Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In March I introduced this bill, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022, to the 46th Parliament, and it is my pleasure to speak to it today. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, is an opportunity for the new Labor government to prove that they are committed to action, not symbolism, for First Nations people. Passing this bill would make honouring, respecting and protecting First Nations people's rights one of your first acts in government. This could be a historical moment. People in this building cannot claim to be serious about First Nations justice and hang up their dot paintings and call for black lives to matter if they vote against this bill. First Nations rights are human rights. If we want to make this country a better place we need to start taking human rights seriously.

This bill doesn't spell out exactly how the government needs to enact the UNDRIP. The bill instead requires the government to prepare an implementation plan to achieve the objectives of the UNDRIP, and to work towards ensuring that our current and future laws respect First Nations rights. Passing this bill means putting First People in the driver's seat when it comes to making decisions about our communities, our culture and our country.

The UNDRIP is the most comprehensive international instrument on the rights of indigenous people around the world and not just of First Nations people of this continent we now call Australia. The UNDRIP establishes a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity and wellbeing of first nations peoples. It also expands on existing human rights and freedoms as they apply to indigenous peoples worldwide and to First Nations people of this continent. The UNDRIP is particularly significant because First Nations people of this country—our elders, academics and activists—were involved in its drafting.

The UNDRIP covers human rights relating to first nations peoples, including self-determination, participation in decision-making, respect and protection for culture, and equality and non-discrimination. These are all essential demands my people have been fighting for ever since the colonisation of this country. We don't have to wait until next year, or for a referendum, to start protecting and promoting First Nations rights. The declaration was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2007. This country was one of just four countries to vote against it at the time.

While the Australian government finally endorsed the UNDRIP in 2009 and committed at international forums to take actions to implement it, we have seen nothing—no meaningful action. The Australian government identified that Closing the Gap was a strategy to key policy reform and that it would give effect to the declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. However, most of the measures under the strategy are woefully lacking in ambition and, despite this, most are not on track to be met at all. Closing the Gap is a farce.

Our people have waited long enough. All we have received are broken promises, lip-service and straight-up lies. We are not willing to wait anymore. We are dying at the hands of a racist system. Our children and land were stolen, and are still being stolen today; our country, culture and languages destroyed—even today. But we are strong and we are capable, despite this racist system trying to destroy us. We have fought and we'll continue to fight until we finally have some justice. The time to act is now.

One of the key aspects of the UNDRIP is free, prior and informed consent. 'Free' means that we're able to make our own choices, without coercion. 'Prior' means that we have adequate time to make those decisions. 'Informed' means that we have all of the relevant information before making our decision. Now, I don't think that's too much to ask. It enables us to protect country and sacred sites. Free, prior and informed consent would have saved the Juukan Gorge. It would have saved and stopped fracking at the Beetaloo, and it would save the Djab Wurrung trees on my country. It would mean that First Nations people are in charge of the policies that affect us, and would enable us to say no. These policies would, therefore, be much more effective at closing the gap.

By enacting UNDRIP, we will finally have to look properly at our decision-making processes and have different levels of government work with First Nations communities around the country to ensure that they are being genuinely consulted and that their opinions are genuinely and respectfully heard. For some of you, auditing our laws, policies and practices as to whether they comply with the UNDRIP, and then developing an action on actually how to change them, as this bill would require, might seem daunting or even threatening. It is going to take time and it will not be easy. Sometimes it will be painful—for many, I'm sure. But to me it does not seem daunting. To me it seems, among many other things, that there will be fewer First Nations communities seeking my help because their country or their sacred sites are being threatened with destruction by mining companies. To me, the thought that this country could be so courageous as to look at its past and present and learn from it, and to improve what we are doing, fills me with hope. It fills me with hope that there could be a brighter future ahead—not just for First Nations people but for everyone in this country. We are building a more just and equal society that respects human dignity and human rights.

Canada has already passed its United Nations Declaration on the Rights for Indigenous Peoples, and New Zealand has established a working group whose report outlines a political aspiration to meet compliance with the UNDRIP. This is our moment to lead the way in this country for First Nations justice internationally. This is the moment. We have a so-called progressive Labor government who want a voice to parliament, who want to talk truth and who want to talk treaty, so this is the moment. We have the power to do this now. We don't have to worry about the opposition, who want to bring this down and who see it as a threat. It's not going to take people's homes. It is no threat. It is to empower the oldest continuing living culture on this earth.

Today, I urge all my colleagues in this place to put your actions into words. Put your Black Lives Matter posters into words. Put your dot paintings, and your support of hanging those in your offices, into words. We can, together, improve the lives of First Nations people in this country. I look forward to working with you all and getting on with business. I hope that we don't hear too much racism in this place as we progress First Nations rights and justice. And I remind you all again—living on stolen land means you have a responsibility, and this is your responsibility today. Uphold the rights of Indigenous people in this country and show leadership, once and for all, that we are—or that we are on the path to be—a united nation.

