion of a reference to the need to continue efforts to close the social and economic gap that Australia's first peoples experience should also be a key feature.

The Australian Greens share this view. We believe that the final model that is put to a referendum should address the legacy of racial discrimination and enable the federal government to legally act to meet its often stated commitments under Closing the Gap but also under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was often quoted to the expert panel. We agree that the joint select committee provides a framework for such triggers and other milestones to be delivered and acted upon. We believe that we need to maintain the momentum for constitutional recognition. The significance of having several of the parliamentarians who were on the expert panel also included in the committee we think is a good move in terms of being able to continue that work, but also in bringing new thoughts into the panel.

It is important to recognise that the bill we are currently debating does not include all the recommendations of the expert panel, but I understand from the select committee's terms of reference that the committee will not be limited in considering the recommendations. The words in the bill that we are considering reflect the carefully chosen words of the expert panel. Every word was carefully considered. I would like to remind people of the recognition outlined in the bill:

The Parliament, on behalf of the people of Australia, recognises that the continent and the islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The Parliament, on behalf of the people of Australia, acknowledges the continuing relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their traditional lands and waters.

The Parliament, on behalf of the people of Australia, acknowledges and respects the continuing cultures, languages and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Those are very important statements.

This is the first step to constitutional change and it is not just symbolic. At the moment our Constitution has no reference to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, though it did previously. The Constitution used to say that the Commonwealth could make powers for all Australians except Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Fortunately, that was removed after the 1967 referendum. If you look at our Constitution you would never think that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are the oldest living culture on the planet, that they were on this land for generations and generations and that they are and were always the traditional owners of these lands. That needs to be in our Constitution.

Not only does this bill provide recognition; it also commits to placing before the Australian people at a referendum a proposal for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. It also acknowledges and recognises that further engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and other Australians is required to refine proposals for a referendum and to build support necessary for constitutional change. Importantly, it commits us to building the national consensus needed for recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. That puts a huge responsibility on this place, on members of parliament, to engage with this debate and to help build consensus. I believe that we need to build that consensus not as a lowest common denominator but as something that Australia can be proud of, so we can stand tall and say that we are prepared to change our Constitution to provide recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and to ensure that the Constitution does not discriminate. It is also about enabling the federal government to continue to address the advancement the expert panel recommended; another word you could look at is 'wellbeing'. It is about enabling the federal government to continue to address issues around Closing the Gap and the historical discrimination of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Those are the concepts that were included in the expert panel's recommendations. They recommended a whole new section, section 51A, that acknowledges the need for recognition, and I have read out the words contained in the bill. I believe we also need to acknowledge the need to secure the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In the debate in this place over the next day or so, I do not want it to be forgotten that further recommendations were made.

The Greens will continue to campaign vigorously for constitutional recognition. We will continue to support and participate in the national discussion and the national consultation process, but we believe that the expert panel's recommendations should provide the basis for that. We are not saying they should not change; we are saying, 'We think you did a pretty good job; do not reinvent the wheel.' Let us find out what is capable of being supported. Let us engage in that national discussion. Let us build that consensus around what we do think we can take to the community. As someone said to me the other day, let's be courageous in our recognition. We do not get to change our Constitution very often, as was just highlighted. Out of the 44 attempts to change our Constitution, eight have been successful.

Some of the keys to success are multi-party political support, strong community support, clear questions. It will take leadership from all members of this place to engage in that national discussion. As I articulated in the Greens' additional comments to the select committee report, one of the issues of concern for us was the two-year sunset clause in this bill. The issue as put to us by members of the community, and particularly some members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, was that the sunset clause means that you may not care after two years about recognition. I thought long and hard about that and I have come down on the side of the argument that says we think we should have the sunset clause there because it will make sure it is a decision-making point, that it is not that the parliament does not care—in fact the parliament cares so much about this that we want to make sure that there is a decision-making point. So, we support the sunset clause. In our additional comments we did say that we would think and discuss this further. I have done that and do believe we should be supporting it, because we do need a trigger point to enable further discussion.

One of the other issues, and I feel that we really need to mention this in this place, is that there is a number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who do not want to support this bill. They do not think we should be discussing constitutional recognition without discussing the issues around sovereignty and treaty. I acknowledge their very legitimate concerns and, as I said at the outset, the Greens support the concepts of treaty and sovereignty. I participated in a large number of discussions as part of the expert panel process and I support the recommendations and the feelings of the expert panel—that is, I do believe Australia is not ready to discuss those issues yet. I have also listened to legal advice that says that if we do proceed with constitutional recognition it will not undermine the concepts later on when continuing a national discussion about sovereignty and treaties.

