Speeches 2007: 40 years on: what does the ‘Yes’ vote mean for Indigenous Australians?

40 years on: what does the ‘Yes’ vote mean for
Indigenous Australians?

Anglicare, Tasmania Annual Social Justice
Lecture



22 August, 2007



TOM CALMA

Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Social Justice Commissioner

National Race Discrimination
Commissioner

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

---

I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land
where we meet and pay my respects to the ancestors. Thank you for your welcome
and for allowing me to be here today on your country. My thanks also go to Rev.
Dr. Chris Jones for the honour of presenting this year’s Social Justice
Lecture. I am proud to be in the esteemed company of previous years’
presenters like Lowitja O'Donoghue.



It is a pleasure to be here amongst
such a dedicated group of people who have been working tirelessly to help others
in need in our community. In particular, I want to pay tribute to Anglicare
Tasmania for your work with people who are homeless and people on low incomes in
Tasmania. At a time when many Australians are buoyed by the affluence of the
resources boom and a succession of record-high budget surpluses, it is a real
challenge to advocate for those in our community who are vulnerable and
marginalised, and to keep their rights and interests at the forefront of public
debate.



The range of services provided by Anglicare Tasmania highlights
the breadth of need in the community. Whether it be those seeking accommodation,
family support and counselling, assistance to find employment, or to manage the
financial pressures of a life lived in poverty - your contribution to building a
stronger, fairer, more inclusive community is valued and appreciated by many
Australians.



As the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
Commissioner, I also want to thank you for providing me this opportunity to keep
the rights and interests of Indigenous Australians at the forefront of our
minds, particularly as we enter a new phase of interventionism at the national
level.



Keeping alive the spirit of ‘67



Given all the
distress and concern that recent developments in Indigenous affairs have caused
– I think we need to look back on the milestones in our country’s
history, such as the 67 referendum, as a means of taking stock. We also need to
make sure we keep the spirit of those achievements alive.



One
achievement that Tasmanians can and should be very proud of is the passage of a
law by your Parliament last year to establish a stolen generations’
compensation scheme. This distinguished Tasmania as the first jurisdiction in
Australia to implement this recommendation of HREOC’s 1997 Bringing
them home report, and it holds out to other governments across the country
the challenge to follow suit – to deal with this aspect of
Australia’s unfinished business.



As the passage of this law
reminds us, events that happened 40 and more years ago are still very much with
us – whether we are black or white Australians.



The 1967
referendum was one of those times in Australia’s history where every
single one of us could hold our head up high. I think all of us who were around
at that time sincerely believed that we’d put the right Constitutional
foundations in place – that from 1967 onwards there would only be one
class of Australian citizen – rather than a nation deeply divided and in
denial about the existence of its First Peoples.



The potential was
certainly there – and I believe the hope was there amongst the 90% of
Australians who said ‘yes’ – that things were going to change
for the better.



In hindsight we can and must ask the question: Did we
ever have the political leadership to drive that kind of change?



I think
there were episodes of greatness – for sure.



We all remember
Whitlam’s historic act of pouring the sand of the Gurindji land back into
Vincent Lingiari’s palm – an act that Patrick Dodson recently
referred to as: ‘...the iconic declaration of the Australian
nation’s intent to restore to Aboriginal people the dignity of their
traditional lands.’[1]



We all
remember the sense of justice when the final reports of the Royal Commission
into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody were handed down – vindicating all those
families around the country who had fought for years to prove the true nature of
their sons’ and daughter’s deaths in custody.



Some of us
might be a bit hazy about the bi-partisan birth of the reconciliation movement
in 1991 – but we all remember crossing those bridges in 2000 –
thinking we were at a turning point – and experiencing the power of
people.



And I think that power is still here. I think most Australians
do have an inherent sense of what is right and what is wrong – and where
our nation should be heading in 2007 and beyond.



40 years on, I think
Australia wants to be able to hold its head up high on the international stage
– knowing that we are dealing with the unfinished business – and
that we can do so in a fair and decent manner.



In hindsight we also
have to ask what the 67 referendum did for Indigenous Australians? What has been
the legacy for the people whose lives were meant to be uplifted by its
successful passage?



