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

As some of you may be aware in this place, the Greens have a bill currently before the standing committee on Indigenous issues called the Truth and Justice Commission Bill 2024. The aim of this legislation is to create a commission that will take an honest look into this country's past and then take a look into the future. It's about facing the truth so that real progress can be made. Sometimes that truth is painful to tell but also painful to hear. When we have faced the truth, when this country has started to understand its own past, what will we need to do with what we have learned and where we will go from there?

An important step is also the next chapter of treaty. We'll probably need more than one treaty, and the work is already in progress in some states and territories. We will need formal agreements between the First Nations people of this continent and the states and also with the Commonwealth of Australia. The road to that destination starts with truth-telling, and there will be a long, winding path that requires determination and political change alongside political will.

Let's be honest with ourselves and recognise the difficulties. Let's look at the experiences of first peoples or indigenous peoples from across the world. Policymakers, academics and people who care about these issues sometimes look to countries like New Zealand and Canada in considering their own approach to treaties with their first peoples.

When we look at the experiences overseas, we see that we'll need to think about how First Nations people and settlers distribute land through federal treaties. Putting the states aside for now, when you look at treaty processes in both New Zealand and Canada, there are three major challenges Australia will have to face in developing a federal treaty. The challenges are about representation, language, and constitutional enshrinement.

Firstly, the representation of different Indigenous nations' perspectives—particularly on the distribution of land—is very complicated, especially when Indigenous cultures don't have neat and tidy representative structures that non-Indigenous institutions can easily understand. The process is even more difficult if non-Indigenous institutions don't want to understand or, in fact, try and interpret this through their power.

Secondly, settler colonial language is usually privileged in treaties, and Indigenous languages are diminished or misrepresented. Concepts used to describe the distribution of land, including sovereignty, are English cultural conceptualisations, and Indigenous cultural conceptualisations are often left out of the picture. Once again, the problem is worse if non-Indigenous institutions see an advantage in ignoring the different ways of thinking, using their power to challenge our authenticity and, ultimately, our sovereignty.

Thirdly, constitutionally enshrining treaties can be complex. There are overseas cases, particularly from New Zealand, where constitutional enshrinement has actually hindered arbitration of land claims, because both indigenous and settler perspectives may change in the future. On the other hand, the lack of constitutional enshrinement can enable greater politicisation of land claims, which we've seen particularly here in Australia over time.

It seems that, based on overseas experience, we have to make sure that our treaty negotiations include Indigenous ways of thinking and knowing, not just Indigenous participation in negotiations. It's not fair to have a playing field where one side of the game writes the rules. A treaty can only be negotiated when both parties not only are on equal footing but also have equal power.

The government will need to be flexible in a way it has never been before. And I'm not sure, couched in my reality during my time in this place, that this is even possible. We will need to think seriously about how treaty will interact with colonial settler based institutions, particularly the Constitution. Enshrinement may not be the answer, or it might be part of the answer if we can isolate parts of an agreement that will stand the test of time.

I'm talking about this now because I want to start a conversation that hasn't really begun at the federal level yet. The most important message is that Australian institutions must be open to the ways of thinking of First Peoples of Australia, and even their languages, if we want to move into a shared future where people know where they stand. They also must do this with the upmost respect—not some hatchet job that's been pulled together, as I said, just with Indigenous participation.

We cannot have a watered-down, whitewashed version of the truth. Our precolonial history started, as we say, 65,000 years ago, not in 1788. Some of us already know that story; in fact, we've been educated in our institutions on that story. The story of now belongs to all of us. We have three chapters of history in this nation: the first chapter is the Indigenous chapter; the second chapter is our colonial settler British history that we share; and our chapter of now is our multicultural chapter. We cannot have an agreement made in the way of treaty for the sake of having one. We need to do it, and we need to make sure we do it properly. We need investment from all sides, not just bipartisan agreement. We need all people in Australia to be on this journey with us. If we are not invested in what we call reconciliation in the future, it will be set up to fail. We cannot let that happen.

Mob have a saying in this country: 'Do nothing about us without us.' This is true when we talk about truth-telling. It is time for the institutions of Australia to hear not just with their ears but with their hearts the truth of this nation. It is important for all of us to share in that legacy because this is Australia's history, and as we move forward in the work we do collectively it is important for us to share that as proud Australians. It is important for us to recognise, respect and do better in the way we endeavour to be inclusive. It is bound up within our culture of love and care for each other—the reciprocity that First Peoples have as part of the lore of this land.

Here, in the Senate, when we talk about the work we do on behalf of all Australians, it doesn't matter which side of the chamber we sit on; we have that in our vision but also our action. It's important that, when we do this, we remember why we are here. We reflect on that moment of being able to stand in this place every morning for an acknowledgement of country before we start the day. We acknowledge that this land belongs to Indigenous peoples, the First Peoples of this nation. It's about starting how you mean to go on, how you mean to continue, not just through the day or through the weeks or the months in this place but the years. With the turnover of faces we will see in both chambers, we need to have a legacy. And that legacy must be bound in our contribution to and our collaboration for justice. That is what laws in this nation represent. Whether you talk about native title, whether you talk about the NDIS, whether you talk about child care, all these things are about a just response from a system we all enact and we all interact with every day. Some of those outcomes are dire for First Nations people, and it's the reason we have a Closing the Gap agenda. But we can't progress in this nation without truth and without treaty.