I do not think this bill does so, either. While I think it is very important to acknowledge those very legitimate comments of those who say we should not proceed with this bill and with constitutional recognition, the overwhelming flavour of comments I have had back from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is that they do want constitutional recognition. This is an essential step in the reconciliation of this nation—absolutely essential. That is why we do not believe that it is appropriate to suspend the discussion around constitutional recognition to address those issues, but I do want to acknowledge that those are live and real issues that this country still needs to deal with. A large step will be taken for reconciliation by changing our Constitution to acknowledge that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were the first occupants of this land and that they have ongoing and unbroken connection and traditional ownership of this country. It is important that they are recognised in our Constitution. It is part of a healing for this country and, as I said, it is a part of reconciling this country, because we still have a significant way to go.

I fully acknowledge that it is not the only thing and that a lot more needs to be done before we address the huge gap in life expectancy and life outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We cannot pretend that this is the only thing that needs to be done. We are still making mistakes in our policies—I will acknowledge that, too. I am often the first in this place to criticise policies that are supposed to be for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and I do not believe that they are of benefit. Constitutional recognition is very important. We need to make sure we have a full discussion in the Australian community and build popular support for constitutional recognition. We politicians have a very important role to play. It is quite obvious from previous referenda that where there has been political disunity, those referenda have failed. We need to demonstrate what we expect the rest of the nation to do and that is having a fully engaged and respectful discussion around constitutional recognition. We will be supporting this bill.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Late last year I was given the honour of being asked to chair the new Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and I accepted that challenge as an honour to pay tribute to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country and to finally start to forge some work in this parliament that I think will lead to a great outcome if this country embraces the changes to the Constitution that are needed. I wanted today to congratulate all those who have participated dutifully in the debate on this important piece of legislation, particularly those members of the House of Representatives.

Parliamentarians, community awareness and engagement programs and dedicated Australians should all be commended on this significant step towards improving our nation by finally taking up the challenge of recognising our first Australians within the Constitution. This piece of legislation is just the first stage of the important process in building a reconciled Australia with relationships based on mutual respect and understanding.

On the morning of 13 of February—just a few weeks ago—the House of Representatives passed this act of recognition. This act provides a path on which to build a foundation that precedes our collective objective and that is to acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as Australians in the Constitution.

We are all aware that today marks another major moment in the records of recognition for these people in our history books—the final passage of this bill through the Senate and the Australian parliament. Five years ago, the parliament witnessed former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd deliver his landmark apology to Indigenous Australians. This parliament took another historic step on the anniversary of that day this year, and we can see that the momentum for change, recognition and cross-cultural understanding is growing.

I note the shared commitment that is often lacking in political debate—I have seen that plenty of times in this place. But on this day, in this chamber, in the Australian Senate, and on this most important subject, of inclusion, Australians right around this country will witness once again bipartisanship between the two major political parties. The act of recognition is supremely important. That both sides of politics find a bipartisan resolution on this issue speaks for itself and it should speak to the Australian public.

When the two parties rarely agree on anything, and here we agree on this, it is a unique occasion and it should prick up the ears of people around this country. It should turn the heads of the nation and it should draw much-needed attention to this crucial campaign. When bipartisanship like this exists, when both major parties agree that recognition is long overdue, and when both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition offer such personal and heartfelt language, then we begin to see a positive response from the Australian public. We should capture that today and build on that. I want to commend the parliament for this remarkable effort. With continued leadership across the political spectrum, this campaign will result in the welcome acknowledgement of our history and a referendum that sees the improvements to our Constitution.

Firstly, I want to acknowledge the important work done by the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians, whose detailed and widely researched report—which I read in detail over the Christmas period—put in place the foundations to enable the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples to produce its report and for Australia to eventually progress constitutional recognition. In 2010, the Australian government announced the membership of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians. The panel included Indigenous and community leaders, constitutional experts and parliamentary members. It was co-chaired by Professor Patrick Dodson and Mark Leibler AC. I want to thank them for their dedication to holding a wide-ranging national public consultation and engagement program throughout 2011 in order to bring us to where we are today.

