Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Mental Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition (Sunset Extension) Bill 2015 on behalf of the Labor Party. Labor is committed to pursuing substantive and meaningful change in the Constitution—change that unites the nation and reflects the hopes and aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Australia prides itself on being a place of fairness and equality. However, our nation's founding document is silent on the special place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It is an historical wrong that must be made right.

To build the momentum needed for successful constitutional change, an act of recognition to acknowledge the unique and special place of our first peoples was passed with unanimous support through the parliament on 12 March 2013. This is another step in the journey towards constitutional recognition and a reconciled Australia. We have taken giant steps together—the 1967 referendum, the High Court's historic Mabo judgement, former Prime Minster Paul Keating's Redfern speech, the Close the Gap framework, and the Apology—but we have further to go. Bipartisanship is critical for any referendum proposal to succeed, and there needs to be a strong consensus on timing and content. The timing and the nature of the change must involve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders as well as the wider community. This bill will maintain the momentum towards constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as we continue to work together on a proposal for a referendum.

While I have a moment here, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Lowitja Institute and RECOGNISE Australia for the work they have done to bring together 117 leading non-government organisations that work in the health sector to join up to a commitment to recognise health. It was launched here in Parliament House this morning by Pat Anderson AO, who is the chairperson of the Lowitja Institute, along with Tanya Hosch and Tim Gartrell from RECOGNISE. This commitment was born from a conversation between RECOGNISE and the Lowitja Institute a couple of years ago, I understand, and this launch today is just their first step towards ensuring that the health sector understands that they will be part of closing the gap and that constitutional recognition is also part of the architecture that we need to progress in order to close the gap. So, I do take this opportunity to commend the Lowitja Institute and RECOGNISE for this step forward, and the document and the statement that has been signed by 117 organisations to date, with more to come.

I also have to put on record that Archie Roach sang a very beautiful song, and I had to leave before he finished, because I had another meeting, and I am very disappointed that I did not get to the end of it. But thank you. I commend the bill to the House.

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

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition (Sunset Extension) Bill 2015 and support the extension of the act, bearing in mind that this was recommended by the Constitutional Review Panel of Tanya Hosch, Richard Eccles and John Anderson, who recommended that the bill needed to be extended. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Recognition has also made comment about the need to extend this particular bill.

We have to get constitutional recognition right, and the country needs time to have the debate. I always call it multipartisan support for recognition, because unless we get support across this parliament, across the parties and the Independents, we are not going to achieve constitutional recognition. I am disappointed that we have not got as far in our debate on constitutional recognition as I consider that we should have by this stage. I think the debate has lacked the drive that we need for this discussion, and I am hoping that with this extension we can achieve that. It is important to have an extension here because, having said that we need to make sure that we have the drive and some vigour in our pursuit of constitutional recognition, I think we do need to take the country along with us, and the other element of that is leadership, which needs to be showing vigour and drive in this debate.

There needs to be a broader debate in the community as well. We know from our experience in referenda in this country that our Constitution is one of the hardest in the world to change, because a double majority is needed to approve change. Of the 44 referenda that have been held since Federation, only eight have been successful. We know some of the essential components that are needed for a successful referendum, and one of those is making sure that we have a lot of broad support and understanding across the community and across the parliament. So, we do need this extension.

I am hoping really, really strongly that we do not need until 2018 to get to that referendum, but, having said that, I think we need to find that fine balance by making sure that we are taking the community along with us in that debate. We have to bear in mind that the '67 referendum did not just happen overnight. There was a long campaign in the run-up to the '67 election and that is what is needed here. There is strong support from some elements of the community, but if we held a referendum today I do not think not enough people in the Australian community would know what we are talking about. They have not been consulted enough yet, nor been engaged in the discussion enough—or even aware of the issue—to understand what some of the options are.

One thing I am certainly very clear about is that if we set a date now, without people actually knowing what the question is, that is a concern to people. I have had that expressed to me on a number of occasions. We need to be getting the question right. This is where the important subtleties come in, if we do not have a question that people feel strongly about and one that makes the issue substantive. That is what I keep hearing everywhere I go—that the question needs to be substantive, and the change needs to be substantive change. We saw just yesterday in the media the issues around nondiscrimination and clause 116A, which the expert panel recommended, being canvassed. Debate is still open on that. Again, this is controversial, and I know that; but we need to be looking at these controversial issues in our discussion. As far as the Greens are concerned at the moment, 116A is not off the table, and I do not believe it is off the table for many people around Australia—both within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and also in the broader Australian community.

Senator McLucas referred to the Lowitja Institute launch this morning. It was perfect timing in terms of expressing the very important link between health and wellbeing and constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. They made the point that constitutional recognition is not just symbolism. Although I very strongly believe that symbolism is very important, as well, they are saying it is not just about that. They make the point that there is significant evidence from health research to indicate that being connected to the wider community, having a strong identity and feeling socially supported all have significant positive impacts on health. They make the point that recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people would acknowledge their powerful sense of identity, pride, history and belonging to this land. It would promote opportunities for full participation in all that Australia has to offer and be a significant step towards equity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia. Those are really powerful statements and they really contribute very significantly to the debate on constitutional recognition. They have launched the RECOGNISE HEALTH initiative to engage the health community in the debate around constitutional recognition. One hundred and seventeen health organisations have signed up to the statement. That is a pretty powerful group of people—health experts—who are saying that constitutional recognition is important for the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I would certainly recommend to my colleagues that, if you were not able to make it to the launch, you get hold of the material around constitutional recognition and RECOGNISE HEALTH. They have made an excellent four-minute video that has various health experts talking about the importance of constitutional recognition.

