Launch of the Social Justice Report 2009
and the Native Title Report 2009

Tom Calma

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner

Australian Human Rights Commission

Redfern Community Centre, Sydney

Friday, 22 January 2010

 

• Download Audio [ MP3, 40 MB]

---

Good morning, I would like to begin by paying my respects to the Gadigal
peoples of the Eora nation, the traditional owners of the land where we gather
today. I pay my respects to your elders past and present. And thank you, Allen
Madden, for your generous and warm welcome to country for all of us here at
Redfern today.

Firstly let me acknowledge Bradley Deane as representative of the Attorney
General; and Rita Markwell attending on behalf of the Minister for Indigenous
Affairs, Jenny Macklin. Thank you also to the Attorney and his staff for
ensuring that these Reports have been tabled so that I am able to launch them
here today and welcome to those staff who have been able to attend. There is a
lot of work that happens behind the scenes to make sure we are all able to be
here today and this is a joint effort between my staff and the staff of the
Attorney-General’s Department.

I acknowledge Barry Collier MP, who is attending on behalf of the New South
Wales Premier, Kristina Keneally and Graeme Neate President of the National
Native Title Tribunal.

Thank you to Cathy Branson, our President at the Australian Human Rights
Commission for your introduction and kind words.

I would also like to acknowledge those who work in organisations or with
government in the Indigenous sector, many of whom have travelled from interstate
to be with us today. And most importantly, I acknowledge all of my Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters and aunties and uncles who have
come today.

As Cathy mentioned, we are here today to launch the Annual Social Justice and
Native Title Reports. As many of you are aware, these reports fulfill a
statutory responsibility of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social
Justice Commissioner. And while this is very important, I would like to start
today by reflecting on the broader significance of these reports.

The Social Justice and Native Title Reports assess and monitor the
implementation of the policies and practices of Government during the report
year against how they impact on the enjoyment of human rights by Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander peoples.

But these reports are also fundamental in providing the government and other
stakeholders with guidance about policies, laws and processes that are developed
for us, and impact on our access to human rights, our everyday lives and our
futures. They are also significant because they are not just my thoughts about
these issues. They include the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples and inputs from our peak bodies and representative organisations about
issues that are important to us. They promote the good and hard work being done
on the ground in our communities and they provide examples of effective
initiatives for our communities to develop locally. They let government know
where investment is needed to make real change in our lives and our communities.
These reports provide our peoples with an opportunity to participate in the
governance of our lives and our communities. They have become a critical
resource in Indigenous policy development and are a solid example of how we, as
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, can access, promote and defend
our collective human rights as recognised by the United Nations Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It is with great pride, gratitude and a touch of sadness that I present
these, the sixth and final set of reports as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Social Justice Commissioner.

As many of you are aware, my term as Social Justice Commissioner comes to an
end on 31 January. And the past five and half years has been a great privilege
for me to work around the country with and for my people on a wide range of
issues – some of which were hard issues to deal with, while others
ignited my pride as an Aboriginal man.

While there are too many to list here today, some of the highlights of my
term as the Social Justice Commissioner, which were also addressed in the
Reports tabled over the past five years include:

• the development of the Close the Gap Indigenous Health Equality Campaign;
• the establishment of the National Congress for Australia’s First
  Peoples;
• the Government’s reconsidered support for the United Nations
  Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
• and while I am the eternal optimist, something I never thought would happen
  in my lifetime, the National Apology to the Stolen Generations resulting in the
  establishment of a National Healing Foundation.
  

As a nation we were relieved and inspired by the Prime
Minister’s Apology to the Stolen Generations. As Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples we cried with tears of sadness and joy, and we exhaled.
And at this site here at Redfern in Sydney, many Australians gathered together
to witness one of the greatest acts of compassion in our country’s
history.

In the words of the Prime Minister in his Apology to the Stolen Generations
and their descendants, ‘the time has come for our nation to turn a new
page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and moving
forward with confidence to the future’.

The Apology was the first step towards creating an Australia that is
inclusive and embracing of its First Peoples.

The 2009 Social Justice and Native Title Reports build on the momentum of the
Apology. They consider critical issues for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples; and they include crucial steps necessary for overcoming
Indigenous disadvantage and setting equal life chances for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples as the only acceptable benchmark.

The Social Justice Report 2009 provides a comprehensive chronology of
the events that impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples during the
reporting period. The Report also considers three substantial issues;

• justice reinvestment to reduce the over-representative of Aboriginal and
  Torres Strait Islander peoples in the criminal justice system;
• the protection and promotion of Indigenous languages;
• and sustaining Aboriginal homeland communities.