The joint select committee which I have chaired had a meeting with the co-chairs of the expert panel, where we explored their work and the outcomes of their deliberation. The work they have done is incredibly detailed. As I said, they held extensive consultations in towns and cities right across this country. They met with high-level stakeholders and engaged in a formal public submission process. Through these processes, this background work—this homework, I suppose, as a precursor to the work we are about to undertake—we can gauge community support. We can see, through the Newspoll that was commissioned to undertake research into this subject, that there is a groundswell and growing momentum to build on the outstanding work that the expert panel completed under the chairmanship of those two people. All of this work has been done at a resoundingly commendable level.

Then there are organisations like Reconciliation and their groups and campaigns, You Me Unity and Recognise. Their dedication to promoting constitutional recognition in communities across Australia has started, and it will be a great challenge. There is much work to be done, but they have been building awareness campaigns, providing the government and the public with valuable resource materials to help promote awareness for constitutional recognition, from cities to remote communities, from offices to backyard barbecues and in every home across this country.

The joint select committee held its inquiry, which is detailed on the website. We advertised the inquiry in the Australian, the Koori Mail and the National Indigenous Times. We received 24 submissions. I thank each of those who contributed. We held a public hearing in Sydney on 22 January. It is a day I will forever remember. With these contributions and the specialist work of the expert panel, we as a parliament have been able to pass this bill, which has three substantive parts that serve to eliminate discrimination and promote inclusion. Those three parts are: a statement—as Senator Siewert read out—of recognition by the parliament, on behalf of the people of Australia, of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; a requirement for the minister with responsibility for Indigenous affairs to commence a review of support for a referendum to amend the Constitution within a particular time frame; and a sunset clause, which provides that the act should expire two years after enactment. That gives us a definitive point in time by which we need to strive to achieve this work.

Along with most Australians, I appreciate the sophistication of this bill. It will change Australia's most important legal document, which is difficult to do. The public, whose vote this needs, deserve time to think about what we are trying to achieve here. As the expert panel has noted, many people still do not know about this important push for a referendum. There are, of course, those who condemn that the act takes too long when it sets out a two-year period to work toward a referendum. The government agrees, though, with the expert panel that it is important for this to be held at a time when it has the most chance of success. If that is going to happen within two years, then I am sure there are many of us here who would be delighted about that. But the public need time to understand the importance of this change, to be made aware of the many other countries, including the USA, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada, who have already made similar efforts to recognise their first peoples. While it is vital that grassroots organisations and advocates across the country get the word out to develop a movement for change, we as a parliament must not falter. We have to stay at the wheel. Now is the time for us to demonstrate continued leadership, to use our energy and passion to take a lead on this issue.

It is our chance, over the next two years, to show more recognition of Indigenous issues at state and federal levels in order to harness the attention of the wider Australian public.

I will take some time to touch on the nature of this symbolic statement. Some people may dismiss the idea that changing the Constitution will change things for Indigenous people in Australia. One only has to look toward the Northern Territory, where a great number of my constituents live with standards of education, jobs, health and life expectancy far below those of non-Indigenous Australians. Some might say that the symbolism of changing the Constitution will not change any of that. But I do not believe that to be the case. Being recognised in Australia's most important document means to be recognised by the people who live on the land on which you were born. For Indigenous Australians, it means to be recognised by the people who arrived on this land on which their forefathers were born, the rectification of the ignorance of the past and an acknowledgement of them as Australia's first peoples in a symbolic gesture. It gives them the credit they, with certainty, deserve.

The journey to recognition gives all Australians a chance to be part of this important improvement in ourselves as a nation. If Australians get the chance to enshrine that recognition, the foundation on which Indigenous disadvantage was born should cease to exist. Without a foundation, the structure crumbles. Sadly, it has been building for years—112 years too long. It is time to knock that structure down, and constitutional recognition will help with this.

As Jason Glanville said during his address to the National Press Club on constitutional recognition, disadvantage is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Social and economic disadvantage has existed for so long in this country that it may seem unlikely that words on a page could change it. But he went on to say that they could—and they will. He noted that, as with the many Indigenous Australians who had claimed improved mental and physical health since the 2007 apology by former Prime Minister Rudd, so too could the changing of our oldest legal document invite real hope and real change for Indigenous Australians again. We need to foster their right to excel, to dream big and to be proud of their heritage through recognition. This would, without doubt, instil a sense of pride. As Glanville said, quite simply, 'It is just the right thing to do.'

