Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition (Sunset Extension) Bill 2015 seeks to extend, as its name suggests, the sunset date of the act by three years to 28 March 2018. The recognition act was passed unanimously by the previous parliament. It recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first inhabitants of Australia and records the parliament's intention to move towards constitutional recognition. This is not a new idea.

The sunset date set in the legislation as 28 March 2015 was to give the parliament and the public a date by which it could consider further steps towards a referendum on constitutional recognition of Indigenous peoples. The Prime Minister had indicated his view that the referendum was likely to be held in 2017. That is an issue, I think, which is open for some discussion. If the act were to collapse, there would be no legislative instrument of Indigenous recognition in place and it would be viewed as a backward step on the path to constitutional recognition.

The review panel established under the recognition act comprised the Hon. John Anderson, AO; Tanya Hosch; and Richard Eccles. They recommended an extension of the sunset date to no more than three years to align with the timing of a potential referendum. The Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples made this recommendation in its progress report tabled on 27 October 2014, following their very wide and extensive national consultations. It is important that we pass this piece of legislation. I am pleased to say that, as you would expect, there is strong bipartisan support for that objective.

This legislation gives me an opportunity to talk about a range of things, one of which is history. Whilst we are today talking about national recognition, we all know that our nation's founding document is silent on the special place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, and we accept that it is now a historical wrong that has to be put right. That has not always been the case. Indeed, the time since Federation has been littered with many examples of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their supporters canvassing for recognition and change, without a lot of support—except in one particular instance, and I will come to that in a moment.

It is worthwhile understanding that calls for recognition to amend the Constitution to give the Commonwealth power in Aboriginal affairs went back to the first decade after Federation, so this is not a new discussion. Churchmen, anthropologists and activists such as Bessie Rischbieth of the Australian Federation of Women Voters had argued that the federal government should have responsibility for Aboriginal people and that that should be recognised in the Constitution. Many events have happened since then.

There were great movements in New South Wales in the thirties and forties to give recognition to Aboriginal people and their rights, none of which were taken up. Then, in the fifties and sixties, we saw some significant change. That was largely as a result of a movement by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but mostly Aboriginal people in the southern parts of Australia, and some in the Top End, who set about trying to change the views of the Australian community on the need for recognition of Aboriginal people.

Instrumental in this was an organisation known as the Legislative Reform Committee, which, in 1965, became the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, FCAATSI. It took the responsibility of keeping the constitutional amendment issue politically alive. It had some very interesting people behind it, including Lorna Lippmann, who was a leading convener within the Legislative Reform Committee. She wrote to all members of parliament explaining that section 51(xxvi) needed to be amended so that 'the federal government may take positive steps to improve the lot of Aborigines'. Other members of that committee were Shirley Andrews; Lady Jessie Street; Barrie Pittock; Gordon Bryant; Joe McGinness—someone I knew well and who was from a family in Darwin, a Kungarakan man, who subsequently moved across to Cairns and there died many years ago now; Faith Bandler, whose life we celebrated at a funeral service at the University of Sydney this week, and I will say more about her in a moment; Bert Groves; and Edna Blackshaw. The Bandler family were integrally involved right throughout this process.

Following the passage of the Constitution Alteration (Repeal of Section 127) Bill in February 1966, Barry Pittock, who succeeded Lorna Lippmann as the convener of this committee, refined a petition sent to the committee by Mr AS Luchetti MP. In February 1967 at a cabinet meeting, the then Attorney-General Nigel Bowen reviewed the arguments put by his predecessor, Bill Snedden. Bowen considered the merits of the Wentworth proposal and told cabinet that he believed there would be widespread dissatisfaction if the Commonwealth did not think about section 51(xxvi). He urged members to support a proposal that the government hold a referendum to seek legislative power for the Commonwealth with respect to Aborigines by omitting the words 'other than the Aboriginal race in any state'.