On the face of
it, the issues of this report may look disconnected, but at their essence they
all speak to the need for policies that embrace our unique cultures and
identities and aim to create strong, vibrant and healthy Indigenous
communities.

Justice reinvestment provides a new approach that may hold the key to
unlocking Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from the cycle of crime
and escalating imprisonment rates. The urgency of addressing this issue is
evidenced by alarming statistics that are unnecessary and unacceptable.
Nationally, Indigenous adults are 13 times more likely to be imprisoned than
non-Indigenous people^[1] and
Indigenous juveniles are 28 time more likely to be placed in juvenile detention
than their non-Indigenous
counterparts.^[2]

In the last five years alone we as a nation witnessed two devastating
examples of the ramifications of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
incarceration and over policing with the death of Mulrunji Doomagee on Palm
Island in Queensland, which is still the subject of a coronial inquest; and on
the other side of the country, the death of Mr Ward who died of heat stroke as a
result of being transported from Laverton to Kalgoorlie, approximately 360
kilometres in the back of a prison van, in which the temperature rose to over 47
degrees.

Over the years and particularly in the response to the Royal Commission into
Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in 1991, some worthy initiatives have been
developed to address the over-representation in the criminal justice system by
our people. But unfortunately, these statistics show that what we are doing is
simply not working and alternative solutions are required.

Justice reinvestment is a localised criminal justice policy approach that
diverts a portion of the funds spent on imprisonment to local communities where
there is a high concentration of offenders. The monies that would have been
spent on imprisonment are reinvested in programs and services in communities
where these issues are most acute in order to address the underlying causes of
crime.

Here in Australia, increasing amounts of public monies are spent on
imprisonment, for minimum positive long-term return. Internationally, where
justice reinvestment is being implemented, particularly in the UK and the US,
imprisonment rates are dropping. For example, in Oregon in the United States,
money was reinvested in well-resourced restorative justice and community service
programs for juvenile offenders. This resulted in a 72% drop in juvenile
incarceration rates.

Justice reinvestment is based on evidence that a large proportion of
offenders come from a relatively small number of disadvantaged communities.
Demographic mapping and cost analysis in the United States has identified
‘million dollar blocks’ where literally millions of dollars are
being spent on imprisoning people from certain neighborhoods. For instance, in
one neighborhood, ‘The Hill’ in Connecticut, $20 million was spent
in one year to imprison 387 people. The Hill is disproportionately made up of
low income, African Americans.

This concentration of offenders logically suggests that there should be a
commensurate concentration of services and programs to prevent offending in
these communities. This is an important departure from current individually
focused correctional policy. Current correctional policies promote individual
and group programs but provide little support for community reintegration and
community capacity building.

The bottom line is that you can put an individual offender through the best
resourced, most effective rehabilitation program, but if they are returning to a
community with few opportunities, their chances of staying out of prison are
limited.

The justice reinvestment model still retains prison as a measure for
dangerous and serious offenders, but it actively shifts the focus away from
imprisonment to the provision of community-wide services that build capacity
within the community, to prevent people from offending and ending up in the
criminal justice system in the first place. I note that the Government
recently announced half a million dollars in funding to the North Australian
Aboriginal Justice Agency to work with Aboriginal prisoners to stop them
re-offending, and have committed to distributing the six million dollars
confiscated under the Proceeds of Crime Act to community groups for crime
prevention and Indigenous prisoner
projects.^[3]

This is a good start - but it is just a start and it will require a long
term and concerted effort before we will see enduring outcomes. Justice
reinvestment is as much about economics as it is about good social policy and it
is a tried and tested model with positive results.

The second issue I address is also critical to building the strength and
resilience of our communities and ensuring the maintenance of our culture and
identity. That is the preservation and promotion of Indigenous languages. This
issue also requires an urgent response because unfortunately in Australia, due
to past and present government policies, Indigenous languages are critically
endangered.

The endangerment of indigenous languages was reported as an issue
of international concern in the recently released State of the World’s
Indigenous Peoples. It is estimated that 4,000 of the 7,000 languages
spoken today are spoken by indigenous peoples. However, language specialists
predict that up to 90 per cent of the world’s languages are likely to
become extinct or threatened with extinction by the end of the century.