Patrick Dodson (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill. I listened very closely to my colleague over there, Senator Thorpe, and the passion behind it. In earlier years, I went to Geneva to help work on this declaration under the great leadership of Madam Diaz on a subcommittee of the human rights commission. So my association with this bill goes back a long way, as do these sentiments and this declaration. I move:

At the end of the motion, add "and:

(a) the bill be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs for inquiry and report;

(b) in conducting the inquiry, the committee may consider the relevant evidence and records of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee relating to its inquiry into the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Australia in the 46th Parliament; and

(c) further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the first day of sitting after the committee presents its report".

My amendment would refer the bill to the newly constituted Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs.

The adoption of the declaration by the United Nations General Assembly in 2017 was an historic moment for First Nations peoples around the world. It was the culmination of more than 20 years of negotiations, which included notable First Nations leaders from this country. It stands as the most comprehensive international instrument on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Eighteen countries around the world apply human rights standards to First Nations peoples. It is a source of shame that Australia under the Howard government was one of only four nations to vote against the 2007 resolution in the General Assembly. It is a source of pride to those of us on this side of the chamber that in the Rudd Labor government reversed this position and formally expressed Australia's support for the declaration.

While non-binding, the declaration carries significant moral force. The government supports the aspirational principles underlying the declaration, and we agree with the intent of this bill, that we should align our actions to these principles. This bill is closely modelled on legislation that was first passed in Canada last year. That legislation provides a useful model and starting point for our country as it moves towards a greater implementation of the important principles of this declaration. But it is important to make sure that a meaningful consultation with First Nations peoples on this bill and the best methods of implementing the UNDRIP takes place in our country.

Earlier this year the Senate referred an inquiry into the application in Australia of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee References Committee. This inquiry lapsed after the last parliament but not before 992 people and organisations had made submissions, many of which supported the need for better implementation of the declaration. Those who made submissions include the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Law Council and multiple First Nations individuals and organisations. The work that has gone into these submissions deserves our attention as we consider and take the next steps towards implementing the declaration. That is why the second reading amendment I have moved this morning will ensure that a new inquiry will be established with references to these submissions and work that was done in the last parliament. An inquiry in this committee will have the ability to hear from the First Nations and other Australians directly on how they want the declaration to be implemented. Importantly, it will also be able to hear expert evidence about how the Canadian law is working in practice.

It's worth acknowledging that the Canadian act has not been without criticism from First Nations Canadians. This include the criticism that it was passed without sufficient community engagement. At the time that it was passed, Canadian academics Ken Coates and Heather Exner-Perot wrote in the Vancouver Sun:

Properly done, the legislation could be a unifying and transformative act … Instead, this legislation was introduced in December in the midst of the pandemic, rushed through a truncated House of Commons agenda under closure, and is being pushed along with minimal public engagement or interest.

We can and should take time to ensure meaningful consultation on this bill. Indeed, this is at the heart of the declaration itself. Article 19 of the declaration states:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

This article is one of the most important parts of the declaration, and we should honour it in the way we consider the implementation of the declaration itself in Australian law and policy. This does not mean we have to, and we won't, wait to move forward on the changes that are consistent with the declaration and which improve the lives of First Nations peoples. This government has an historically ambitious First Nations agenda, and we look forward to working closely with Senator Thorpe and the Greens on that.

We have committed to policies that are intended to improve people's lives in real ways, particularly in remote and regional Australia. This includes replacing the punitive Community Development Program with real jobs and real wages in remote communities; addressing incarceration and deaths in custody through landmark justice reinvestment funding; investing in housing in remote communities, including funding for homelands to support people to have better quality of life and greater connection with culture; addressing getting more First Nations health workers and more community workers to assist women and children experiencing family violence in remote communities; and doubling funding for Indigenous ranger programs.

Labor established the first Closing the Gap framework in 2008, and we will work with the Coalition of Peaks and all levels of government to raise the ambition of the current targets. And, of course, we have committed to full implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, with a great speech by our Prime Minister at Garma just on the last weekend. This weekend, I was proud to stand alongside the Prime Minister as he took the next steps towards a referendum on a voice to the parliament. He told the participants at the Garma Festival on Yolngu land:

Australia does not have to choose between improving peoples' lives and amending the Constitution.

We can do both—and we have to.

Because 121 years of Commonwealth governments arrogantly believing they know enough to impose their own solutions on Aboriginal people have brought us to this point.

This torment of powerlessness.