It is an open question, a live debate, in some quarters about whether or not there was in fact a power already held by the Commonwealth or whether it used that power to pass legislation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In fact, I learned this morning that, every 3½ months since Federation and up until the referendum in 1967, the Commonwealth had passed either legislation or regulations that were solely for and directed at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people. This was revealed by John McCorquodale, who wrote a book, a monograph, published by Aboriginal Studies Press, Aborigines and the law: a digest, which explains very clearly that there was a question about whether or not these special laws were needed, because the Commonwealth had previously had that power, which it had expressed by passing legislation and regulations specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.

Nevertheless, in April 1967, a delegation from the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, FCAATSI, came to the parliament to seek the support of all federal members on the question of Aboriginal recognition. In response to the parliamentary support, churches revealed their support in favour of a yes vote. The Australian Council of Churches, the Methodist Commission on Aboriginal Affairs and the Society of Friends had developed Aboriginal affairs policies which favoured greater Commonwealth power in formulating and implementing policy for Aboriginal advancement. The FCAATSI set up a national 'vote yes' campaign, with a directorate headed by Gordon Bryant and my friend Joe McGuinness.

On 27 May 1967, over 90 per cent of the Australian electorate did vote yes on the question put, and of course the size of the vote was fundamentally important. And it is important that, in any discussion about any other potential changes to our Constitution, recognition is given to the fact that we need strong bipartisan support. This is really important in the context of actually giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people the recognition they properly deserve within our Constitution. It is also important to accept the need—as has been amply demonstrated—to remove section 25 of the Constitution, which says that the states can ban people from voting based on their race, and remove section 51(xxvii), which can be used to pass laws that discriminate against people based on their race. Clearly, these should go. Then there is the question of how we provide adequate recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians within the Constitution, and there are various proposals being put in this regard.

There is a recognition campaign which is being driven across this country which I would encourage members of this parliament and the community to get behind to ensure that when we come to a vote on this question, as we inevitably will, the question put in the referendum will be one which was finally settled as a result of discussion and negotiation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders across this country as well as with the broader community. We must get behind it and make sure that it is actually successful.

Earlier this week, I spoke about Faith Bandler and her wonderful life—and she was given enormous tributes this week. It was a great privilege for me to attend her funeral, and there were wonderful speeches given. But I have here an interview Faith Bandler did in 2004, involving George Negus. Faith Bandler said:

So we got the petition going and I started to take this petition around—calling on the government to … well, hold a referendum to give the Indigenous people equal rights. And I peddled this petition from '57 until '67 with my little group. We only had a little handful. There would have been no more than 9 or 10. Every day for 10 years, except for the weekends, I took that petition around. I spoke, I suppose, to every VIEW club that was in existence, to every Rotary Club I could think of, Lions, churches, schools, um … Oh, you know, it just went on. It was pointless getting signatures to a petition. The petition, of course, had to be presented in the House. So every day … when the Speaker called for petitions, we'd have someone there to hop up with ours, and this went on for 10 years. We only had to get 100,000 signatures but we got 10 times that over. And we kept getting the federal members to present our petition, to present it, to keep it going. The most important visit to Parliament House was a visit with our executive—

the one I referred to earlier. She went on:

They came from each State to meet Prime Minister Menzies and I am sure it was that visit that turned the tide, and I'm sure we convinced the prime minister that a referendum should be held.

That war of attrition, which is surely what it was, started with a small handful of people in the 1950s and culminated with the resounding success of the referendum in 1967.

We now have a real opportunity to set things right once and for all. If we are to set things right once and for all, we need a united voice across this parliament and across the community. If it takes us going to every town hall meeting, to every Rotary Club, every Lions Club, every church meeting and every trade union meeting across this country, then we should do it. We should mobilise the community around the importance of this particular question, understanding that finally we can put to rest forever the notion that somehow or another Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should not be recognised within our Constitution. That recognition is properly deserved. We need to do that so that we can say that this nation is actually a mature country, so that we can look at ourselves in the mirror and say, 'At last we have recognised what should have been done at the time of Federation.' Sadly it was not. We have that opportunity now. Let's make sure it is successful by working across this parliament and across the wider community to ensure that when the referendum is put we get 90 per cent or more. (Time expired)

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the fine words of the former speaker, the member for Lingiari, and acknowledge the work that he does in his electorate on behalf of Aboriginal people. I know the percentage of Aboriginal people that he represents in his Northern Territory seat is far in excess of that in other electorates in Australia.

