Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As we stand here reflecting on the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum and the 25th anniversary of the High Court's Mabo decision, it is appropriate that I open with an acknowledgement that this parliament was built on what is, was and always will be Aboriginal land. I acknowledge the traditional owners, the Ngunawal and Ngambri people, and pay my respects to their elders, past and present, and also to the elders of the Kulin nation, the Boonwurrung and the Wurundjeri people, in my bit of Melbourne.

As we reflect on these significant anniversaries it's hard to believe, for those of us here, just how contemporary these momentous changes are. Most Australians either were alive when the referendum took place or have a parent or grandparent who was. And for many, especially young people, there's a feeling that now we're in politically stagnant times, that there is disengagement of people from politics and the effects it has on their lives, and it is a time of fractious parliaments and lessening trust in MPs and institutions. We've had 18 years now without any referendum being put to the people of Australia. I understand that that's the longest gap since Federation in 1901. But it would be sad if this leads us to believe that momentous change is something from a bygone era. The challenges handed to us only in recent weeks by the Referendum Council's National Convention at Uluru, the final report of the Referendum Council, remind us there are momentous changes that we still must confront.

There are dangers, of course, in constitutional change. The failed republic referendum, despite majority support for a republic, stands as an example. But real change requires leadership. To borrow Paul Keating's formula, that is imagination and courage—not, may I say, Prime Minister Howard's pathetic vision for a nation as being relaxed and comfortable, or Prime Minister Abbott's aggression and mindset of political gain at all costs, or the weak, pathetic nothingness of the current Prime Minister, who turned up to the Garma Festival and waffled, frozen, unable to make any commitment or lead his party, let alone the nation. So it's especially important and inspiring to remember what is possible when politicians and society come together to address injustices in the cause of equality and progressive change.

The 1967 referendum reminds us of a universal truth in politics and public life: that progressive change is not inevitable and never easy. It is always hard, and resisted by some, especially at the start, and achieving progressive change is always a struggle. It requires tenacity to stand up to an unfair world, to turn ideals into reality. Back then the campaigners for the yes vote worked tirelessly for over 10 years to put the case for change on the national agenda. There can be no doubt that by the time the Australian people came to a vote in 1967 the campaigners for change had put their issue, their cause, at the centre of the nation's political agenda. By the time the ballot boxes closed on 27 May 1967, these social warriors, if you like, had done all they could to progress their cause.

I asked the Dandenong historical society in my electorate whether they had any news articles from the time of the referendum. Reading the news from back then you can hear, can feel, decades on, the optimism as well as the realism of what the 1967 referendum meant. In a Dandenong Journal article on 31 May 1967, a few days after the vote, Mr Bill Onus, a local entrepreneur, speaking on behalf of '50 Aborigines' said:

I look on it as the biggest milestone in the history of my people … we're overjoyed and feel now we are recognised as part of a nation and not just as 'the other people' … This, for us, is just the beginning of the long road to progress and rehabilitation.

The hope in Mr Onus's words is still palpable today. What a sense of victory the First Australians and the campaigners must have felt. In an earlier interview with the Dandenong Journal, printed on 9 May, a few days before the ballot, Mr Onus spoke to the importance of this constitutional change, saying:

Every head of livestock in Australia is counted—every sheep, every horse, every cow—but there is no true count of aborigines.

He felt that the number varied between 100,000 and 300,000, but no-one really knew.

So, the 1967 referendum, in that context, was Australia's most successful, with 90.8 per cent of Australians voting yes. This is especially remarkable as these were not progressive times in terms of such matters—the White Australia policy was still technically in force—and with a level of bipartisanship that today seems astonishing. The hard work that these social warriors campaigning for change achieved put in place a political climate whereby parliamentarians passed the referendum legislation unanimously. There was no Peter Dutton extremist type failing to show up to the apology—not one. Just like on marriage equality today, the community then was ahead of its leaders.

1967 also reminds us that arbitrary discrimination debases us all. It damages our society. And so does extreme injustice and extreme inequality generally—whether economic, legal or social we see real-world damaging impacts on society. The latest Closing the Gap report showed us that in terms of ridding our nation of inequalities between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and all other Australians, we are still not living up to our commitments. The hope, the promise, of the 1967 referendum, of Mabo, has not been realised despite all the good intentions. The target to halve the gap in child mortality by 2018 will not be met. The goal to close the gap in life expectancy by 2021 will not be achieved. The promise to close the gap on many education and employment measures will not be upheld. Although clearly not enough, 1967 was of some practical positive impact, and Marcia Langton pointed out in her 2012 Boyer Lecture that hard-won legislative and constitutional changes in the 1960s allowed Aboriginal people to enjoy 'the political and economic benefits of citizenship: the social welfare safety net, some aspects of economic development, political representation, support for language and culture, and government policy and funding to improve outcomes in education and sports'.

In the 1990s, judicial decisions, coupled with the legislative actions of the Keating government, abolished the legal fiction of terra nullius and enshrined the native title rights of the First Australians into law. These rights have strengthened the foundations upon which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can engage in the Australian economy. Yet, it's not enough. To truly honour the 50th anniversary of 1967 and the 25th anniversary of Mabo we have to commit, now, this parliament to more action. Fine words are insufficient. We must find our own wisdom and courage to respond to the Referendum Council's report and drive change. In a statement released after the Uluru convention, delegates stated:

In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard.

For our part I am so proud that Labor listened to Uluru, seeking to hear the message. Labor has laid out our response and a pathway for action with the incredible leadership by our Aboriginal members of caucus and the Leader of the Opposition. If we are being honest in our remarks I must say that I have mixed feelings about the Prime Minister's commitment or ability to do anything. He does mouth the right words. We have all sat through them. But there is no sign his heart is really in it and there's a deep hypocrisy in the speeches to this House of government MPs. I have heard some of them. I was listening to them talk in reverential terms about Eddie Mabo. They hint at some magical bipartisanship on Indigenous issues, which is a rewriting and whitewashing of history, as it is not true. Never forget, the Liberals are the party that voted against Mabo. They fuelled the utterly disgraceful nonsense in the popular press and the community that our suburban backyards were under threat. The front pages of the paper were fuelled by the Liberal Party. The Howard government's response to the High Court's Wik case was weak, pathetic and ungenerous in spirit or substance.

Few here may remember the 1997 Bringing them home report into the stolen generations. I do, though. I was a staffer here and it was the most emotional week I can remember in this building in the five years I worked here last century. Every Labor member of parliament spoke from the heart about that report. The Aboriginal community from across Australia turned up to this building, their national parliament, to tell their stories and to bear witness to the parliament's work. Yet the Howard government's response was useless. It could have been a much better moment of national reflection and healing. And Howard was the Prime Minister who then refused for his remaining 10 years in office, in that wasted decade, to issue a simple apology to the Aboriginal people, whose time had clearly come. The Minister for Immigration, a pretender to the throne, was so weak he did not even turn up to the apology. We saw Prime Minister Abbott's gaps between actions and words—he professed to care yet cut $500 million. Despite the PM's fine words, that continues today. The Deputy Prime Minister's first response is not to listen, not to understand. Let's hope the government can find some imagination, heart and courage, perhaps inspired by the spirit of 1967. I am hopeful, not optimistic—they may, but time will tell.

See this speech in context