The future is in our hands: Reconciliation direction 2001

There is no doubt in my mind that Reconciliation is heading in the right direction. We - you and I - together are where Reconciliation is heading.

You only need to look at the succession of events around this country this year. At Corroboree 2000 in Sydney, here in Brisbane a week later, with our record march across William Jolly Bridge. In Adelaide, Hobart and most recently in Townsville, to see that this is the case.

All are record turnouts. All have been truly wonderful human experiences for almost everyone who took part in them. These are defining moments in this nation's history.

When the people march in such numbers, I know which side of history I want to be on.

Having said that, though, there is still a long way to go to achieve true reconciliation in this country.

The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation will wind up at the end of this year. As far as I am concerned, CAR has done an enormous job in helping change for the better - how this nation thinks, feels and understands its own history. And its relationship with the Indigenous people of this country.

If you think back to where this country was just 10 years ago and consider where we are today, CAR and the whole process of reconciliation has achieved much. But as the topic for tonight rightly suggests we are not "there" yet. So where do we need to go post-CAR?

First of all, I think that the whole notion of Reconciliation is now embedded in the national psyche like never before. Yet we will still need another 10-20 years of the sort of education and information, consultation at the community level that CAR, the ANTARs and reconciliation groups, and many, many others are doing.

So I am concerned that with CAR out of the picture this grass-roots role and process, and the resources needed to do this, will no longer be there.

What this will mean is the increased importance of ANTAR and Reconciliation groups.

Having said that though, a substantial part of the answer as to where reconciliation ultimately goes must lie with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

We have to be able to have a major say in those directions. It is also true that we have and will continue to do so.

At the most basic level, what Reconciliation and all these issues that are inextricably tied up in it are really about is that we no longer want mainstream Australia to make decisions for us. We want to determine our destiny for ourselves. Instead of deciding what is best for us, to ask us. And to listen to what we are saying and why. For some of the same basic respect that you all expect, and rightfully so, for your right to be who you are.

It has been interesting to watch how the mainstream media and others are responding to and interpreting the actions of the hundreds of thousands of people who crossed the Sydney Harbour Bridge at Corroboree 2000.

It has been equally fascinating to watch Prime Minister John Howard's reaction. Despite the fact that the marchers literally walked past the front door of his official residence on Sydney Harbour, he could not find it within himself to join in.

And despite a prominent series of public statements from Aboriginal leaders leading up to Corroboree, many commentators have claimed the popular call for a treaty before, during and after the march - even its inclusion on the Documents of Reconciliation - was an attempt to hijack the reconciliation process.

Nothing could be further from the truth because a treaty has never been off our agenda.

What this shows, I believe, is just how much work still needs to be done - to truly inform the nation about our rights and aspirations - despite the amazing amount of shoe leather left on Sydney Harbour Bridge on that historic Sunday in May.

Those who take more than a passing interest in Aboriginal Affairs know that the reconciliation process was what we got from former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke - in response to our calls for a treaty. That great hope that he raised and then backed away from.

So it was no surprise to read that Prime Minister Howard and his Ministers reject the treaty as divisive, claiming it would create a nation within a nation.

This is the blinkered vision they have employed on our right to self-determination for more than 10 years.

It probably won't surprise you to recall that even back in April, 1989, Mr Howard, who was then Leader of the Opposition, proclaimed the Hawke Government would not improve "the lot" of Aborigines "by empty symbolic gestures such as treaties."

He went on:

"I take the opportunity of saying again that if the Government wants to divide Australian against Australian, if it wants to create a black nation within the Australian nation it should go ahead with its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission legislation and its treaty. In the process it will be doing a monumental disservice to the Australian community."

While he may be consistent, there is no question in my mind that the hundreds of thousands of Australians who walked across Sydney Harbour bridge, and around the country, voted with their feet. Voted for a new deal for our peoples. Clearly, the informed public debate has moved on. Mr Howard has not.

To be fair, I must also say I believe he has come to accept that ATSIC has helped to considerably "improve the lot" of our constituents over the past decade. He has certainly made it clear to the ATSIC Board that he is happy to work with us to make crucial improvements in the health education, employment and essential services of our peoples.

What he terms "practical" reconciliation. And we are happy to work with him to deliver these improvements.

But he also knows, as I do, there is simply not enough money currently being allocated to these areas.

ATSIC has also made it equally clear to him that we want him to work with us to deliver true reconciliation.

At Corroboree 2000 ATSIC called on all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to unify behind our struggle for true reconciliation. This means recognising that we possess distinct rights arising from our status as first peoples, our relationships with our territories and waters, and our own systems of law and governance.

We called for a new era of informed constitutional consent.

It must be always be remembered in this debate that we have never given such consent at any stage in our history. I repeat, there have been no treaties, no formal settlements, no compacts. We are not mentioned in the constitution.