In Australia, prior to colonisation, 250 distinct languages which included
600 dialects were spoken across this
country.^[4] 100 of these languages
continue to exist, however most of them are in varying stages of becoming
extinct. Today only 18 Indigenous languages are currently spoken by all
generations of people within a given language
group.^[5] Without intervention, it is
estimated that Indigenous language usage will cease in the next 10-30
years.^[6]

For a country that is home to the world’s longest surviving continuous
cultures, that prides itself on its cultural heritage value, and its
multiculturalism, this is a serious indictment on our nation.

The loss of Indigenous languages in Australia is a loss for all Australians.
Cultural knowledge that is critical to our enjoyment of this country as a
nation is carried through our Indigenous languages. Where languages are
eroded and lost, so too is the cultural knowledge. This in turn has the
potential to impact on the health and well-being of Indigenous peoples.
Addressing national priorities such as climate change will also rely on
Indigenous cultural knowledge that is contained within these languages. As a
result this will also affect the health and well-being of all Australians.

There is strong evidence that supports the preservation and promotion of
Indigenous languages, including:

• improved cognitive functioning in children who are bilingual;
• enjoyment of better social, emotional and health outcomes by minority groups
  who speak their languages and practice their culture, than groups who do
  not;
• cultural knowledge has been proven to assist in the employment of Indigenous
  people in Australia; and
• the economic and social costs associated with the loss of
  languages.

As I mentioned earlier, up until the 1970’s
assimilationist and prohibitionist policies banned or discouraged Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander peoples from speaking our languages and this has resulted
in their rapid decline. As recently as 2008, our languages continue to be
threatened by government policies with the Northern Territory Government
introducing a policy that dismantles bilingual education. This policy makes it
mandatory to teach students in English for the first four hours of the school
day. By relegating Indigenous language instruction to the last hour and a half
of the school afternoon, this policy effectively abolishes one of the most
effective methods for keeping Indigenous languages alive in this country. It
significantly reduces the ability for successive generations of our people to
develop full competence in their own languages. It also takes away a serious
competitive advantage that we may have in employment because many employment
options for Indigenous people are based on our knowledge of our language and
culture.

If you think about it – we have potential employment opportunities to
work as liaison officers between our communities and the mainstream government
departments – though we need to be fluent in Indigenous languages as
well as English. Knowledge of our languages and culture also assists us to work
in jobs such as rangers, land care specialists, tourism operators and cultural
guides, and as artists who pass down cultural knowledge through weaving,
painting or sculpture. You take away our language and culture and you take away
some of these opportunities. Government’s need to think clearly about
what it is they are trying to achieve with their policies. The policy to
abolish bilingual education is in fact cultural vandalism – and it is an
act which limits our life chances – rather than enhancing them.

The Australian Government has made some effort to support our languages by
introducing Australia’s first national policy exclusively focused on
protecting and promoting Indigenous languages – Indigenous Languages
– A National Approach 2009. While this policy provides a starting
point to preserving and revitalising our invaluable languages, it will not be
enough on its own. State and Territory governments have to come on board.

They have responsibility for school education and they need to make sure that
their policies support our languages. If they don’t take action soon,
Indigenous languages will be extinct within the next few generations. I urge
you – if you are able – to do whatever you can to bring this
injustice out into the open. The parents of the school children who are losing
bilingual education are very distressed – many of them have contacted my
office. They are doing everything they can to preserve the bilingual programs
but their pleas are falling on deaf ears.

This leads me to the third issue addressed in this year’s Social
Justice Report, sustaining Aboriginal homeland communities. Homelands are
located on Aboriginal ancestral lands with cultural and spiritual significance
to the Aboriginal people who live there. There are homeland communities
throughout Australia - the majority being in the Northern Territory, Western
Australia and South Australia.

Homelands vary in size, composition, level of resources, and the extent of
their access to basic essential services such as potable water. Some may be
very small; comprising only a few families living together. Others may be
expanding and developing their own economies and have populations of over a
hundred people. While some homelands have grown into significant sized
communities, in most cases they are smaller than townships and regional centres.

Evidence shows that homelands provide social, spiritual, cultural, health and
economic benefits to their residents. They are a unique component of the
Indigenous social and cultural landscape, enabling residents to live on their
traditional lands which are governed through traditional kinship structures and
provide leadership and local governance. Living on homelands also makes the
fulfillment of cultural, spiritual and environmental obligations much easier
than if residents were living off their traditional lands.

