Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also congratulate the member for Parkes on his speech. We are on the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs together, and I know he is passionate about making change not only in his community but across Australia.

I begin this speech by acknowledging the traditional owners and thanking them for their continuing stewardship both here in Canberra and throughout Australia. A little bit of history before I go into the speech proper: I began by acknowledging the traditional owners, and I think that recognises those 50,000 years or more of history where Australia has had an Indigenous community and a non-European community, or a community from around the world. We can move forward to those interactions with the Indonesian traders, the Muslim traders, the Macassans in the north, the Chinese, the Dutch, the English et cetera—all those interactions on many levels with the Indigenous Australians—through to 26 January 1788, where that law of terra nullius came into play, where Australia was claimed for the Crown, the Crown that we serve under here today.

Obviously that concept saw a change from colonies to Federation in 1901, where the Constitution was written up—not with a significant recognition of Indigenous Australians. That pervasive legal fabrication of terra nullius existed. We go down the hill a bit to the opening of Old Parliament House, where Indigenous Australians, local communities, traditional owners, were there at the ceremony but not invited into the opening. There were many other changes, but we go through to 1967, when the Australian community turned around, as acknowledged by Prime Minister Abbott today in his words before the start of question time, recognising that Australia had changed. Still, sadly, nine per cent of Australians said that the Indigenous Australians should not be recognised in that referendum, but nevertheless we can focus on the positive that 91 per cent of Australians, in the biggest tick of approval ever for our 40-plus referenda, said that Aborigines should be welcomed as a part of Australia.

Then we go through to that High Court decision on, I think, 2 June 1992, where the High Court recognised that terra nullius was legally a furphy, effectively, through some meandering legal logic. Then later, in the Wik decision, we saw that Australia had always had an Indigenous presence and that traditional ownership sat alongside that terra nullius concept and the idea of the Crown taking control of Australia. Not every politician or every government stepped up when accepting this new legal reality. Not everyone did. Even though Indigenous Australians had always said it, not every government embraced that. Labor and Liberal had problems with these changes. I was still a schoolteacher rather than a lawyer back in 1992-93, and I remember the hysteria in the classrooms, on the airwaves and in the newspapers over what this meant. But, as it turned out, it meant that we recognised the truth rather than having a nation based on some falsehoods.

I remember my very first day in this parliament after being elected in November 2007. We started out under the Australian flag, in that space between the Senate chamber, the House of Representatives chamber, the ministerial wing and the public area—the space where those four areas intersect. Under the flagpole, the traditional owners gave us a welcome to country and welcomed the Australian parliament for the first time ever. Then there was that historic first event, the apology. I know some people chose to walk out of the apology rather than hear that bipartisan approach from Prime Minister Rudd and Leader of the Opposition Brendan Nelson. But I think history has shown that that was a significant first day. In fact, I was just up in Townsville with the member for Parkes and saw, written and recognised on the boardwalk, that date in February 2008. A few days after that, I made my first speech in parliament, and I went through the number of Indigenous Australians from my home town who had died. Since I made that speech in 2008, more friends, more people that I went to school with, have passed away—more people from St George whose lives have been lost way too quickly.

Sadly, the latest Closing the Gap data reflects that, despite the best endeavours of both the Rudd-Gillard government and the Abbott government to do what they can to close this gap—and I recognise on both sides of the chamber the genuine commitment to do that. But I would say again that you cannot make significant cuts to the Indigenous community, especially in things like legal aid, in the area that I have shadow responsibility for. When you make cuts to legal aid, you put lives at risk. The reality is, if people do not have representation or support in the legal system, they will end up either back out doing the wrong thing or they will not be represented and they will end up in jail. There are all those diversionary programs that I could go into in detail, but I will not—but I will make that general comment. Despite the spirit of bipartisanship, there cannot be such significant cuts to the Indigenous community in health, education and, especially, legal aid without there being consequences.

Anyone that works as a lawyer in Aboriginal legal services or in services that deal primarily with Indigenous women knows that Indigenous people suffer incredible rates of violence, incredible rates of incarceration. Indigenous children are incarcerated at rates nearly 50 times higher than non-Indigenous Australians. Even before those $530 million worth of cuts, the system was not perfect and had a long way to go and needed more support. Obviously the common-sense principle is that you must let local communities make decisions about themselves if you want them to be empowered. We are a long way from Cape York. We are a long way from north-western Western Australia. We are even a long way from the streets of Redfern. When it comes to Canberra making decisions that best serve the interests of local communities, we must have their input, must have their involvement, otherwise we will not have a decision that empowers people.

Sadly, I have heard too many Closing the Gap statements. As I said, they have all flowed from that first apology from Prime Minister Rudd, something that history will be incredibly kind to him about, because it was a significant day, even though there was a little bit of flak about how it would be perceived by the Australian people. I think all Australians now see that history will not judge kindly those who were on the wrong side of that debate. I know that much more needs to be done. Even with a tightened budget, with revenue difficulties, with headwinds coming the way of our economy, I would hope that the Prime Minister, with his responsibility of looking after Indigenous Australians, is able to make sure that they receive the best support possible, that they are empowered locally. If you are going to go into a tent in an Indigenous community symbolically once a year, that is a good thing, if the deeds match up with what the symbolism is supposed to represent. The symbolism of going into a tent in an Indigenous community just becomes hollow and abhorrent if you do not back it up with real dollars, real support, real engagement with Indigenous communities. I say that especially representing an urban electorate. As people have already mentioned, 50 per cent of Australia's Indigenous community now lives in an urban environment, not in a tent in a remote community. So more needs to be done. The empty words from this year's Closing the Gap statement need to be changed into direct action next year.

See this speech in context