This bill reflects an intention to pursue meaningful change to the Constitution which echoes the hopes and aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It is not a substitute for constitutional recognition but it is a mechanism for all Australians to become familiar with the possible wording of a constitutional statement to be included in a future referendum. This bill is a part of a conversation that will continue, a conversation that needs to happen, a conversation which will encourage the community to continue discussions, debates and educational seminars in the lead-up to constitutional change.

The report handed down by my committee, all the work required to produce that report, the subsequent legislation and the laying out of the road we have ahead of us are all efforts of which this nation can be proud. Changing the Constitution is a way all Australians can unite to finally acknowledge our history and the great contribution made by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in this country. The Labor government's commitment of $10 million toward this campaign is a financial contribution, but I believe the positive momentum, the bipartisanship we have seen and the will of the people will be the true value we will see shining through at the end of the act's sunset provision.

We know that only eight of the last 44 referendums have succeeded. But there is a powerful precedent for change. We saw the Australian public achieve dignity in 1967 with the most decisive referendum in Australian history. That referendum updated the Constitution to include Aboriginal people in the census and gave the Commonwealth the power to make special laws for people of any race. Now is the time for us to become an even better Australia. I look forward to a future we can all be proud of. I commend this first important step towards a new beginning of unity and recognition and commend this bill to the Senate.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012. I thank the previous speakers and I have to say that this is, without doubt, the first time in my 12-odd years in this place that I have had a genuine sense of bipartisanship. We are excited by the prospects, we are nervous about how we proceed and we are talking genuinely with each other to ensure that our views are not polarised. It gives me a great deal of confidence that we, as representatives of the wider Australian community, can behave in that way. Hopefully that will help engender an appropriate environment for the community discussions to follow on the content of the changes.

I am also excited by the fact that this bill will be the genesis of a stream of debates which are not only about the changes to the Constitution. This series of debates will engage people who have previously not been engaged. They will make people think about issues and people and circumstances which they have not thought about before. Constitutional change is necessarily a very complex issue and I invariably leave it to those people who are more focused on those matters than I and who are probably better equipped to deal with them. But this bill will be the genesis of a very important change. In the view of many Australians—and certainly people who have been involved in the changes which have already taken place—this is always unfinished business.

I will deal with some reflections on that later on. I suspect that it will always be unfinished business, and I think that necessarily is the case—and it is a good thing.

We have had several steps in this process. The previous Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, made an apology that was symbolic and practical—there was a significant practical element to it. That significant practical element involved Indigenous housing. It is useful to look back at that time to see what changes have taken place. I still think that from that dramatic day there are lessons for us for the way forward not only with this legislation but also beyond this legislation, which will pass today with the concurrence of everyone in this place—and that will be fantastic.

I have a confession to make. I was one of those who did not really think the apology would matter. I come from a background where I see every day that the gap between opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and those for mainstream people is so vast that I could not see the apology helping at all. That was my personal view at the time; I did not share it with anybody. I was cynical about it—all the trumpeting of change was wonderful but in myself I could not see what difference it could make. I guess much of that was because, as I said, my personal experience was that the housing of my mates was still appalling, their educational outcomes were not even comparable, there were relatively few employment opportunities for them in regional and rural Australia and their health outcomes were completely unacceptable. In that context I could never bring myself to be all that supportive.

On the day of the apology and the days that followed I was able to be amongst my Aboriginal friends, and some of them shared their cynicism with me. How wrong we all were. The changes to the way Aboriginal people as individuals and as communities saw themselves after that apology were extraordinary. Plenty of individuals have explained to me how surprised they were at their own reaction as Aboriginal people. Clearly those who would, as I did in the past, diminish symbolism as something that does not have a role to play in closing the gap are quite wrong. We will go through this series of debates together as a group, and agreement will be the next step. It will be the third step in our becoming a united nation. That is extremely important. It will follow from the 1967 referendum, which was so significant, and the apology, which had complete bipartisan support. Now there will be this important constitutional recognition.

In this place I have beaten up all those who will listen with my views on Indigenous housing. The government would acknowledge that it has not done as well as it could have done, but those failures are characteristic across parliaments, across time. I do not think any of us would beat our chest and say how well we have done. In the shadow of the apology we made some commitments that we should have kept a better eye on, as Australians. It was only part of our discussions—it was over there; we had the economy and all these other things going. We have a great opportunity, as Australians, to make the same commitment to these practical outcomes as we have made to symbolic recognition. There is a practical element to the symbolism not only of today but also of the process as we move forward. Symbolism is a very practical way to send a clear message to those in this nation who I would describe as racist.