It is important as a National Party member to also add my words to the debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition (Sunset Extension) Bill 2015, because members of the National Party represent a far higher percentage than many of the other electorates in Australia. I know the number of Aboriginal people that Mark Coulton, the member for Parkes, represents is significant. I know the great contribution that he has made in these sorts of debates by acknowledging the work that is being done to close the gap. Certainly he was in the House last night talking of that very thing.

This is an important bill. This is an important debate. I commend the member for Aston for taking this into the House yesterday. In his second reading speech he talked of the final report making it clear that we have not yet reached a point where we can proceed immediately to a referendum. He is correct, of course. Indeed, if we did, it would perhaps fail.

There have been only eight referenda out of the 44 held since 1906 which have passed successfully. The last referendum to pass was on 21 May 1977. There were a few questions at that particular time, including on the age of retirement for Federal Court judges, as well as some others. This is almost unbelievable, but the last successful referendum at an election—to give the Commonwealth power to legislate on a wide range of social services—was way back on 28 September 1946. So not too many referenda pass the public's scrutiny, pass the public test. If we are to properly acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution, we must ensure that it is passed by the public. I heard the member for Lingiari talking about bipartisan support, and that is on the table but more importantly we must get the public to come along with us as well. That is going to be the big test. I notice the member for Hasluck has just joined us in the chamber—he is doing all he can and I will be interested to read what he says about this. His presence in the House of Representatives has also shed new light on why we need to properly and appropriately recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution.

The Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Nigel Scullion, had some very interesting words to say on this subject at the Nationals federal council held in Canberra on 30 August last year. He took members of the National Party on a journey into Indigenous affairs and the important work that he is doing. He said:

This is important because so much is happening—and the Nationals have always taken a keen interest in Indigenous affairs because they share many of the rural and remote challenges and opportunities.

Like a few in this room I’m sure, I didn’t really think that the Apology we made in 2008 would matter.

I couldn’t see the apology helping at all to close the vast gap on vital issues such as Indigenous life expectancy, remote children’s education, housing, decent work for adults and community safety.

All the symbolic trumpeting was wonderful, but I could not see what difference it could make.

It takes a big politician to admit that he was wrong, but Senator Scullion went on:

How wrong I was.

The changes to the way Aboriginal people as individuals and as communities saw themselves after that apology were extraordinary. Clearly, those who would diminish the importance of symbolism as something that doesn’t have a role to play in practical outcomes are quite wrong.

Symbolic change must happen if practical changes are to succeed.

He is right, of course. He said:

They go hand in hand. The government’s response to the Forrest Report will give us the practical policy future while constitutional recognition of our Indigenous peoples will give the matching symbolic change. They are twin engines in a plane that we must bring in to land together.

Senator Scullion is correct, and he has done a lot to help close the gap. Of course there is much more work to be done. I spoke in the chamber earlier in the week on the Closing the Gap report. There were some impressive initiatives and impressive achievements over the past 12 months, but much more needs to be done if we as a government, this as a parliament and we as a nation are to bring about much-needed change in the sorts of things we want to see—making life expectancy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people similar to that of non-Indigenous people, and making sure that children are attending school. We have made significant progress in the number of Aboriginal year 12 attainees and we have also made significant progress with the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people going to university and indeed graduating from university. But much more needs to be done.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are the first inhabitants of this country and recognising them in our Constitution represents a wonderful and historic opportunity to recognise their unique culture, their unique history and the enormous contribution that they have made to Australia's past and Australia's present and that they will make to Australia's future. The original act expires at the end of this month and it is important, it is critical, it is crucial, that this bill pass the parliament by 5 March. The act recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first inhabitants of Australia and records the Australian parliament's commitment to work towards a referendum on Indigenous constitutional recognition.