The ‘buck-passing’ legacy of the
referendum – the hallmark of Indigenous affairs in
Australia



Professor Larissa Behrendt – a Eualeyai and
Kamillaroi woman from NSW – is highly critical of the referendum. In her
view, it set in place ‘one of the main barriers to effective policy making
for Aboriginal people’.^[2] By
granting the Commonwealth the authority to make laws for Aboriginal people, but
leaving the bulk of responsibility for the delivery of healthcare, education,
housing and so on, with the states, the referendum put in place the framework
for ‘buck-passing’ between the states and the Commonwealth
governments that has become a hallmark of Indigenous affairs in Australia.



How many times have we heard the line from state governments that
Indigenous health is in its current crisis because the funds allocated by the
Commonwealth are insufficient to provide the most basic primary healthcare
services – let alone deal with the underinvestment in health
infrastructure or tackle the underlying causes of poor health, like
overcrowding?

Conversely the Commonwealth has been a regular critic of state governments
for not spending enough in areas like health, or not adequately carrying out
their Constitutional responsibilities. As you know, it was this argument that
the Prime Minister used only this month to justify his decision to take over the
Mersey Hospital in Devonport. In the case of Indigenous communities in the NT,
it was that Government’s failure to ensure the protection of Indigenous
children that prompted the Commonwealth to step in.

But before focusing on
contemporary issues, I want to briefly take you back to the Parliamentary
debates that occurred in the lead-up to the referendum in 1967 to reflect on
what motivated politicians of all persuasions, and Australians from all walks of
life, to so resoundingly support the referendum.



Opportunity lost
– the compromise of the amendments to the ‘races
power’



As you would expect, MPs back in 1966 were speaking of
the need for the Commonwealth to take up its responsibilities in relation to
Aboriginal people, so that we too could fully enjoy our rights as citizens to
quality schooling, healthcare, fair employment and adequate housing.



They were also very concerned about Australia’s international
reputation being tarnished by the exposure of the conditions in which Aboriginal
people were living, and the overtly racist content of our Constitution.
Remember, the 1960s were a time of great international social upheaval –
and Australia was not immune to the effects of the American civil rights
movement, or the worldwide movement towards decolonisation.



As a nation,
we were starting to question the ‘meagre achievements’ of decades of
assimilation policies and the ‘denial of civil rights which these policies
necessarily entailed’.^[3]



Our Indigenous Elders were also finding their own political voice and
developing innovative ways to assert our human rights in a system of government
that barely recognised them. For example, in 1963 the Yolngu people from
Yirrkala in the Northern Territory sent their bark petition to the Commonwealth
Government, protesting against plans to grant mining leases in Arnhem Land. This
was followed in 1965 by Charlie Perkins’ now infamous ‘Freedom
Ride’, which brought pictures of the desperate situation of many
Aboriginal communities in rural New South Wales into the lounge rooms of white
middle class Australia.



The mid 1960s were also a particularly awkward
time for Australian diplomats. On the one hand they were negotiating some of the
most seminal instruments of international human rights law – such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at
the United Nations. But on the other hand – they knew full well that
Indigenous Australians were not able to enjoy many of the fundamental freedoms
that these covenants were setting down as the minimum acceptable standards.



The Parliamentary debates of the day also reveal that the referendum
itself was a compromise.



In 1966, W.C. (Billy) Wentworth, a Liberal
Party backbencher in the Menzies Government, and a passionate advocate for the
rights of Aboriginal people, presented a Private Members’ Bill to the
House that was ahead of its time. Not only was he supportive of the Commonwealth
taking on more responsibility to help the states deliver better outcomes to
Indigenous peoples, but he also wanted the Commonwealth to ‘prevent racial
discrimination in
Australia.’^[4]



Billy
Wentworth proposed an amendment to section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution –
the so-called ‘races power’ – so that there would be a
requirement that the Commonwealth would have the power to ‘...make laws
for the advancement’ of Aboriginal
people.’^[5] [emphasis
added]



As we now know, although the referendum amended section 51(xxvi)
of the Constitution to give the Commonwealth power to make laws for Aboriginal
people, Mr Wentworth’s suggestion was not included. In other words, the
referendum did not require that the Commonwealth take on a positive
responsibility to ensure that any laws it passes actually benefit Aboriginal people. The Commonwealth can pass laws that have a negative
impact on Aboriginal people.