I was lucky—I was brought up in a colourblind house by a wonderful family and I was not exposed to racism very much. As I grew up, every now and again I was exposed a little bit to people with racist views, but after they got tapped on the nose they generally did not share those views with me from then on. I just did not think there was as much racism as there actually was. The signal that as a nation we think this behaviour is unacceptable and that as a racist and somebody who shows intolerance and bigotry you are on your own, mate, is a pretty practical signal to send. Sadly, that signal does need to be sent. I was having a discussion with some people in Central Australia about racism and education. When you are in the desert, if you pick up a rock you will find underneath it all sorts of night creatures and they all look at you and go 'Aaagh!' and scuttle off. Education and debates of this nature will throw light on those scuttling insects, and hopefully we will see far less of them in our community and our children will have to put up with far fewer of them. That would be a fantastic and practical outcome.

I acknowledge the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples—Pat Dodson, Mark Leibler and all the others who were involved. I understand what a difficult subject this was, with the spectrum of views and the opportunities to introduce such a range of initiatives. Senator Siewert touched on issues like the treaty and sovereignty, and the fact that the expert panel individually and collectively have said, 'These are our views; we have come to a consensus view and we are all united behind a set of words and changes to the Constitution that the Australian people will support,' gives me great hope that this legislation today will lead to substantive and real change in our Constitution, which will make a real difference to how Australians feel.

I talked earlier about this being an endless story. There are those who, in frank discussion, have said, 'They'll never be happy, Nigel.' We have those discussions about the Greens as well! 'They're rapacious; they'll just take everything you give them. They will never be satisfied.' These are important debates to be had—and they are not discussions with racists; they are perhaps people who may not have the same exposure in life as others. But they are important discussions to have because I was able to say, 'Well, that's a natural thing; we will have this conversation endlessly.' To those who say, 'I've missed my opportunity for this particular change,' the fact is that the opportunities are endless. There will be endless opportunities for change. This debate itself will be the thing that really changes our Australian psyche. This is an opportunity for Australians to change their views; we can gather and corral those changed views and reflect them in our Constitution. I commend the bill to the House.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a real pleasure to stand here among so many people with a single purpose, and that is to continue a journey that has been going on for over 100 years. One thing is sure: from the time the Constitution was first considered to now, it has been a journey. There is a bit of a problem when we think that the Constitution is some dry document that belongs somewhere else and should never be changed. In fact, that is not the purpose of our Constitution. What we have is a living document. Whilst I do acknowledge how difficult it is to make this Constitution come alive through change—and I will, in the little time I have, talk a bit about this—the opportunity is there in the bill before us, which is so exciting.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012 is exciting because it is doing something that people over many generations have called for: to acknowledge all Australians in our Constitution. The current document does not do that. In fact, when this Constitution was first written by that group of blokes, they left out a number of people. Women were one. Most importantly, the other group that they left out were the First Australians. They were mentioned, but in a derogatory way, in the middle of a Constitution subclause. However, from that time, people have been asking questions about this and saying it is not right.

Through this process, through the amazing work of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, which has been acknowledged a number of times here already, and through the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples chaired by my friend Trish Crossin, they have been able to share knowledge with many more Australians about the history of this discussion. We found out that consistently in those years people have said there needed to be change. In 2008, when our then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, made his apology to Aboriginal Australians, that was in fact an apology to all Australians, because until we made that acknowledgement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our country we were not all Australians. That process started then—the most modern incarnation of it—and it continues through this discussion today, as it will into the future, because we all know this bill is just one small step. In fact, we have been at pains to say that this bill is but one small step and is not to be taken as some way of avoiding any other action, which would be a really sad thing. But, in the bill, we have given it a time frame, which is most unusual in legislation: there is a sunset clause that clearly states that we have a two-year period to look at what needs to be done and to take further action.

The action is not limited to just an acknowledgement clause. That is clearly set out in the bill before us, but it is much more than that. We can work with this document and use it, with the knowledge and the commitment that we have built up over the years to make the necessary changes—which I think we can do. I think there is a degree of optimism and a real sense of having a chance to make a difference. From looking at the speeches made in the other place on the introduction of the bill, there was agreement that we have the chance now—the same as the people who wrote the original Constitution and the same as the people who drafted successful amendments—at this moment in time, to say, 'We can right this wrong.' We can right this wrong for the whole of our nation.