We cannot put a referendum to the people and have it fail. We cannot put it to the people and have it not succeed. I know that there was good work done by the last government to try to get not only Aboriginal recognition but local government recognition in the Constitution. It was seen as a time that it was all being rushed, that it would not be possible, and that we would not be able to get people to come along with this. Therefore, it was stalled, wisely so. As I said, we cannot afford to have this go to the people and not succeed. Recognition in our democracy's founding document would be a significant watershed moment, as it would acknowledge the enormous contribution that Indigenous Australians have made over many, many centuries. I believe that it would also, and I am sure my colleagues in the Federation Chamber would agree, help to close the gap and unify the nation even more so than is the case today. A referendum is to be held as soon as possible to ensure that parliament's formal recognition of our first Australians continues.

I acknowledge the Prime Minister for going into a remote community for one week a year and governing Australia from a remote community, often in Arnhem Land. He has not done that just as Prime Minister—he did it as the opposition leader and even before that—as his contribution to what he sees as important as far as this process is concerned. The Prime Minister said he hopes to see a successful referendum held on or before 27 May 2015. That date is significant, because it is the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum which ensured that Indigenous Australians were counted as full citizens and gave the Commonwealth government responsibility for Indigenous affairs. The government is committed to fixing the Australian Constitution. That word fixing is important, because the Constitution does need to be amended, to be fixed, so that it acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians as the first peoples of this great nation.

I represent a number of Aboriginal people in the electorate of Riverina. Indeed, at the last census, in 2011, 4.7 per cent of the people in the Riverina who filled out a census form acknowledged that they were of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. That is a large number. They make a wonderful contribution to the Riverina community and I am sure that they will continue to make an enormous contribution to the Riverina community, as they always have. Aunty Isabel Reid, a Wiradjuri elder from Wagga Wagga and a passionate advocate for constitutional recognition of our first Australians, said recently, 'We are moving forward but we still have a long road in the country.' It is people such as Aunty Isabel, with her enthusiasm, advocacy and determination, who carry the potential for constitutional recognition to be achieved. May that soon happen.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to acknowledge the presence in the chamber of the member for Hasluck. We were together on Saturday in Emerton in the electorate of Chifley as a part of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, which the member for Hasluck chairs. The member for Hasluck would remember, as I do, the welcome to country that we were given by Uncle Greg, who is an elder of the Dharug tribe. We were very honoured to be welcomed to country in language. Uncle Greg said as part of his evidence to the committee in blunt but fairly resonant words: 'What youse people have gotta know, youse people who are writing the Constitution, that we fellas have been here for thousands of years. That's a fact.' I thought that those words were a very prescient preface to the debate we are having in the House and the evidence we have been hearing before the joint select committee.

This bill, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition (Sunset Extension) Bill 2015, extends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2013 to extend the sunset date by three years to 28 March 2018. The recognition act was passed unanimously by the previous government—quite an achievement, given the fractious nature of the 43rd Parliament. This is an issue on which there was unanimity across all of the parties and all of the members of the 43rd Parliament.

We again find ourselves in a bipartisan debate in the 44th Parliament, jointly recognising the need to extend the recognition act. A sunset date of 28 March 2015 was included in the extant act to give parliament and the public a date on which we could focus a time line if you like—a deadline if you like—so that we could focus our minds on the task of constitutional recognition of the first Australians. The current Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, has indicated that a referendum is most likely to be held in 2017. If we were not to extend the act, we would find ourselves in a deplorable situation where there would be no formal act of recognition because the extant act would have elapsed, and between now and the period when the people of Australia vote on a constitutional amendment, there would be no formal act of recognition of this parliament, unlike acts that have been passed by many of our sister parliaments throughout the federated states of Australia.

In its view, the review panel, which is commissioned by this piece of legislation, comprised of the Hon. John Anderson, known to all members in this place, Tanya Hosch, who is joint CEO of the Recognise campaign, and Richard Eccles, recommended the extension of this legislation. They formed the view that we were not yet ready to take a proposition to the Australian people. The joint select committee on which I serve made a recommendation consistent with the review panel's report, and that recommendation was tabled on 27 October last year, following our national consultations. As our parliamentary spokesperson, our shadow minister, Shayne Neumann, the member for Blair, has said, Labor is committed to pursuing substantive and meaningful changes in the Constitution—a point echoed, underscored and made very clear by the Leader of the Opposition when he addressed the Garma Festival in East Arnhem Land last year, where he made it very, very clear that Labor believes in recognition and has very strong views about the form in which that constitutional recognition should occur. It should be meaningful and it should be substantive and it should deal with the issue of systemic and longstanding discrimination against the first peoples of Australia.