Had Mr Wentworth’s amendment
succeeded – Indigenous Australians would be in a very different place
today – particularly as we approach the release of the legislation to give
effect to the Government’s emergency response measures in the Northern
Territory.



The illusion of human rights protection in
Australia



Rather than our Constitution containing a positive
entitlement of protection against racial discrimination, we hold the dubious
distinction of being perhaps the only country in the world whose Constitution
contains a ‘races power’ that allows the parliament to enact
racially discriminatory laws.^[6]



You might point to the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) as
our salvation here. Afterall, it is the legislation that gives effect to
Australia’s legal obligations under the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Surely that prevents the
Parliament from making laws that are racially discriminatory? Sadly the answer
is no.



On two separate occasions the federal government has introduced
laws that are discriminatory in their impact. The first was to amend heritage
protection laws to prevent them from applying to one group of Indigenous people
in relation to the building of the Hindmarsh Island
bridge.^[7] The second was to amend
native title laws that extinguished and otherwise impaired the native title
rights of Indigenous peoples so that they are prevailed over by other
non-Indigenous interests. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that
these more recently enacted laws prevail over existing laws, such as the RDA,
which dates back to 1975.



This sorry state of affairs highlights another
shortcoming of the Constitution – namely the fact that it is virtually
silent on human rights. We are distinguished as the only developed Western
nation that does not have a Bill of Rights or any other sort of overarching
mechanism to provide this kind of clarity to our law makers or our
judges.^[8]



These examples are a
strong reminder of the extent to which we continue to rely on the benevolence of
the Parliament to protect the rights and interests of Indigenous Australians. In
the absence of a treaty, a Bill of Rights or any Constitutional recognition of
the distinct status, laws and cultures of Australia’s First Peoples, we
invest in our politicians and our Ministers in particular, sweeping powers.



However, we need look no further than the implementation of
Australia’s counter-terrorism laws in recent times to see what can go
wrong when politics gets mixed up in the exercise of Ministerial discretion.



It is my hope that the situation in the Northern Territory will not be
another case in point. But on the face of it, many of the measures in the
Government’s emergency response to child abuse in the NT raise serious
human rights concerns, which I want to turn to shortly.



The
Government’s emergency response measures in the NT – a once in a
generation opportunity?



Before outlining my concerns in this regard,
I want to first emphasise the historic opportunity that has been presented by
the Government’s emergency response in the NT. It is an opportunity that
arguably only comes along once in a generation of political and public policy
debate.



Let me say upfront that Mr Brough is a committed Minister,
determined to leave a legacy - no doubt like many before him. And anyone
listening to the Minister and indeed the Prime Minister, can hardly doubt their
zeal and good intent.



But my job as Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Social Justice Commissioner is to monitor the impact of government
policy on the human rights of Indigenous Australians, and to report on the
extent to which Indigenous Australians are able to enjoy their human
rights.



I am also the Acting Race Discrimination Commissioner, and in
this role I promote research and educational programs that combat racism, and
monitor the implementation of the federal Racial Discrimination Act, that is
designed to ensure equality of treatment of all peoples regardless of their
race.



My 2006 Social Justice Report found that when you
closely examine the Government’s rhetoric on Indigenous affairs policy,
there are major discrepancies between what’s promised and what’s
actually being delivered.



Even those aspects of the Government’s
‘new arrangements’ in Indigenous affairs that were implemented after
the abolition of ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission) in
2005, and held out some hope of success and real change in the lives of
Indigenous Australians, have not reached their full potential. Here I am
referring to the Shared Responsibility Agreements or SRAs, which were intended
to facilitate the Government’s objective of direct engagement with
Indigenous communities, as well as improved service delivery.



However,
the SRAs seem to have become the latest in a long line of policy casualties in
the fast-paced world of Indigenous affairs. The Tasmania experience of SRAs
provides a few indications of why this might be the case.



The Cape
Barren Island Aboriginal Association negotiated three SRAs with the Australian
Government in 2005, and I outlined the community’s experience of this
process in one of the case studies that was published in my 2006 Social
Justice Report. I think it is fair to say that not only did all three
agreements fail to fully realise their goals, but in the process, they
frustrated the Indigenous community and possibly even set back their
relationship with the federal bureaucracy. In the interests of time, I will only
refer to one of the SRAs, just to give you a flavour of how the negotiations
unfolded.