I want to acknowledge the work has been done to bring this debate to this stage—most importantly, by the people in the wider community who came forward to share their ideas, their frustrations and their anger through the various committees that have been operating. This parliament sets up committees, but we then rely on the community to feed us the information we need to make decisions that represent Australia. I have heard the argument about taking leadership; of course that is important, but one element must be that we can speak on behalf of our nation. In the submissions that came forward to both the joint select committee and the expert panel convened under the wonderful Patrick Dodson to talk with the community, we can read how important this issue is.

And it is symbolic. I am a bit worried that people see symbolism as not having power. Of course it has power. Symbols reflect need. They reflect action. Symbols can cause action and commitment. So this is symbolic. People who gave evidence to those two groups talked about the importance of symbolism and the fact that they felt Aboriginal and Islander people of this country must be acknowledged in our Constitution. There was no real doubt: that must happen. What we have to do is work out how to make it happen.

If we are going to be true to all those people who came forward to talk about why this was important for them, we have got to find a way to put the argument back out to the community so that this will be another successful referendum result, of which there are way too few.

We know how difficult it is to get a referendum result up in the positive. It has to be across the whole nation. It cannot just be the majority of states. A referendum of this nature must be supported by all states. In fact, we need to reflect on the 1967 referendum, in which we got such an amazing result. We need to be equalling that to be true to ourselves and to be able to make a statement not just for this generation but for those to come that we as a nation believe this is the right thing to do—and this has been said many times.

Mr Acting Deputy President Furner, you know about the Australian constitutional conventions—the process that encourages young people to come together to look at our Constitution, to become engaged with it and to see what should work with our Constitution. It is an inspiring thing to work with those young people who may never even have thought about reading the Constitution until some teacher dobbed them in. But, when they did get that opportunity, they felt that it was their document. We need the passion of those young people looking at why these changes should be made for them and for future generations. We need not just to look at recognition—certainly the bill concentrates on recognition—but, most importantly, to take the other steps, which I think have been put forward in discussion, to remove any hint of discrimination on race in our Constitution. This document belongs to all Australians.

The bill before us is a step to ensure that all Australians can be part of the discussion. Whilst I know in my heart that not all Australians will take a role in this process, I am hoping that what we do as a parliament and what we do through our community will be to make sure that more people see that this is something that is real and that it actually belongs to them—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and people who are not fortunate enough to have Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage. We can work together to ensure that we have a change, an agreed change, that will take away the hurt and pain that was in our document from the time that our forefathers signed off on it.

I know that people have strong views about this process. I know that there are a range of views about what should and should not be in it and how fast we can move forward, but we have an opportunity through the passing of this bill to say that we as a parliament accept that this is our job. It is our job to ensure that within a two-year period we have a question that is effectively framed and can go to the Australian people—all of the Australian people—and that they can own it and can say, 'Yes, we'll be able to acknowledge all Australians in our Constitution.' This is an important element.

We all have a job to do in this process. It is not good enough just to stand in this place and make a speech. In fact, we have to commit together to take further action. The bill gives us a framework to do that. It actually tells us to get on with the job. I want to acknowledge all the parliamentarians both in this place and in the other who have said that they will be part of the future and not just sit and long for things of bygone days.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012. I am very pleased that this has reached the parliament and that it has the support of this parliament. It is incredibly important that the parliament, on behalf of the people of Australia, recognises that the continent and islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It is also important for the parliament to acknowledge the continuing relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their traditional land and waters, and also for the parliament, on behalf of the people, to acknowledge and respect the continuing cultures, languages and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Often there is that statement, but then the actions of the parliament are quite different.

I cite today what is going at James Price Point in Western Australia as a classic case of where there is a failure to acknowledge and respect the continuing cultures, languages and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. I lead into that because it is critical that we do not just have the sentiment expressed in the parliament. We actually need this sentiment to be translated into constitutional change and then into legal frameworks which give it effect and which give it compliance and enforcement capacity in the law down the track. Having said that, I am pleased at least that we have got to the point where the parliament is doing this. I am particularly pleased that we are doing it because it was part of the Greens agreement with the Gillard government. We said in that agreement, when we agreed to give the Prime Minister government, to:

Hold referenda during the 43rd Parliament or at the next election on Indigenous constitutional recognition and recognition of local government in the Constitution.

It was because the Greens put this into that agreement that we then saw the formation of the expert panel, and then we saw the work of the expert panel—and, as my colleague Senator Siewert talked about a little while ago, what a great report has come from that expert panel. She said that we ought to take very seriously the work that has been done by everybody on the panel and the secretariat who supported them and the input from communities around the country. In fact, so much trust and faith has been invested in its document that it would be disrespectful not to work from it as the basis of how we go forward.