Australia prides itself on being a place of fairness and equity, a place where Jack or Jill is as good as their master. However, our nation's founding document is itself actually silent on the special place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I see the member for Griffith in the chamber at the moment. I am probably a little bit older than her. When I studied law as a student at university in New South Wales, I was taught that the doctrine of terra nullius was a part of the common law of Australia—that is to say, Australia was a vacant place when the white fellas got of a boat at Port Phillip in 1788. To the extent that it was inhabited, the first Australians were considered nothing more than part of the flora and fauna of the landscape. Of course, all of that changed with the landmark decision in Mabo and the Commonwealth on 3 June 1992, after a case brought by the plaintiff, Eddie Mabo, succeeded in overturning that doctrine. We were then able to hold our heads as Australians and say that the common law of this land was brought into line with what every historian and what common sense was telling us to be the case, that the first people of this country, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, have been here for no less than 40,000 years and enjoy an enduring connection to country. Indeed, something that all Australians can be proud of is that we now share in and are a part of the oldest and most continuous culture anywhere on the planet—something that I am very pleased to say we now acknowledge at every civic ceremony around the country.

We have taken great steps since 1992. And of course, the action did not start from then. We had the 1967 referendum, which most speakers in this debate have acknowledged. I have mentioned the historic 1992 Mabo judgement. We have had the historic Northern Territory land rights legislation; the actions by former Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam; the landmark speech of former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, at Redfern; and the acknowledgement of and apology for some of the worst wrongs, by former Prime Minister Rudd—a moment which my generation of parliamentarians and, indeed, my generation of Australians has marked down as one of those Kennedy or Lennon moments—we all know where we were in Australia when Prime Minister stood in this place and gave that landmark speech. We now have bipartisan agreement to the annual Closing the gap report on how we are addressing inequality between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians, and there is the importance of having—as we did two weeks ago—that annual tabling of the report, together with a debate in this place about how we are going against those targets.

We have come a long way. I strongly commend this bill, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition (Sunset Extension) Bill 2015, to the parliament. But I cannot stand here in all honesty and not express some disappointment about the necessity to move an amendment to this act in order to extend it by some three years. It would have been my preference that we already be in a position to have a consensus position within this place, between both houses and all parties, a proposition that we could put before the Australian people; and, if the Australian people had not yet voted on it, that we would know what the proposition was and that we would know a date certain upon when the Australian people would get to exercise judgement upon the proposition. It will happen, I am certain, and it will be a great and unifying moment in our nation's history.

I pay tribute to the work that is being done by the committee on which I serve. It is a great honour. I believe that, whenever I leave this place—hopefully by choice of mine and not of others—I will mark my service on this committee as one of the great privileges that I have been able to hold as a member of this place. But I must say this: I am disappointed that we have not yet reached a bipartisan proposition. In making that observation, I make no reflection on my fellow members of that committee. The review panel makes the point that Australians are not yet ready to focus on this issue. I simply make the observation that it is unrealistic of us as parliamentarians to expect Australians to focus on a proposition when the parliament has not yet focused on the proposition.

That is why there is bipartisan support for the recommendation that both houses of parliament convene for a full two days, and that we debate the proposition of constitutional recognition, allowing every member and every senator to express their views; the views that they represent on behalf of their constituents, on behalf of their parties, and on behalf of their own consciences, as members of this place. So that the people of Australia, seeing this great spectacle of every member and every senator in this place expressing their views, know exactly what the issues are—creating the momentum that is necessary. creating the education that is necessary, and creating the focus that is necessary, for this parliament to get on with the job of fixing upon a proposition which removes the racist provisions within the Constitution. These are provisions that most Australians, I warrant, would not know were there, and would be horrified to know were part of the founding document of this nation. If you were to tell most Australians that our Constitution contemplates the rights of states to exclude people from their electoral rolls on no other basis than the basis of their race, I would guarantee that most Australians would be horrified—horrified that our Constitution contemplates a type of racism and discrimination that the laws of our state and federal parliaments prohibit. They would be astounded that our Constitution contemplates such discrimination and would support the proposition to remove it.