The Aboriginal community had a longstanding dream of setting
up a health and well-being centre, and even had funds from various state and
federal government departments earmarked for this purpose. However, the
challenge of getting these departments to agree that the community should be
allowed to pool the resources to establish the centre had been too great –
that is – until the SRAs came along.



Things got off to a positive
start, and there were even offers of additional funding to assist in renovating
the old ATSIC building that would house the centre. An SRA was signed on 2 June
2005 and the community was due to start building in November – it was
eventually completed in August the following year! As the current Chairperson of
the Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association, Vicki Little, described it to me
in this way:

We had three government departments arguing among themselves about whose land
the health and wellbeing centre could be built on – this was a very
lengthy process! On top of all the arguing and going back and forth, the
situation was made more difficult by the constant changes of staff, which meant
there was no consistency in communication or the ability to build a relationship
and understanding with staff in the various departments.

The ridiculous thing is that once the health and wellbeing SRA was completed
after months of negotiations and difficulties, the government then decided to
give us a large grant for Family Violence that we had neither asked for, nor
necessarily required as we do not have a family violence problem on the island.
They then proceeded to hassle us to spend the money. This just highlights the
government’s lack of communication with Aboriginal communities and their
inability to meet the real needs of individual
communities.^[9]

As the
Chairperson’s comments suggest, the credit for fact that the community now
has a heath and well-being centre belongs with the community and its
determination to realise their dream – not the SRA process.



It
is this discrepancy between what is promised, and what is actually delivered on
the ground in Indigenous communities, that leaves me deeply concerned by the
potential outcomes of the Howard Government’s emergency measures in the
NT.



The fundamental flaws in the Government’s new arrangements
in Indigenous affairs



My 2006 Social Justice Report documents
in some detail what I regard as the most significant problems with the
Government’s approach to Indigenous affairs. There are important lessons
that we must learn, and which we cannot afford to repeat in new policy
approaches, such as the interventions in the NT.



First and foremost
amongst these is the lack of engagement with, and participation of, Indigenous
peoples. This most basic of human rights – the right to have a say in
decisions that impact directly on your life – is not apparent in the
Government’s approach to Indigenous affairs. Rather, there is a consistent
trend towards top-down approaches that dis-empower Indigenous organisations and
communities.



Prominent among these is the Australian Government’s
stated preference for negotiating bilateral agreements with each state and
territory government. These are designed to spell out which level of government
will bear responsibility for particular outcomes and the expenditure of
resources to that end. They are also being used to identify communities with
acute needs which will be subject to ‘strategic interventions’.



I have no problem with allocating resources to communities with the most
pressing needs – indeed I agree that this is hallmark of good policy. But
what does concern me is that there is restricted Indigenous participation at a
governmental and priority-setting level. Priorities are determined by outsiders
(governments), then the insiders (the community) are invited to participate in
the detailed planning and implementation. This is not a sound basis on which to
foster Indigenous ‘ownership’ of our problems, or for us to be the
architects of the solutions.



The continual and dramatic shifts in policy
that have become characteristic of the Government’s Indigenous affairs
portfolio, indicate that after three years of operation, its overall strategy is
far from bedded down. We have seen the COAG whole-of-government trials come and
go; SRAs have fallen by the wayside; the Native Title Act and the Aboriginal Land Rights Act in the NT have been amended; Indigenous
housing is to be mainstreamed; and the Community Development Employment Project
– the biggest Commonwealth Indigenous funded program in Australia –
has been abolished in all urban and regional centres.



And all of these
changes are afoot at a time when Indigenous Australians have been without an
effective voice at the national or regional level.



Not surprisingly,
this has resulted in a lack of connection between the local and regional level,
up to the state and national level; as well as a disconnect between the making
of policy and its implementation.



And then we have the
Government’s emergency measures in the NT.



Applying the policy
lessons to the Government’s emergency measures in the NT



As I
mentioned previously, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission applauds
the Prime Minister, Minister Brough, and the Opposition Leader for their
bipartisanship on the need to take action to ensure our children are protected
from violence. After decades of pain and the ignored cries from our people
– the very ones being hurt - the issue is finally, firmly on the political
radar and on the front pages. And it must stay there!