Implementing the Uluru statement in full will be a significant step forward in the protection and upholding of the rights of First Nations people. The words the Prime Minister has proposed for the Constitution are derived from the work done by many committed Australians: First Nations and non-Indigenous people. This includes some of the same leaders who represented Australia in the international negotiations that resulted in this declaration.

The proposed words for the Constitution are simple and straightforward, and I take the opportunity to repeat them in the Senate chamber today:

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

These provisions would be accompanied by a simple question:

Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?

As elected representatives, we have a chance to bring our communities together in this historic moment to answer that question with a resounding yes. I urge everyone in this chamber to come with us on this journey. I urge you to accept the hand of the First Nations peoples as generously as they extended it in our direction. I urge you to walk with us in unity to a better and more reconciled future, to realise the hopes and aspirations that Senator Thorpe and others have spoken about.

We are in a very exciting time. We have got many challenges, but we have got serious reforms to make. I look forward to working with all of you in this chamber on both goals: getting a successful referendum to establish a voice in our Constitution and working to make sure that, through the committee's work, the principles of the declaration will deliver the positives that we all hope for.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022 presented to the chamber by Senator Thorpe. I was reflecting on this bill over the weekend, as I spent my time listening to Territorians speak of the challenges experienced living in two worlds, and how we require honest and practical approaches to thrive living in a modern world with an ancient culture.

This bill is not a practical approach; it is a declaration. It is not a treaty. It is not binding under international law. Therefore, Australia is not required to enact the declaration in Australian law. We are one nation with one law and many belief systems of faith that personally guide us on ways of living.

There are dangers of recognising customary law under the United Nations declaration. The voices of the women and children that are subject to brutal sexual violence and misappropriated payback do not serve any human right. We must stop this divisive virtue signalling. This bill is an unnecessary distraction from the important work that needs to be done—that we, as a coalition, have heavily invested in. We call on the Albanese government to continue to advance the practical measures to support our most vulnerable.

We, the coalition, will always be focused on practical outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This Labor-Greens government should be focused on holding the state and territory governments and the Aboriginal organisations to account for the billions of dollars being poured in to alleviate disadvantage for the most marginalised Australians. They are not meeting their funding agreements.

One of the most basic human rights is to feel safe and to have access to safe housing. In the Northern Territory, the Labor minister for housing fought against these basic human rights by countersuing an Aboriginal organisation. The minister for housing at the time, Chansey Paech, did not want to acknowledge the human rights of Aboriginal residents and humane conditions in their rental homes. He was prepared to have his department stand up in court and argue that position. Get housing delivery right first, I say—a practical, basic human right. Significant practical work was done under the coalition government to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. This practical work reflects the aims of the declaration.

In government, the coalition invested in the human rights of Indigenous Australians. In government, the coalition appointed June Oscar AO as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. The commissioner works as part of the Australian Human Rights Commission on anti-discrimination and human rights for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. This weekend I was listening to the important work that she has been doing, and I look forward to meeting her in the not-so-distant future.

The coalition government addressed this basic practical human right by investing in housing. Under the National Partnership for Remote Housing in the Northern Territory, the coalition government contributed $550 million, matched by the Northern Territory to equal $1.1 billion over five years, to deliver 1,950 new bedrooms in remote communities through a combination of new houses and extensions to existing housing. The former Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, called out the minister for housing, citing he was alarmingly concerned that the Northern Territory Labor government was not delivering the houses that it was funded to deliver.

In regard to the human rights of children and child protection, on 10 December 2021 the coalition government delivered Safe and supported: the national framework for protecting Australia’s children 2021-2031, the successor plan to the National framework for protecting Australia’s children 2009-2020. Safe and supported was developed in partnership with all states and territories and an Indigenous leadership group with a focus on improving outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. On 27 October the Australian government launched Australia's first National strategy to prevent and respond to child sexual abuse 2021-30, the national strategy. It includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as a priority group.

Under the coalition, the Department of Social Services commenced delivery of a package of four new measures, under the Closing the Gap implementation plan, to deliver on target 12: $49 million over five years to improve multidisciplinary responses to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families with multiple and complex needs; $7.7 million over three years to develop the cultural competency and trauma responsiveness of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous child and family sector workforce; $3.2 million over two years to assess the needs of, increase the involvement of and strengthen Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community controlled organisations in the child and family sector; and $38.6 million over three years for an outcomes and evidence fund to support the commissioning and implementation of outcome based funding.