I am sure that most Australians seized of the momentum created by the High Court's first and second Mabo decisions, the eradication of the doctrine of terra nullius from the common law of this land and the fact that they now enjoy a more balanced education than they did when I was in school would say it makes common sense that we recognise the first Australians within our birth certificate, as the Prime Minister has quite pithily described it—our Constitution. They would say, 'This is the right thing to do.' I think most Australians would also support the proposition that parliaments should not be able to discriminate against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, certainly not to their detriment, on the basis of their race.

I think it is a simple proposition and we should be able to fix on a form of words which enable the Australian people to adjudicate on those three propositions to alter our Constitution. It will be an historic moment of unification, healing and celebration so that we can do as Uncle Greg implored us to do in his welcome to country and his address to the recognition committee in Emerton last Saturday and do as one of the witnesses to that committee said in very powerful and passionate language—'Australia does not have a white history. Australia does not have a black history. Australia has a history. Our Constitution should recognise that, and our children should be taught that in our schools.' I commend the bill to the House.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Hasluck for his contribution on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition (Sunset Extension) Bill 2015, and I certainly look forward to working with him and many other members of both the House and the Senate on ensuring the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia. I absolutely support the bill, which seeks to amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2013, its short title being the recognition act, and to extend the sunset clause that was part of that act by a further three years, taking us through to 28 March 2018.

The recognition act was passed unanimously by the previous parliament, and it recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first inhabitants of Australia and records the parliament's intention to move towards constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. When the act was first passed in this parliament a sunset date of 28 March 2015 was included, to give the parliament and indeed the Australian people a date by which they could consider further steps towards a referendum on constitutional recognition of Indigenous peoples. That was an important focus for both the nation and the parliament at the time, but 28 March 2015 is clearly very close; it is looming on our horizon so there is a clear need for this extension being sought today. If the act were to lapse there would be no legislative instrument of Indigenous recognition in this place. That could easily be read as a very backward step on our journey towards constitutional recognition. That is not something that I believe any member of this parliament would endorse.

However, it is important that any extension be limited and the review panel established under the recognition act has recommended the extension of the sunset date by no more than three years, to align with the timing of a referendum which we now understand the Prime Minister has indicated will likely be held in 2017. The Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples also made this recommendation in its progress report, which was tabled in parliament on 27 October last year following a quite extensive national conversation.

Labor is absolutely committed to pursuing substantive and meaningful change to our Constitution, change that both unites nation and reflects the hopes and aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Australia prides itself on being a place of fairness and equality. However, our founding document is silent on the unique place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our nation. It is a historical wrong that in my view and Labor's view must be made right. I know that is a view shared by many others in the House.

We have taken giant steps previously. The 1967 referendum is referred to by many in this area. I would also draw the attention of the House to the High Court's historic Mabo and Wik decisions, to former Prime Minister Paul Keating's Redfern speech and, more recently and more topically, the Close the Gap framework that this parliament uses both to measure and gauge progress we make on bridging the inequality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

Because the Closing the Gap initiative is something that we have been dealing with in the parliament this fortnight, I would like to touch very closely on it. The Prime Minister, himself, described the seventh Closing the Gap report, which is before us, as being 'profoundly disappointing'. I share the Prime Minister's view. Only two of the seven targets that we were trying to make some progress have seen some significant benefits and return to Indigenous people. We are failing to address a number of areas. I spoke in the House on the continuing failure to commit to an additional justice target. There is clearly a lot of work for us to do on many of the practical and substantive mechanisms to address inequality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. I know it is a matter of concern for some people that we are debating constitutional recognition: in the eyes of some people that is a symbolic action and we need to have it running in conjunction with all of the very practical work we are doing on the ground. I would suggest, and I hope, that the Australian parliament is more than capable of doing both and running simultaneously discussions around practical and symbolic mechanisms to address these inequalities.