We must also
continue to remind our politicians of just how entrenched and complex these
problems are. There is no quick fix to violence in Indigenous communities
– just as there is no quick fix to the problems in Indigenous health.



A great deal has been written in recent months about the ‘rivers
of grog’ that seem to underpin much of the family violence, neglect and
dysfunction that we’re now hearing about.



We can’t kid
ourselves that simply closing the canteens or banning alcohol is going to fix
the underlying problems of addiction, or make people “responsible”.



I advocate for individuals and communities taking responsibility. And I
recognise that responsibility is a learned behaviour, and it must be embraced,
nurtured and developed. Responsibility is rarely achieved by being imposed.



In all of this, it’s the education and empowerment of peoples,
the follow-up and the support that is all-important.



Similarly, cutting
out the heart of the permit system in the NT, compulsorily acquiring townships,
and installing ‘government business managers’ is hardly empowering
for Indigenous communities.



I am yet to hear any compelling arguments
about how this strategy will contribute to greater functionality and less child
abuse.



On the contrary – I think there is sufficient evidence for
us to hold real concerns that these measures will set Indigenous communities
back.



For example, we know from CAEPR and Reconciliation
Australia’s Indigenous Community Governance Research Project that:

Indigenous skills, abilities, knowledge and leadership are most effectively
mobilised and exercised when initiatives are Indigenous-designed and directed
towards Indigenous goals.[10]

Yet here
we are sending what are essentially government-appointed administrators into
Indigenous communities across the Territory to take control of all programs,
services and infrastructure that is federally funded. What expertise will these
people have in running an Indigenous health clinic? What are the protocols that
will govern their access to confidential patient records? Will they all be
subject to police checks before they are appointed?



I don’t know.
And more importantly – Indigenous communities don’t know.



People like Patrick Dodson who have visited some of the communities
where the Government’s ‘survey teams’ have visited, are
reporting that communities are none the wiser about the Government’s plans
even after these survey visits. As he said in media reports earlier this
week:

...[people’s] anxiety is heightened by the fact that no one can
actually explain to them what it is that the Federal Government is doing, and
how long they’re going to be in crisis mode and what the exit strategy is
going to look like.[11]

Further, I think
we all need to take note when authoritative independent legal experts, such as
the Law Council of Australia, publicly state, and I quote:

We regard the compulsory acquisition of land as an extreme measure which
conflicts with the fundamental rights to land ownership. ...[we] can see no
relevant explanation for compulsory acquisition of Aboriginal land on the scale
currently proposed. All in all there seems to be a significant risk that the
special measures proposed could well breach the Racial Discrimination
Act.[12]

What I am urging is for us to
learn the lessons of past mistakes and learn the lessons from successes. We are
not starting from scratch here. And politicians need to understand that they do
not need to denigrate and demean Indigenous people to move forward on policy
reforms – we have been advocating for it for generations.



Indigenous communities have the answers



As a rapid
response to the Government’s emergency measures in the Territory –
we have seen the emergence of the Combined Aboriginal Organisations of the NT.



I want to acknowledge Pat Turner and Olga Havnen’s leadership
here. In the space of less than a couple of weeks, they managed to bring this
mob together – no mean feat, I can assure you!



Not only that - but
these NT organisations have come together with the broader Australian community
sector to sign off on a comprehensive 30 page blueprint to address child abuse
in the Territory – most of which could be picked up by Government and
implemented tomorrow.



The Combined Aboriginal Organisations report
outlines over 50 practical and proven recommendations to ensure that any
intervention in the Northern Territory to protect children will be successful
not only in the short term but most importantly bring lasting change to the
communities.



One of the key messages of their report – which I
wholeheartedly support – is that any:

...response [to child abuse in Aboriginal communities] must be informed and
led by local Aboriginal communities. It is only by strengthening the capacity
of families and communities to protect and nurture children that the problems
will be resolved. Aboriginal ownership and control of land and access to
communities are important in this
regard.^[13]

As this indicates
– we are not just talking about addressing child sexual abuse. It’s
about addressing the full range of issues that exist and contribute to abuse.



It’s about addressing broader health issues like closing the
17-year life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians
and treating alcoholism and substance abuse.



