The future is in our hands: Reconciliation direction 2001

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.