Site navigation

Change font size: SmallerLargerReload

About the Australian Human Rights Commission navigation

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:


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.