In the coalition's last budget we also undertook to make significant investment to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians: $1.1 billion for a range of measures to support the new agreement on closing the gap, and this included $254.4 million to improve existing or build new health infrastructure to deliver services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities; $81.8 million to help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to be safe, healthy and ready to thrive in school, by the age of five, by expanding the Connected Beginnings program by an additional 27 sites; $74.9 million to build three additional studio schools in remote areas and refurbish another school into the studio schools format, to provide education on country and build relationships with culture and local community; $66 million to expand existing alcohol and drug services, to be funded through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy; and $45 million to continue to work to improve the birth weight of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and improve health outcomes. The coalition extended the National Partnership on Northern Territory Remote Aboriginal Investment by $173.2 million, which takes the total investment to over $1 billion since 2015-16.

We have to continue to focus on practical outcomes in this house and to not be consuming our time on unnecessary debate that will take away time from discussing legislative debate that will bring practical improvements for all Australians.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an honour to follow Senator Price, a woman, a person, an Australian of integrity; a deeply caring and informed person; a practical person.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I wish to indicate some concerns I have about this bill, which is both divisive and, mostly, unnecessary. Our country is Australia. Our country consists of people from many nations, cultures and religions and from many racial groups providing a rich tapestry of positive contributions to our Australian nation. What we do not want or need is legislation that picks out a particular cultural group and makes laws aimed at that particular cultural group, driving a potentially divisive wedge between Aboriginal Australians and other Australians. It does not matter where a person comes from or what that person's cultural or racial background is. 'I am, you are, we are Australian' are the words of a well-known theme song. And it's true. We know that, and we do not need legislation that is geared to a 'them and us' mentality that leads to a 'them versus us' mentality.

This bill is intended to affirm into Australian domestic law the contents and intention of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is a requirement necessary before the UN declaration provisions become enforceable in Australian law. Aboriginal Australians, as Australians, already have the same rights as any other Australian right now. If there are gaps in services available to Aboriginal Australians, these gaps are due to poverty and remoteness, issues that affect many isolated people across our country. It's the failings of successive governments to adequately address health, housing, education and infrastructure that have led to many people, Aboriginal and otherwise, to fall into the poverty gap. I call on the Australian government to address these issues with priority before considering this bill, which is unnecessary and does nothing more than acknowledge what is already in place for all Australians.

This bill perpetuates the victimhood of Aboriginal people. It places blame on the past cultural divide for the current plight of some Aboriginal minorities. There are many Aboriginal people in Australia who have access to free education, have worked hard and have prospered as Australians in the broader community. I followed one in this speaking roster. They do not need this bill. There are many Aboriginal Australians who would be offended by the content of this bill, which virtually enshrines a them-and-us mentality.

The most divisive clause in this bill is clause 7, which throws blame on colonisation for all the ills that prevent their right to develop in accord with their own needs and interests. All of this is in the face of facts, including that determined native title claims now cover approximately half of the Australian land mass, Aboriginal Australians represent approximately 3½ per cent of Australia's population and all Aboriginal children are entitled to scholarships to continue education through high school and beyond. Assistance to Aboriginal families has now become an enviable yet divisive issue within small remote communities where other minorities in similar living conditions are not able to access assistance at the same level. This is where the true problem lies. Treating Australians differently on the basis of race is racist, scientifically false, legally questionable, morally condemnable and socially unjust. It is simply wrong.

I want to draw the chamber's attention to three words: care, core and cure. That is what we must do if we really care for people. We care enough to get the facts, to understand the core issue. Then, and only then, do we have any right to impose a cure or to propose a cure. Greens and Labor do the reverse—cure first and ignore the core. That shows they do not care. To truly care for any group of people, we need to care enough to understand their issues, and that means listening and having the courage to really listen, and then we must have the courage and the integrity to address those issues. Virtue signalling is hollow, dishonest and uncaring. Following the UN is hollow, dishonest, uncaring, and it means selling out Australians, all Australians. I do not support this bill.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Look, I think it's important—and it's been good—to hear previous speakers on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022, and I do think that some clarity around a bit of the history is important, certainly for me, as I also reflect on the importance of this bill before the Senate. Every senator has that right. It's why we're chosen and elected as senators to this place.

We certainly support the principles of the declaration. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007. If we reflect on that year, 2007—and if I think about my time in parliament, both here and in the Northern Territory—that was also the year when the John Howard prime ministership and the government intervened into the Northern Territory. I think these are critical moments in history, whichever way people choose to look at them. That intervention in the Northern Territory continued until only last month.

When I reflect on that intervention, for those of us who were in the Northern Territory parliament, it was perhaps one of the most significant moments of disempowerment as an elected member of parliament in the Northern Territory at that particular time, because we didn't know what was going on. I certainly didn't know. I was not in the cabinet at the time; I'm sure they would have a different response to that. But, for an elected member for north-east Arnhem Land, representing thousands of Territorians, not being able to have an opportunity to understand, defend, debate or discuss what was going on was in the minds of the then government, so it comes as no surprise that, in the year of the declaration at the United Nations, the Australian government of the day did not sign the declaration to have the same concerns for First Nations people in unity with First Nations countries around the world. Obviously, we were one of the four that did not sign it at the time.