Having said that, I think this parliament is now committed to placing before the Australian people at a referendum a proposal for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This will, of course, require the building of a national consensus in order to achieve that. As we all know, you do not succeed with referenda in Australia unless you build a national consensus and, in fact, that all political parties agree to get behind the proposal and work for it in every capacity. I would argue that every one of us in acknowledging country whenever we go and speak anywhere ought to be not only acknowledging that the land we stand on is the traditional land of the group of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples that we are particularly referring to in terms of that part of country but particularly then going on to say that there is a commitment to move to constitutional recognition.

I think we should all be acknowledging country and building a national consensus. It is disappointing that we were not able to fulfil the agreement, as set out with the Prime Minister, to have a referendum on the Constitution in this 43rd Parliament. But I totally support the decision that has been made not to proceed with it before the next election, because we do not want to see it fail. We must build a consensus so that people get behind the next referendum as they got behind the 1967 referendum. We must be make sure that the next referendum succeeds, and that is a challenge to everyone. I hope that throughout the election campaign candidates and sitting members get out there and start talking up the referendum in the community.

I pay particular respect today to all of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who have given so much time to the issue of constitutional recognition and who continue to work in the best way they can to make it happen. I was delighted, on the day that this bill went through the House of Representatives, to meet Shirley Peisley, Lowitja O'Donoghue and Patrick Dodson, who were up here having a small celebration. Shirley was there in 1967 as one of the people campaigning for the referendum, and I was delighted that she was able to come back and see that progress is being made towards another referendum. We are making slow progress, but at least we are on track. It is terrific that Shirley was able to be here and see that this is the case, and it was terrific that respect was paid to Lowitja O'Donoghue and Patrick Dodson and the other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who came along on the day. It was marvellous to see a lot of young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people there listening the stories of their elders, participating in the discussion of what had gone before and clearly enthused about taking constitutional recognition to the next stage. The Greens will certainly be there with them to do so.

It is important not only to recognise the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the first occupants of Australia and to acknowledge their relationship with their traditional lands and waters and their language, culture and heritage but also to recognise the ugliness of the Constitution's having been drafted on the premise of race. I remember that it came home to me, when we were debating a bill of rights in Australia, that the reason the Constitution as first drafted did not include a bill of rights is that there was a very deliberate decision taken not to include a bill of rights because it would have had to recognise that everyone is born equal. The Prime Minister at the time, Edmund Barton, said that we needed a power in the Constitution to enable the federal parliament to pass laws against 'the coloured and inferior persons' within the Commonwealth. That is the basis of our Constitution, and Australians must look back and reflect on it with some disgust—I suppose that is the best way to put it—because it was designed to make sure that Australia could discriminate against the Kanaka people, who were here working in the cane fields, and against Chinese people who had come here after the gold rushes—and, of course, over time to discriminate also against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Unfortunately, section 25 of the Constitution still gives states the power to enact laws that disenfranchise people on the basis of their race. Under section 51, subsection (xxvi), the Commonwealth still has the ability to make laws based on race, and that clearly has to change; we must change the part of the Constitution that enables the Commonwealth to make laws based on race. We have to face up to this in Australia. We must recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and remove from our Constitution the last vestiges of its possible use to discriminate on the basis of race. We have to be upfront that we are doing it, because doing so will in turn—as my colleague Senator Siewert said—set up a framework to have an ongoing discussion about sovereignty and a treaty and so on down the track. In no way does this bill as proposed detract from the ability of people to talk about such issues as people become more familiar with the context surrounding the issues as well as with their details.

In the mid-1990s in Tasmania, when I was member of a parliament in which the Greens held the balance of power in a Liberal minority government, we had a tripartite agreement to say sorry to the stolen generation. It was one of the most dignified moments in the Tasmanian parliament. People were amazed that the agreement was made under a Liberal minority government working with the Greens. It was extraordinary when we invited Tasmania's Aboriginal people onto the floor of the parliament to respond. It was marvellous to be here in the Senate more than a decade later when the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, came and extended the same apology federally. But Tasmania led the way on an apology to the stolen generation, and I am pleased to have been a parliamentarian on both occasions; I am also very pleased this time around to have made an agreement with the current Prime Minister. I am delighted by the work of my colleague Senator Rachel Siewert. I pay tribute to the work she has done on the expert panel. She has put a huge amount of time, effort, passion, love and heart into this work, which stands up for the rights—as Senator Siewert has always done—of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