Despite these positive outcomes and feedback from Aboriginal people living on
homelands to maintain support for them, Australian governments have pursued
policies that remove or restrict resources and support provided to homeland
communities. This effectively moves homeland residents into larger rural
townships to access housing, education, health and other services.

In 2005 Amanda Vanstone, the then federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs,
described homeland communities as ‘cultural museums that are too small to
warrant government support’.^[7] While most museums are considered to be culturally valuable and are supported by
government, our homelands are not given the same priority. Failure by
governments to support the ongoing development of homeland communities could
further endanger the world’s longest surviving continuous culture.

History has shown that moving people from homeland communities into fringe
communities in rural towns increases the stresses on resources in rural
townships resulting in increased social tensions between different community
groups, reduced access to healthy food and lifestyles and loss of cultural
traditions, practices and livelihoods.

In response to recent significant changes to government policies in the
Northern Territory to limit the resources and support for homeland communities,
I have focused the discussion in the report specifically on homelands located in
the Northern Territory to demonstrate and promote successful Aboriginal
community development, governance and self-determination. I have also included
a number of case studies from Laynhapuy Homelands Association Incorporated, the
Mt Theo Outstation and Mapuru that highlight the diversity of success in these
homelands.

For example:

• some homeland communities are participating in land management and
  conservation projects on their traditional country. This has included fire
  abatement projects that serve to mitigate the effects of climate change.
• the Central Land Council has compiled evidence of activity in land
  management, resource development, seed collection, the management of feral
  animals and introduced plant species in some of the remotest regions of
  Australia. All of these activities are employment options for individuals and
  actions to protect the biodiversity of Australia’s flora and fauna.
• resource management projects on homelands generate opportunities for
  conservation and economic development. One example of this activity is the
  Working on Country program that funds Aboriginal people to maintain, restore and
  protect their lands and seas, building on the value of traditional knowledge in
  land management.
• participating in the art and craft industry has been another source of
  economic development for many homeland communities, as well as being a means of
  practicing and revitalising Indigenous cultural traditions and customs. These
  ventures have been possible because the artists are living on country,
  maintaining their cultural traditions, and creating art arising from cultural
  knowledge.

Programs such as these are able to combine the benefits
of community and culture with commercial benefits. Homelands create a space for
the development of innovative strategies for economic development that comply
with cultural practices and the right to self-determination.

As I have stressed throughout my term, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples are connected to and responsible for our traditional land and waters and
in turn we obtain and maintain our spiritual and cultural identity, life and
livelihood from our lands and waters. Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people’s ownership of our lands and waters is also
critical to economic development opportunities that have become vital to our
cultural, physical and emotional well-being and survival post colonisation.
This recognition is formalised through the native title system and state and
territory land rights regimes.

The significance of homelands and our access to, and ownership of, our
traditional lands brings me to the Native Title Report 2009.

The Native Title Report 2009 considers two main issues:

• reforming the native title system; and
  
• the governments’ policy to secure land tenure over Indigenous lands in
  order to provide housing and other essential services to Indigenous
  communities.

As reported previously, this year’s report again
examines the operation of the native title system and land rights regimes and
their affect on the exercise and enjoyment of human rights by Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander peoples, during the 2008 -2009 reporting period. Through
the native title system specifically, some successes have been achieved.
Agreements have been made, mining companies are at the negotiation table with
traditional owners, state governments have made some ‘concessions’,
and native title has been determined across approximately 12.5% of the
country.^[8] However, there has been a
lack of action in other areas. Prescribed Bodies Corporate are still
underfunded, and the Australian Government has yet to advance its promised
Indigenous Economic Development Strategy.

Examination of the current state of land rights and native title policy in
Australia clearly demonstrates that there is still a lot of work to do if we are
to achieve true land justice.

During my term as Social Justice Commissioner, I have consistently called on
the government to reform the native title system to ensure that it is just and
equitable.

In 2007, Philip Ruddock MP, the previous federal Attorney-General responded
to this call by introducing initial reforms to the native title system. While
much of this change has been described as only ‘tinkering at the
edges’, they did start the ball rolling.

Fortunately, the current Labor
Government has continued to pursue reforms to the native title system to improve
its operation and effectiveness. This year, Attorney-General Robert McClelland
introduced a range of amendments to the Native Title Act, some positive and some
more controversial. He has also worked with State and Territory Governments
through the COAG process to commit to a more flexible approach to native title
and encouraged broader negotiated settlement arrangements.