It wasn't until the Rudd Labor government came in late in 2007. In 2009 they then did sign this declaration otherwise known as UNDRIP. Australia then joined the international community and expressed its support for the declaration. The first thing that Prime Minister Rudd knew that he had to do was also to show that this was an Australia that did have compassion, that did listen to First Nations people, that did agree with the world stage in terms of the declaration for the rights of Indigenous people around the world.

The declaration sets out non-binding principles regarding the fundamental human rights of Indigenous peoples for nations to work towards. The Australian government supports the aspirational principles underlying this declaration. We're clearly still seeing some of the fallout from the intervention in terms of not having an exit strategy. I think for anyone or any government to make such a massive decision—irrespective of political persuasion, when you intervene so dramatically in the lives of a population, there must always be a significant step out from that intervention, and that exit strategy was not clear.

That exit strategy is something that we now have had to pick up. We have to try to work with the people of the Northern Territory on how we step out from that. It is unfortunate on one level, because we know that this was not urgent in terms of the time lapse of the stronger futures legislation. The fact that there was no urgency in the time lapse showed that there could have been much better planning to step out of something where a group of people had been intervened on so dramatically and then were left to deal with that fallout because of stepping out of it with an appropriate exit strategy. In fact, I do recall that even the former coalition foreign minister, Alexander Downer, in 2007 suggested what the intervention could have meant for political gain for the coalition. He said:

… when we intervened in the Northern Territory in the Indigenous communities there again, the actual initiative was very popular with the public but it didn't shift the opinion polls.

The reason I share this and remind the Senate is that we need to reflect on why it was that the Australian parliament did not sign up to this declaration in 2007.

This bill should be referred to a committee to finish the inquiry of the last parliament. I know my colleague Senator Dodson has made references to it as well. On 29 March 2022, the Senate referred the application in Australia of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry. Now, that committee was to report to this Senate by 15 September, but clearly that inquiry lapsed. We went to an election and we're back here. So we certainly encourage that inquiry to pick up, because 92 people and organisations made submissions, which are listed on the inquiry's webpage. This includes submissions from First Nations land councils, legal services and peak bodies. We want to hear from them, and I would urge the Senate to support this inquiry and enable all those submitters and more to have their opportunity to speak to this bill through the inquiry.

Since being appointed Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians and Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health, I've met with a range of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and national leadership bodies, including the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation and the National Health Leadership Forum, and I had the honour of meeting with organisations that are part of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Council on family, domestic and sexual violence. The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan highlights that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a right to culturally safe and responsive health care free of racism and inequity. I note the valuable submissions from organisations such as the Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory and the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency. I also note the very strong desire of many organisations to see a First Nations voice enshrined in the Constitution.

We want to make sure there is meaningful consultation with First Nations people on this bill, and we should not ignore those submissions that have been received already. Article 19 of the UN declaration states:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

We should align our actions to the principles and intent of the declaration. We know that similar legislation was put in place in Canada last year and we're aware that some First Nations peoples in Canada raised concerns about its implementation—and we recognise that it is early days. So we want to ensure that there is meaningful consultation with Australia's First Nations peoples on this bill. We propose that the application of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples be referred to this committee to complete the inquiry.

On this side of the house, we have a plan to deliver a better future for Indigenous people in Australia, and I'd like to talk about some of the areas that I have responsibility for, which I'm incredibly proud to be able to work towards over this term, knowing, though, of course, how challenging it will be. We certainly took to the election the importance of replacing the Community Development Program with real jobs and real wages. Now, that will be a significant challenge, but one that we are up to. We have made reference, especially here in the Senate—and I know I've spoken about it over the last few years—to the previous program, the Community Development Employment Program. There are around 40,000 Australians on the current CDP, and it is not working, and that's a clear fact.

With the jobs summit that we will have in September, I'm pushing, along with Senator Dodson and, obviously, Linda Burney as the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, to ensure that we do have those representatives from the sector. For example, the Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation, ALPA, does an extraordinarily excellent job in employing First Nations people throughout its stores, not only in the Top End but also in Far North Queensland—the work that they do, especially in places like Milingimbi, where they not only run the store but have a wonderful furniture factory. It's awesome; it really is. They are working locally to design some of the most beautiful pieces of furniture, which are now in boardrooms across Australia and overseas. That furniture comes from this very small island which is part of the Crocodile Islands. They make incredible furniture and they are so proud of that. I think if we can have input from organisations like ALPA and from Manapan, who runs the furniture industry, at the jobs summit in September then we can start to really engage again as to how we work with the over 40,000 Australians on this current CDP program, which we know is failing, and how we move that to the areas where we want it in terms of better conditions, better jobs, obviously superannuation and all the kinds of leave entitlements that we would like to see as part of that. It will be a challenge, and I do look forward to trying to address that.