But let's make on thing clear: we do not seek this to divide the nation, but to unite it.

I think it is quite clear on the question of the treaty, and indeed on many Indigenous issues, this nation already is divided. It is my view and that of ATSIC - and I must say many other Indigenous leaders outside of ATSIC - that a treaty can unite the nation.

Clearly, what Prime Minister Howard and his conservative bedfellows are up to is to whip up hysteria over our pursuit of a treaty. In so doing they use the narrowest definition of the word.

They claim it is a document signed between two separate nations.

As Prime Minister, Mr Howard should be seeking to resolve the division. Any dictionary will tell him the word treaty can also apply to any agreement or compact.

Nevertheless, Indigenous people will not agree to any document or documents of reconciliation that compromise our assertions of sovereignty. The reason is simple and the facts of history are clear on this.

Governor Phillip arrived in Australia with instructions to settle this country "with the consent" of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Consent was never given.

We never gave up our lands. They were taken from us. This is the black hole in the heart of Australian history. From the moment the British established a penal colony at Sydney Cove on 26 January 1788, all thinking about Indigenous peoples in Australia was dominated by the notion of terra nullius.

This was despite the fact it had been the practice of European colonial powers in Africa, the Americas, Africa, Asia and New Zealand at the time to seek to negotiate treaties with the Indigenous peoples.

It was not long, however, before the British settlers had to adjust their ideas about the Indigenous peoples.

By the end of the nineteenth century, enough was known of the law and governance of Aboriginal tribes to suggest a society that had exercised sovereignty prior to the arrival of Europeans.

Yet it was not until the courageous 1992 Mabo case that the High Court finally rid us of the doctrine of terra nullius. When this country, through its highest court, finally recognised what we have always known - that our Indigenous laws and customs are the source of our rights. When your system finally said this was true under common law as well.

The Court, however, did not explicitly address the question of original Aboriginal sovereignty. And there remains no constitutional or other document that records the consent of Australia's Indigenous peoples about the terms of our relationship with non-Indigenous Australians.

This is what we are seeking.

Recognition that we possess distinct rights arising from our status as first peoples, from our relationships with our territories and waters, and our own systems of law and governance.

In this regard, Australia is well behind developments in other countries. There are a range of contemporary agreements negotiated overseas between Indigenous peoples and non-indigenous and colonial states.

These have been accompanied by parallel recognition of the distinct rights Indigenous peoples have in international law through the United Nations.

In Canada, there is acceptance of the Indigenous right of self government. The debate there is squarely focussed upon the character of self government and upon implementation.

Many Australians are totally unaware that the Inuit in Greenland exercise home-rule, that the Maori have reserved seats in New Zealand or that there are Sami parliaments in Finland, Norway and Sweden.

There is no doubt Constitutional issues in relation to these matters will take time. They will also require an informed nation.

Mr Howard is doing himself and the nation a massive disservice by seeking to milk the fear and ignorance in the community on these issues rather than helping us inform the nation about the true nature of reconciliation.

There is a second measure of true reconciliation that I want to canvas with you before finishing: Indigenous representation in parliament.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people now need to take further steps forward both in politics and in the wider community. We have the capacity, we have the strength, and we actually have a lot of experience and a great deal of skills. But we now need to have greater formal involvement in these processes.

More of us should now be looking to step out from behind the scenes and into the forefront. It is time there were more of us on local councils and in local government.

There are some encouraging signs that there are more Indigenous people – including some women - in these decision-making positions. But there is not one Indigenous person in the Queensland Parliament. In all the parliaments of this country, you can count the number of Indigenous people on one hand.

It remains a national shame that in the year 2000, despite 33 years since the 1967 referendum, that after 10 years of reconciliation there is only one Indigenous person in the national Parliament: Aden Ridgeway in the Senate. And he is only the second we have ever had there. None of us has ever been elected to the House of Representatives.

And you don't need any hands to count the number of Indigenous women in this county's Parliaments. There aren't any. It is now time there was.

One of the questions is how that should be done. Well, I have a suggestion that this government should seriously consider. My suggestion easily fits in with what the Prime Minister and others call "practical reconciliation."

Political parties should go out and select, on merit, talented Indigenous people for membership with a view to developing them, training them. As they do for any other talented candidates, in readiness for pre-selection.

Again, on merit.

In line with this, political parties should look at adopting the approach the ALP used in the case of Cheryl Kernot. What they did was "headhunting." A process that business, and government departments do to get the right people under active consideration for key positions.

There is a number of federal and state seats where there are many Indigenous people living. Some where we are more than 40 per cent of the electorate.

These seats are ideally suited to this sort of preselection process by the main political parties.

There is already the talent in our communities, in our organisations, the experience, and sheer political nous.

It is time that this happened. Not only in the national parliament but also in the Queensland Parliament and every state Parliament.