It’s about providing
adequate and appropriate housing to address overcrowding. This should include
guarantees that Indigenous people will be trained to build and maintain the
houses and infrastructure that will be needed to get their communities back on
track.



It’s about educating people about their rights and the
responsibilities that go hand in hand with them. This will require plain English
information that is translated into Indigenous languages and presented in ways
that have meaning for people from an oral culture.



It’s about
creating and providing life opportunities.



And it’s about
partnerships and meaningful engagement with those most affected. It must be a
holistic and comprehensive partnership that is in place for as long as it takes
to address the inequalities.



It’s also about building on the
successful initiatives that are out there in Indigenous communities.



For
example, we know that Indigenous Child Medical Checks – available through
Medicare – have been in place since May 2006 – and about 1,000
children have benefited from them.[14] And
one of the reasons they’ve been so well received in the Territory is that
many are delivered by Aboriginal-controlled health care professionals,
demonstrating that quality medical care can be delivered in a way that
accommodates and respects Indigenous protocols and notions of well-being.



It’s a similar story when you look back at who has actually been
developing and running the successful programs in the Territory and elsewhere
like:

• night patrols,
• cultural healing and well-being programs,
• mothers and babies programs,
• alcohol and kava management programs,
• nutrition and school breakfast programs, and
• family violence programs.

We all know it’s the
Indigenous communities – and in particular the women.



Sure –
some of these programs have received federal money – but were they ever
really supported? Did they ever get ongoing, multi-year funding?



Was
there investment in fostering good governance and financial management within
fledgling Indigenous organisations?



Were these programs ever
strategically aligned in a broader and comprehensive regional plan?



Just
to give you one example that crossed my desk recently. It is from the
Kapululangu Aboriginal women’s law and culture centre in the south-east
Kimberley. The women Elders of Balgo set up the program in 1999 to care for
their community – particularly their youth and children. Their
overarching goal is to heal the social and health problems that their community
is facing – as a response to the continuing cultural trauma that affects
their health and social well-being.



I want to quote from their
spokeswoman, Patsy Mudgedell, who said:

The Kapululangu elders have been providing a cultural program for young
people and children since 1999, but we haven’t been properly funded by the
governments. We don’t want the military coming into our community. We
want to have our Indigenous programs funded particularly our women’s
projects. Aboriginal people have solutions to our own problems.

The
media release goes on:

...But Kapululangu’s attempts to run these programs have repeatedly
gone unfunded. This is because governments don’t understand the central
importance of Law ...and culture ...to building pride of Aboriginality as a
mechanism of protection in young people. The elders know that without this
solid foundation all the bricks of health, education, housing etc will continue
to fall down.[15]

Protecting the rights of the child – and respecting the human
rights of Indigenous Australians – one and the same
approach



The complex issues being tackled and the proposed measures
to be taken in the Northern Territory raise a host of fundamental human rights
principles.

These rights are clearly spelt out in international conventions (such as
the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the
Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), to which Australia is a party.



The reality is that the human rights obligations in each of these
international instruments have to be upheld in this country.



But what I
want to make clear is that one of the most essential aspects of protecting the
rights of Indigenous children is to secure Indigenous cultural and land rights
and remove racial discrimination in our nation. These are not competing
objectives. Indigenous children’s futures are determined by the extent to
which their families’ and communities’ basic human rights are
secured.



Addressing violence against women and stopping alcohol abuse
requires the removal of discrimination against Indigenous people on the grounds
of their race, and appropriate recognition of communities’ cultural rights
and rights over their land.



There is no hierarchy of human rights
– they are not in competition with each other



Human rights are
universal and interdependent. Governments must ensure that all the human rights
of every Indigenous child, family and community are respected in a mutually
reinforcing and coherent way. We cannot build a healthy nation on racism and
division.



I have long called for governments to take a human
rights-based approach to Indigenous affairs. It involves working with
Indigenous peoples as active partners in creating a positive life vision for our
communities – not treating us as 'problems to be
solved'.



Governments risk failure if they develop and implement policies
about Indigenous issues without engaging with the intended recipients of those
services. Bureaucrats and governments can have the best intentions in the world,
but if their ideas have not been subject to the ‘reality test’ of
the life experience of the local Indigenous peoples who are intended to benefit
from this, then government efforts will fail in the medium to long term.