As part of my role in health I'm quite excited about this initiative, and it is about training 500 new First Nations health workers to increase access to lifesaving dialysis treatment for those living with chronic kidney disease and expand efforts to eradicate rheumatic heart disease in remote communities. One of the places that comes to mind with rheumatic heart disease is the work that's being done in particular in places like Manigrida.

Labor will invest in First Nations conservation of our land and waters by doubling the Indigenous rangers program. Can I take this moment to congratulate all those rangers out there across Australia because Sunday was World Ranger Day, so a huge congratulations to all of those rangers right across the country who do what you can to look after country and to look after our waterways. I know many of you thoroughly enjoy what you do. But we certainly want to keep supporting those First Nations ranger programs and the conservation in those areas.

We're also boosting funding for Indigenous protected areas by $10 million a year and delivering the promised cultural water in the Murray-Darling Basin. As I said, we want to strengthen economic and job opportunities for First Nations people and communities through a new public sector employment target and public reporting by Australia's 200 largest companies. I do look forward to bringing that back as something that I will be monitoring to see what those companies are doing to assist. We're certainly going to renew Australia's commitment to reconciliation and work in genuine partnership with First Nations people for better practical outcomes. And there is no doubt, after the weekend in Garma on Yolngu country, that I'm incredibly proud to represent the people of the Northern Territory and continue the passion and the fire that burns to see our country go to a referendum to see First Nations people with a voice to parliament enshrined in the Australian Constitution. I encourage all Australians to have open and respectful debate, irrespective of whether we agree or disagree. But let's keep it respectful.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I absolutely agree with Senator McCarthy that it's absolutely crucially important that we have respectful, open, courteous debate in relation to this matter. I have been listening, during the course of this debate, to all the contributions made by all senators in relation to this matter very, very closely. I'd like to make a few preliminary comments, if I could, and at the outset let me say that I think there's considerable merit in Senator Dodson's proposed amendment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022 that the matter be referred to the relevant joint standing committee. I was serving on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, which simply ran out of time in terms of conducting its inquiry in relation to these matters. As Senator Dodson has rightly observed, there were hundreds of submissions made to that committee and those submissions need to be carefully considered by, I believe, the relevant joint standing committee for this matter to be properly progressed. I think that is important.

I was reading the debate last night in the Canadian parliament in relation to the bill in Canada that has been referred to in the context of this debate. It was clear to me that there were objections coming from all sides in relation to the rush that bill had in terms of progressing through the Canadian parliament. That was a source of friction between various sides in the Canadian parliament, and I think it would be a great shame if this bill were not given the consideration, which it certainly does deserve, through our committee processes. I think we should all aim to avoid the situation that occurred in Canada, where the debate became quite fractious. I think that was a factor of the time; there just wasn't enough time for all the views to be considered in the context of the bill. In particular, I bring to the attention of the Senate that one of the issues that was raised in the debate was the concept of free, prior and informed consent, and how that would work in practice in the Canadian context. I'll speak further about that matter shortly.

The second preliminary point I'd like to make is in relation to the reasons why the Australian government in 2007 did not endorse the UN declaration, and that has been referred to. I think it is important to place on the record the concerns in good faith that the 2007 Australian government had with respect to the declaration. I'd like to place on the record a quote from my good friend the former senator George Brandis, who served as Attorney-General of this country under the previous government, or previous governments. This is a quote which was attributed to him in a Sydney Morning Herald article on 26 March 2009, written by Mr Julian Drape: 'Of most concern is that the declaration seeks to establish special sectorial exemptions for one section of the community to the exclusion of others. There is no room in Australia for different rights attaching to different citizens, differentiated only by race.' So that was the concern as expressed by my good friend, then senator, George Brandis in relation to the context of this debate, and there is a legitimate point of inquiry in relation to the references made in the UN declaration to customary law, traditional law, in the context of the Australian legal system. I think that should be recognised as quite a legitimate point that needs to be considered in the context of this debate. I think it's important that that articulation of the previous government's reasons for not endorsing the declaration should be placed on the record.

I'd like to reflect on a comment which Senator Thorpe made in introducing the bill. Senator Thorpe, quite rightly, made the comment that the bill does not set out how to enact the declaration in relation to specific laws. Basically, it sets a framework for the declaration to be advanced in the context of Australian laws. It is very similar, in that respect, to the Canadian bill which I referred to earlier. The point which causes me some concern, and which should be a matter of inquiry by the joint standing committee, is whether or not that is the best approach, or whether or not the best approach is actually to look at a particular area of law—for example, safeguarding cultural heritage—and then seek to progress proposed amendments to that law. Some might say this would better reflect the intention and objectives of the UN declaration as opposed to starting with the process of introducing, holus-bolus, the declaration, giving it force of law and then seeking to apply it to individual situations. I think there's a lot of merit in that, and I think it would actually help to bring people together if the detail of how the declaration would apply in a particular context were considered.