These changes could prove to be the first steps toward turning the native
title system into the system it was intended to be. Some changes are being made
to the existing framework such as handing the management of the resolution of
native title claims to the Federal Court, while others, recognising the failures
and restrictions of the system, are seeking to create alternatives to the
existing framework. The Victorian Alternative Land Settlement Framework is a
positive example of this.

However, while the Australian Government has said it is interested in
exploring further reforms to the native title system and clearly identified
reform to the native title system as a strategic
priority^[9], it is disappointing that
the government has reconsidered its prioritisation of the development of the
Native Title Act’s Social Justice Package. As I have highlighted in a
number of my reports, the Native Title Act was intended to be just one of three
mechanisms to recognise, and provide some reparation for the dispossession of
Indigenous peoples’ from our lands and waters.

The Act was to be complemented by:

• a social justice package to address broader issues in the relationship
  between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, and
• an Indigenous land fund, which would ensure that those Indigenous peoples
  who could not access native title would still be able to attain some form of
  justice for loss of their lands.
  

While the Indigenous Land Fund was established, the social justice
package has never been developed. It was here at Redfern in December 1992, that
former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating, in his famous Redfern Speech, said
that there is nothing to fear, or to lose from the extension of social justice.

In preparation for the 2007 federal election, the Australian Labor Party
promised to honour its commitment to implement a package of social justice
measures in response to Mabo (No 2). However, the Labor Party has since removed
the reference to the social justice package in its 2009 National Platform. In
my view, a social justice package is integral to the effective operation of the
native title system. If the government are truly committed to improving the
lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait peoples, this is a priority that must be
actioned rather than ignored.

In addition to the social justice package, in order for the native title
system to deliver worthwhile outcomes to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples, the legacy of Howard’s ten point plan will need to be
addressed.

For example a number of areas within the native title system could be
effectively reformed to ensure that the system provides for the needs of all
parties with a legitimate interest. I have discussed a number of these in this
year’s report, including:

• considering ways to formally recognise traditional ownership
• amending the Native Title Act to shift the burden of proof in a native title
  claim, so that those who are most vulnerable are not lumped with the burden of
  challenging a system that is not designed to provide for the rights and
  interests of traditional owners
• encouraging states and territories to adopt a more flexible approach to
  assessing and accepting connection evidence
• improving access to land tenure information which is currently held by state
  and territory governments
• streamlining the role of non-government respondents in native title
  claims
• promoting broader and more flexible native title settlement packages,
  and
• increasing the quality and quantity of anthropologists and other experts
  working in the native title system.

As those of you here today who
work in the native title system would be aware, none of these ideas are new and
some are already being considered. However, as a nation we are no longer in a
position to tinker at the edges of the native title system. The problems with
the native title system can only be addressed through a comprehensive reform
process that is informed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In
addition to the areas for reform I have raised, native title reform must be
guided by human rights principles and standards. Standards such as:

• self-determination
• free, prior and informed consent
• non-discrimination
• the right to maintain and enjoy our distinct cultures, and
• to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or
  use of our lands or territories and other resources.

Changing the
culture of the native title system will not be an easy task. The potential for
reform will depend on the attitudes and commitment of all involved. Reform to
the native title system requires political will. It will also require a
commitment on the part of governments and the corporate sector to enter into
genuine partnerships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
based on respect for our rights and the principle of free, prior and informed
consent.

I believe that this has been difficult in the past due to the fact that the
importance of culture and its relevance to Indigenous people’s
relationship to our lands is not completely understood and acknowledged by all
Australians. This is evidenced by the fact that governments continue to develop
Indigenous land policy in isolation to other social and economic areas of
policy. As a result, when governments try to be innovative, in many instances
it is our rights to our lands and waters that are compromised.

For example, the second issue addressed in the Native Title Report 2009 is the Australian Government’s approach to land tenure reform across
the country. While the five year leases imposed under the Northern Territory
Emergency Response Legislation, and the Governments new policy to secure land
tenure for housing through longer term leases aim to facilitate service delivery
in Indigenous communities, including homelands, they effectively terminate our
connection and our use, access and ownership of those lands and our ability to
make decisions about our own futures. This is despite the application of the
non-extinguishment principle.

I am concerned about these policies and the way they impact on Aboriginal
peoples across Australia. In particular, I am concerned that these policies and
their impacts are not being presented to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people in a clear and transparent way. We as Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples have fought hard for our rights over our lands to be
recognised. We as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have legitimate
concerns about losing control over decision-making in our communities and these
concerns are grounded in a historical legacy of control and contempt.