This is an important time in our history and in the development of our Constitution and I, for one, believe our Constitution cannot be regarded as being complete until we recognise the people who were the first occupants of this land. That is really important to the document. The document is not a truthful document until we do that. And until we take out the race provisions in the Constitution, I do not believe it properly reflects our country.

This is an important task we have embarked on. We need this additional time; but additional time cannot mean that we stop, or rest, or take it a little bit easy now because we have a little bit more time. Time to talk to the community is really important. Already I have heard from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that they are distressed about the delay. They do not feel like the leadership is there. If there is concern over the options that have been put up, then where are we going from here?

The joint parliamentary committee has put on the table a number of options. If the government indicates that they do not like those—and we did get some indication from the gala dinner in December that perhaps they do not—then where do we go from here? We need to be having a discussion about what we will accept. I can tell you that the clear message I have received from the community is that it has to be substantive, and there has to be broad support from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

The debate about sovereignty and treaty—I know that is controversial—is what is being raised. People need to be convinced that those issues are not off the table with constitutional recognition and that constitutional recognition does not undermine those issues. Those are important issues which are still up for debate and I am hoping we can continue that debate, during the time given by the extension of this act, so we can have those discussions. If we do not have those discussions I am very concerned that we will not get broad support for the changes so many people want to the Constitution. And, if you read the information about the importance of constitutional recognition for things like health, that is another reason we need to make sure we change our Constitution. The Greens will be supporting this bill.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (Sunset Extension) Bill 2015. This bill seeks to reaffirm three statements in legislation. I oppose the bill because I believe these three statements should not be in legislation. The first statement is as follows:

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.

This is conjecture. Archaeologists make extraordinary discoveries all the time, and one of those discoveries could be that someone made it to Australia before the Aborigines. Statements like this belong in scholarly research not legislation. Ever since the Enlightenment we have accepted that questions of fact are resolved by evidence not by decree. You cannot legislate a fact. The second statement is as follows:

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.

This is stereotyping. It is likely that some Aboriginal people do not have a relationship with traditional lands and waters. What is the parliament doing to these people when it asserts that Aboriginal peoples have such a relationship? It is denying their Aboriginality. The third statement is as follows:

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.

This is divisive. It is likely that some Australians do not respect the cultures, languages or heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. What is the parliament doing to these people when it asserts that the people of Australia respect Aboriginal cultures? It is casting them as un-Australian.

This bill also seeks to reaffirm a commitment to a referendum on constitutional recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Along with the other reasons, I oppose the bill because I oppose such a referendum and I oppose such constitutional recognition. Each of us can feel that our ancestry is important and each of us can celebrate this ancestry in our own way. Some celebrate ancestors who were here millennia ago; some celebrate ancestors who were on the First Fleet; and some celebrate ancestors who came on a more recent leaky boat. But no-one's ancestry is more important than another person's.

The Liberal Democrats and our sister party in the New South Wales election, the Outdoor Recreation Party, have policies on many issues. But we have no policies specific to Australia's Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. That is as it should be. Every human being in Australia is a person, equal before the law. Giving legal recognition to characteristics held by certain persons—particularly when those characteristics are inherent, like ancestry—represents a perverse sort of racism. Although it appears positive, it still singles some people out on the basis of race. This bill offends on many levels. It should not be approved.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2013, or the act of recognition, will sunset on 28 March 2015. The parliament is working towards a referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the Constitution. The sunset extension will ensure that we have the time needed to get it right. Allowing the act to lapse would be a step backwards on the path to recognition of our first peoples and would distract us from the ultimate goal of a constitutional change. This extension will ensure that parliament's recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continues up until that time. The extension is in line with the recommendations of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act of Recognition Review Panel's final report, tabled on 19 September 2014. The Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples also recommended an extension to the sunset date, in its progress report of October 2014.

I am actually quite proud to commend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition (Sunset Extension) Bill 2015 to the Senate today. I thank the senators for their contribution to the debate. I would like to particularly acknowledge Senator Siewert's contribution. You have the benefit of wisdom I do not have, in the sense that you are on the committee. I thank you for updating us about your particular views, and I am sure they are, in some ways, a reflection of that committee.

Senator Leyonhjelm, your contribution was, I guess, in some ways, no surprise to me. I mean no offence, but you have a very clinical view to legislation, and I respect that. But I would say to you, Senator Leyonhjelm, that, for those people who have no doubt listened carefully to your contribution, I think in finding a balance one of the things to do is to listen carefully to some of the issues Senator Siewert has uttered. I think it is a reflection of much of the evidence—which I know you are very interested in—of the connection between the health of a demographic of Australians and how these people feel connected to the community. Their mental health can have very deleterious consequences on their lives. In fact, these people often end their lives—factually, based on evidence—far earlier than those who are not in that particular demographic. The evidence shows the connection between the mental health of those people and the number of these people who take their own lives. This is peer assessed evidence and is not conjecture. So if we can, in a minimalist sense, amend our Constitution in a way that assists young boys becoming men and young girls becoming women, I think that is something we should support.

I am very glad that we have worked together in a multipartisan spirit to extend the sunset date of this important legislation as we move closer to a referendum on Indigenous recognition. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.