I believe that a good place to start would be in relation to cultural heritage. In particular, I say that mindful of the disgraceful occurrence which occurred recently in relation to the Juukan Gorge. I note that considerable work was done in relation to proposed amendments relating to cultural heritage in that context, and the committee drew very heavily in terms of the references to the UN declaration in that regard and did an analysis as to whether or not the existing laws at both the national and state levels adequately reflected the intent and objectives of the UN declaration. So, from my perspective, I would like to see how the declaration would impact in practice upon some of the most important areas of law with respect to Indigenous rights in this country. Maybe cultural heritage laws would be a good place to start in working on the foundation established by the committee which produced the report into the Juukan Gorge disaster—there's no other word for it. As someone who worked in the mining industry for many, many years, what occurred in that case is an absolute blight, a shameful blight, on the mining industry.

I'd also like to make some comments in terms of the concept of free, prior and informed consent; Senator Thorpe rightly referred to this concept as one of the cornerstones of the UN declaration. In doing so I bring to this place perhaps a different perspective. As someone who worked in the mining industry for a company that adhered to the highest standards of environmental and social licence, I had occasion, in different jurisdictions around the world, to consider this concept of free, prior and informed consent—in particular in the wonderful country of Papua New Guinea—in relation to projects. I think it is important that everyone understand what that concept means. Free, as Senator Thorpe says—no coercion, intimidation or manipulation. And that means coercion from any side. Certainly in other jurisdictions overseas I've seen instances where people were bussed into meetings in order to intimidate, to coerce and to frustrate the exercise of free consent. So the consent must be free. Secondly: prior. It needs to be prior. It needs to be in sufficient advance of whatever is proposed so there can be truly meaningful discussion at a local Indigenous level in relation to whatever is proposed. And that prior consent must be informed by all the relevant information that the people on the ground, the Indigenous landholders and rights holders, need to have to make fully-informed consent. And that needs to be in the context where things can change on the ground; what was originally proposed may well change.

During my time in Papua New Guinea I had quite considerable interaction with a project in PNG called the Ok Tedi project. In the Ok Tedi project originally it was proposed that the mining waste, the tailings, would be deposited into a tailings dam. At the end of the day—it was a factor of geology as much as anything, unstable geology—the tailings dam failed and, therefore, it was decided that the tailings would be deposited into the Ok Tedi, in the Ok Tedi flows into the Fly River. But that was something in relation to which there was no free, prior and informed consent of the local people. The project fundamentally changed. And years later there was a consultation process in relation to 'what should happen now?', after the project had fundamentally changed and after it was absolutely impossible to reverse the damage that had been done in relation to the Fly River in particular. So that information is absolutely crucial in relation to the concept of free, prior and informed consent.

And it has to be consent. What does that mean? What does that mean in different contexts? Senator Thorpe referred to the Beetaloo basin. Not wanting to go into the dynamics or the intricacies of what happened in that case, suffice to say there are no doubt different views as to whether or not consent was given in relation to the Beetaloo basin. So what constitutes consent in this context? I think that is a matter which properly should be considered in depth by the joint standing committee. An example in terms of processes in my experience in Papua New Guinea was that on occasions project promoters needed to actively ensure that women were involved in terms of the consultation process—that they actually attended the meetings that occurred in relation to potential projects. The issue of obtaining consent from men and women in relation to these projects is absolutely important. So: free, prior and informed consent. Of course, in order to give that consent, the relevant parties need to have access to appropriate expertise and resources, to make sure that they are represented by people with expertise in relation to these matters and are receiving all of the relevant information.

In summary, I think there is great merit in referring this matter to a joint standing committee. I think we should also reflect very carefully on the contributions made in this place, both last week and in this debate, by Senator Nampijinpa Price as she was talking about the practical issues on the ground in some of our Indigenous communities.

I was looking at the declaration, and there are a number of articles which I circled, which, we should always remember, are also part of this declaration. Article 7 says:

Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person.

That's absolutely fundamental, and we should make sure everyone, in every community across Australia, has that right. Article 11, subarticle 2 says:

States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent …

Article 22 says:

Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities in the implementation of this Declaration.

Article 24 says: 'Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices,' and subarticle 2 says:

Indigenous individuals have an equal right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. States shall take the necessary steps with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of this right.