So much of the planning has already been done. It is now required are
the resources and the commitment to action.



A projected 2006-07 Budget
underlying cash surplus of $10.8 billion, on top of nine successive budget
surpluses, at the federal level suggests that resource availability is not the
issue.



It is not credible to suggest that government effort has or is
being held back by an ‘inability’ to take action. Resourcing should
be increased to the maximum extent possible and rolled out in accordance with
regional plans and benchmarks. This commitment to ‘progressive
realisation’ of rights is one of the legal obligations Australia took on
when we ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights.



It will take leadership, bi-partisanship and determined,
collaborative action with honest and open conversations to keep the commitments
and responses on track.



And it will require real stability in policy
reform to enable Indigenous Australians to understand what is happening, to
allow us the time to engage, and enable us to be active and informed partners in
this reform process.



Conclusion



In making these statements
I remind you that Indigenous Australians are not merely ‘disadvantages
Australians’ or a ‘minority’ group. We are the First Nation
Peoples of this country.



The poverty and inequality that we experience
is a contemporary reflection of our historic treatment as peoples, and an
indication of the persistence of systemic discrimination.



Australians
demanded equality and fair treatment for Indigenous Australians in 1967 and the
Government, and indeed all Australians, must acknowledge, respect and honour
that mandate today.



THANK YOU.

---

^[1] Dodson, P., ‘An entire
culture is at stake’, The Age, 14 July
2007.

^[2] Behrendt, L.,
‘Reconciliation: Forty Years On’, in Australian Quarterly, May-June 2007, p.50.

^[3] Gardiner-Garden, J., The 1967 Referendum – history and myths, Research Brief no.11 2006-07, Parliamentary Library, 2 May 2007,
p5.

^[4] Wentworth, W.C., Second
Reading Speech on Constitution Alteration (Aborigines) Bill 1966, Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 10 March 1996,
p121.

^[5] Wentworth, W.C., Second
Reading Speech on Constitution Alteration (Aborigines) Bill 1966, Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 10 March 1996,
p.123.

^[6] Williams, G., ‘The
Races Power and the 1967 Referendum’, unpublished article developed
from ‘Race and the Australian Constitution: From Federation to
Reconciliation’ (2000) 38 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 643.

^[7] In the Hindmarsh
Island Bridge case – Justice Kirby was the sole dissenting judge who held
that s 51(xxvi) of the Constitution ‘does not extend to the enactment of
laws detrimental to, or discriminatory against, the people of any race
(including the Aboriginal race)’. See Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337.

^[8] It is
important to note that the protection of human rights is now starting to be
addressed at the state and territory level. Victoria and the ACT have Bills of
Rights in their Human Rights Acts. In addition, Tasmania and Western Australia
have consultation processes underway to consider whether and how they might
introduce similar laws to enhance the protection of human
rights.

^[9] Personal email
correspondence with the Commissioner’s office, 1 August 2007.

^[10] Hunt, J. and Smith, D.E., Further Key Insights from the Indigenous Community Governance Research
Project, 2006, Centre for Aboriginal Economic and Policy Research at ANU,
Reconciliation Australia, Australian Research Council, 2007, p.5, available on
line at http://www.anu.edu.au/caepr/Projects/Key_Insights_ICGP_2006.pdf accessed 19 July 2007.

^[11] Dodson, P., Some ‘causing mischief’ to stop Govt’s
Indigenous intervention, ABC news online, 18 July
2007.

^[12] Law Council of
Australia, Law Council Criticisms of NT Emergency Plan, media release, 5
July 2007.

^[13] Combined
Aboriginal Organisations of the Northern Territory, A proposed emergency
response and development plan to protect Aboriginal children in the Northern
Territory: A preliminary response to the Australian Government’s
proposals, 10 July 2007, p.3. Available at http://www.rachelsiewert.org.au/files/campaigns/extras/CAO-report-10%20july.pdf

^[14] Abbott, T., (Minister for Health and Ageing), Transcript of doorstop interview,
Commonwealth Parliamentary Offices, 5 July 2007. The Minister reported that
“just under 1,000 claims had been made for this particular Medicare item
in the NT.”

^[15] Kapululangu Aboriginal Women’s Law and Culture Centre, Revitalising
women’s culture – caring for women and community, media release,
13 July 2007.