As Senator Siewert rightly points out, there are many occasions on which we have argued that the Commonwealth is making laws that are based on race—in the Northern Territory intervention and the legislation called Stronger Futures, which we believe is actually weaker futures. She has been leading the way on recognising the rights of Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander people and standing up for their wellbeing, for their health, for their education and for their communities. Her work in this period needs to be recognised because it has been a huge investment at a personal level for a community outcome that is working towards the best interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and, of course, working with them to achieve that. It is very much an organic process of consultation and input. It is not about top-down imposition; it is about engagement and discussion. I congratulate her and the panel and, as Senator Siewert did herself, the secretariat, who have all worked on this. I think everyone would acknowledge that the more you get involved in it, the more discussions you have, the more engagement you have, the more it becomes obvious that there is an overwhelming imperative to work to achieve these good outcomes.

The other thing during this period of parliament which the Greens are very proud about is that, following the lead of the Greens representatives on the Darwin City Council, we secured in our negotiations with the Gillard government an acknowledgement of country at the start of every sitting day. It has now become a part of the institutional arrangement of this parliament, and it would not have happened if it had not been for the Greens and, in particular, the Greens lead on the Darwin City Council that translated through to our work here in the Senate. It shows that when you vote for the Greens you get a consistent policy right through the spectrum. I think it is wonderful that we have seen that. We did move to have the acknowledgement of country be the first matter for the Senate each day as it is in the House of Representatives, but unfortunately that was not agreed to by either the coalition or the Labor Party. Nevertheless, we think it should be consistent in both houses and would like to see that occur.

But the main point of today is to say how pleased the Greens are that this has been advanced to the point where it is, to absolutely say up front that we are committed to making sure that we get constitutional recognition of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and that we get a referendum, and we will do everything in our power to build a community consensus for that and to finally remove from the Constitution section 51(xxvi) to take away the Commonwealth's ability to make laws based on race. That will be a major celebration in Australia when it is achieved—and I am not going to say 'if'. We have a two-year time frame to get that in before the sunset clause comes into effect. It is incumbent on all of us to work to achieve that outcome, to make sure that we get the referendum and that as a nation we can celebrate, really stand up and say: finally, Australia has shed that shadow that has been over our Constitution for such a long period of time. Finally, we can say in Australia, as the bill indicates, that we acknowledge on behalf of all of us, no matter where we have come from, and recognise that the continent and the islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We can stand up and acknowledge the continuing relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with their traditional land and waters and acknowledge and respect the continuing cultures, language and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Please, I would ask that as members of parliament, when you go out there and talk about this, you give some thought to what it means to you personally, because there will be nothing more offensive to people than to hear you mouth that on the one hand and then agree to the complete compromising of that by ignoring that language, culture and association with country when it comes to a choice between some of the projects that are put up and the rights and recognition of Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander people. That is the moral dilemma that faces many in this parliament, but I can assure you that for the Greens it is straightforward. When we say we acknowledge those points, we mean it. We believe that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people deserve constitutional recognition and have an ongoing connection to their land, their water, their culture, their language and their heritage, and we will do everything in our power to respect it, uphold it and work for the constitutional recognition which will provide the framework for continuing to strengthen it.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that I and, I think, most Australians support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012. Without this bill, I think most Australians including myself recognise that the continent known as Australia was first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I think we all accept the continuing relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with the traditional land and waters, and I am sure that, as well, we all respect the continuing cultures. I want to return to that later in my speech.

But, just at the moment, I want to say that, for all the words I have heard here today, there are Indigenous people dying in Townsville because the federal government will not fund transport to get Indigenous people from their place of residence to dialysis treatment in Townsville Hospital. You can speak all you like about this bill, but I want to see the federal government and the Greens actually do something tangible to assist Indigenous people. I have written to Ms Macklin, Ms Plibersek and Mr Snowdon asking for transport for these Indigenous people to get to dialysis. Have I had any response? None at all. This is an urgent situation, and in Townsville I am aware of one person having died because they could not get transport from their place of residence to a hospital. That is where you should start your care and concern for Indigenous people. In these few seconds I have before the break, I want to emphasise that. If there are ministers here from the government, would you please get on to Ms Macklin, Ms Plibersek or Mr Snowdon and ask them to have a look at my letter to them of 20 February, just a few days ago, and please do something for these Indigenous people who desperately need help.

Debate interrupted.