I think there are many in the 46 articles of the declaration which we should all reflect upon in terms of considering whether or not we're meeting the relevant standard. The declaration does have moral force, as Senator Dodson referred to. It should be a cause for deep reflection, and, in my view, this is a matter which, given its serious nature, should be considered in depth by the relevant joint standing committee.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022. It is, in fact, the first time in this country's history that the federal government has moved closer towards enshrining our rights as First Nations people into our domestic law. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—or UNDRIP, as it's commonly known—was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 13 September 2007. In my opinion, it is the best mechanism by which we can enact our sovereign rights as First Peoples of this country, which, in fact, have been denied since 1788.

In 2007, as Senator Dodson also remarked, 144 countries voted in favour of UNDRIP. If you want to know what shame looks like, it looks like Australia being one of those four countries that voted against the UNDRIP.

The Rudd government finally endorsed the UNDRIP in 2009. But that announcement was, in fact, quite meaningless. It was meaningless because it has not actually translated into the implementation of the UNDRIP into our laws, until now. During the final sitting week of the 46th Parliament, it was in fact the Australian Greens who established an inquiry into the application of the UNDRIP in this country, and, through a motion co-signed by Senator Thorpe and me, we also introduced Senator Thorpe's private senator's bill to compel this government—the new government; the one we knew we were going to get—to implement the UNDRIP. And I acknowledge the work that Senator Dodson has done on UNDRIP in his previous life.

There are two wings that are the first steps to implementing UNDRIP into our laws, into our policies and—this is what the opposition and coalition talk about—in our practice. It includes a full audit of our existing laws, our policies and our practises to ensure that we are, in fact, compliant with UNDRIP. This is a foundational piece of future work. The UNDRIP provides a road map for the future—a future that is built on the international principles that were designed by sovereign people and sovereign nations for First Peoples globally—not by governments. I reiterate: not by governments. It upholds First Nations peoples' right to care for country and for community, which encompasses language, kinship and all of those things that are important as part of culture, and which benefit everyone in this country, especially in the context of a climate crisis, which is what we're in.

We all know that the climate crisis will disproportionately impact First Peoples of this country, and it is time for us to act. First Peoples have 60,000-plus years of knowledge that have helped preserve the environment in this country and globally, particularly with biodiversity. It is up to us. We all have a responsibility, which Senator Thorpe articulated already, and we rely on our lands, our waters and our skies, to survive. Likewise, our lands, our waters and our skies rely on us to survive.

UNDRIP is about First Nations people having the final say on First Nations affairs. The Albanese Labor government agree wholeheartedly that our cultural heritage laws are too weak, and they want to work with First Nations people. They bandy around the word 'co-design', so let's get to the crux of that. What does that actually mean? It's about our free, prior and informed consent, one of the critical elements of UNDRIP. That, in fact, is what Senator Scarr was referring to when he talked about Juukan. It is protecting our country, our cultural heritage and our people, and it is referenced in article 2 of UNDRIP, which says:

Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination—

Fortunately, that doesn't happen in this place!

in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.

The UNDRIP is about bringing people together to build communities that are free from discrimination. As my colleague Senator Thorpe also noted earlier, UNDRIP will enshrine that key principle of free, prior and informed consent, also known as FPIC, and put it at the heart of decision-making. It emphasises that First Nations people have the right to full and effective participation at any and every stage of action that affects or indirectly affects our lives. The requirement to seek genuine free, prior and informed consent will completely change the way governments and proponents seek approval for projects that affect our land, our skies and our waters, and will put an end to the coercion and manipulation that we currently see, time and time again, across all levels of government and across all levels of industry.

When it comes to development proposals on our land, we will put an end to the half-baked consultation that is approving the destruction of our cultural heritage. Unfortunately, they give that promise of jobs. What jobs? Those jobs are still unfulfilled promises, particularly on my country. We've seen it at Juukan, and right now we're seeing it in real-time with the Perdaman urea fertiliser plant up in Karratha.

I'd like to take some time to share some of the views made in submission to the inquiry on this bill by the Australian Greens First Nations Network which outlines the potential impacts that UNDRIP could have:

The Australian Greens major policy for First Nations peoples has as its foundation the UN DRIP … We believe that enacting the DRIP into domestic legislation will protect the human, civil and social, political, and economic, cultural rights of First Nations peoples in Australia and is urgently needed given the oppressive policies of generations of governments since 1788 which has not recognised our sovereign rights, nor treated us equally under Australian Law since then.

It is now time. It is time for governments to step up in this place and to take the next steps to implement UNDRIP. This is in fact a very powerful tool. It will fight for the rights of Indigenous people. It will make sure that they are enshrined in domestic law across all of those elements which are important in the human rights framework. I look forward to working with my colleagues in this place.

Debate interrupted.