I call on governments to consider different approaches to land reform and
land ownership and I set out principles that should underpin the introduction of
any land tenure reforms or home ownership schemes. This includes providing the
community with clear and appropriate information. Respect for the principle of
free, prior and informed consent is at the centre of these principles.

When I started today, I highlighted some of the big ticket positive
developments that the government has introduced since they were elected in 2007.

• The Australian Government’s Apology to the Stolen Generations and
  support for the establishment of the National Healing Foundation,
  
• the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
  
• formalising a COAG commitment to the Close the Gap Healthy Equality
  Campaign,
  
• and its full support for the establishment of the National Congress of
  Australia’s First Peoples, provides the government with a solid framework
  for the advancement of Australia’s First Peoples.
  

The recommendations within the Social Justice and Native Title
Reports for 2009 relate specifically to promoting and strengthening Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people’s culture and identity. Culture and
identity are central to each and every one of the rights contained in the
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and are central to our success
as peoples seeking to overcome the disadvantage and the challenges that we face
on a daily basis.

The issues that I have addressed in these two reports start to build on the
framework that has been secured over the past five years. The core of these
issues speak to the need for strong communities built on strong foundations.

This might be through:

• investing money in crime prevention and keeping our people out of prison;
  
• protecting our languages and our culture that is the glue that keeps our
  communities together;
  
• supporting our homelands as a model of community development and
  self-determination;
  
• or securing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples rights to our
  lands, seas, waters and territories by creating a just and equitable native
  title system.
  

Our communities, be they in remote or urban locations, are not just
where we come from, but who we are. They represent our family connections,
proud history and rich culture. I hope that they remain strong and can in turn
sustain future generations. The Social Justice and Native Title Reports for
2009 provide some ideas and recommendations on how to do this.

As I come to the end of my term, I urge governments to listen to us and work
with us. Respect our voices, our rights, our lands, our resources, our seas and
our waters.

And with this being my final launch of the annual Social Justice and Native
Title Reports let me again acknowledge my dedicated and talented staff, past and
present, who have provided me with inspiration and energy. These reports are
testimony to your research, inquiry, investigation, diplomacy and writing
skills. You have fairly and respectfully represented the views of the many
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other collaborators that you
have consulted - thank you. And thank you President Cathy Branson and
Commissioner colleagues Graeme Innes and Liz Broderick for your support and
encouragement during the hard times.

Finally, let me remind all Australians that human rights are for everyone,
everywhere, everyday and let me again share my mantra - from self respect
comes dignity, and from dignity comes hope.

Thank You.

---

^[1] Australian Bureau of
Statistics, Prisoners in Australia 2008. At: http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/F618C51B775B2CF87CA25751B0014A2D5$File/45170_2008.pdf (viewed 27 May 2009).

^[2] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Juvenile Justice in Australia
2006-2007. At http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/juv/jjia06-0/jjia06-07.pdf (viewed 27 May 2009).

^[3] Minister
for Home Affairs, Funding to stop Aboriginal Prisoner Reoffending, Media Release, 1 October
2009.

^[4] Australian Institute of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies and the Federation of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Languages, National Indigenous Languages Survey
Report 2005, Executive Summary. At http://www.arts.gov.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0006/35637/nils-report-2005.pdf (viewed 3 July 2009).

^[5] Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies and the
Federation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Languages, National
Indigenous Languages Survey Report 2005, Executive Summary. At http://www.arts.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/35637/nils-report-2005.pdf (Viewed 3 July 2009).

^[6] Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies and the
Federation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Languages, National
Indigenous Languages Survey Report 2005, p67. At http://www.arts.gov.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0006/35637/nils-report-2005.pdf (viewed 3 July 2009).



^[7] A
Vanstone, (Former Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs), Indigenous communities becoming ‘cultural
museums’, ABC Radio, AM Program interview, 9 December 2005. At: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1527233.htm (viewed 17 December 2009)



^[8] NNTT website, Quick statistics (31 March 2009). Available at: http://www.nntt.gov.au/News-and-Communications/Facts-for-Journalists/Pages/Tips-for-Understanding-Native-Title.aspx.
. Accessed on 23 July 2009.

^[9] Attorney-General’s
Department, Strategic Plan 2009-2010 (2009), p 3. At http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(C7C220BBE2D77410637AB17935C2BD2E)~AGDStrategicPlan1July2009.rtf/$file/AGDStrategicPlan1July2009.rtf (viewed 12 October 2009).