The bill before the House will help us maintain some momentum towards constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as we continue to work together on a proposal for a referendum, but it is most definitely not the only undertaking required to ensure that we right this great wrong. Multipartisanship is critical for any referendum proposal to succeed, and there needs to be a strong consensus on timing and content. The timing and nature of the change must involve Aboriginal leaders and community members as well as the wider, non-Indigenous, community.

The positive role that the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples is playing is an important arm of engagement. I acknowledge the work that the committee has undertaken to date, including its extensive travel around the country, listening to communities and continuing those conversations wherever it goes. Engaging with the community and getting a broad public consensus around the need for constitutional change in the lead-up the referendum is the only way any question put to the Australian people will be successful.

History tells us that referendums in Australia are rarely successful. But, if you take people on the journey with you, they can be supportive and constitutional change can occur. Of the 44 referendums held since Federation, only eight have been successful. This is a very sobering matter of fact and why we really need to get this process right. Significantly, the most successful referendum in Australia's history was the 1967 referendum, where more than 90 per cent of our citizens voted 'yes for Aborigines', as the campaign at the time was called.

This is in stark contrast to the most recent referendum, which we had back in 1999, which proposed to alter the Constitution so Australia could become a republic and to insert a new preamble. The no result was resounding for both questions. I confess to being an active participant and campaigner for the yes vote, but we were not successful at that time. On the question of the republic, about 54 per cent voted against, and more than 60 per cent voted against the preamble question.

So there are some very important lessons to be learnt from the previous referendums that have been put to the Australian people. A number of those lessons have been very well articulated and outlined by Williams and Hume in their 2010 paper People Power: The History and Future of the Referendum in Australia. In that paper they identified three key aspects for a successful referendum in Australia, the first one being bipartisan support, the second one popular ownership and, finally, popular education. For constitutional recognition, at this stage we would be confident in saying that we have at least the first key aspect lined up—having bipartisan support. Indeed, we have multipartisan support. But I would argue that we are yet to achieve that broader public ownership. I think we still have some significant work to do in that space. We have had some success in community education programs, but again one would not be resting on work done to date. There is certainly room and a need for much more to be done in that space.

Federally funded organisations like RECOGNISE have been playing an important role and doing some tremendous work in the community in building public awareness of and community support for constitutional change to date. But, again, if we are serious about constitutional recognition and the success of a referendum on the matter, the federal government must continue to provide financial support to education initiatives that support community groups and activities giving Australians an opportunity to learn more about constitutional recognition. We must continue these programs at great speed, I would suggest.

While we do need mass ownership of the issue, this cannot be used, in my view, as an excuse to further delay the change to the constitution. So I would like to see a better funded and resourced community education campaign and for that to happen much sooner rather than later. Community education initiatives must take many forms and engage as many people as possible if a referendum is to be successful. Discussions need to happen in every community, every town, every city and every suburb. What we know is we need robust discussion and a strong sense of public ownership.

In December last year I was honoured to take part in one such community initiative in my electorate of Newcastle—the University of Newcastle's inaugural Wollotuka Yarning Circle. The Yarning Circle is an initiative of the Wollotuka Institute and is the flagship event of the organisation's new direction in social engagement and discussion, ensuring that local Aboriginal people and the wider community have a platform to take part in the national debate on Indigenous affairs. December's Yarning Circle focused on how constitutional recognition would impact the lives and aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and I was joined in this discussion with the community and fellow panellists Jeff McMullen AM and Teela Reid—a talented young woman lawyer and University of Newcastle and Wollotuka graduate. It was a very healthy and robust discussion on that evening. I believe all participants came away with a determination to do more, to double our efforts, in discussing this issue in our communities and networks and to convey a strong understanding of the importance of recognition within our respective circles. These sorts of initiatives are truly deserving of support, wherever and whenever they occur. They are the sorts of initiatives that will engage and educate the broader community and help to build a consensus for change.

We have before us, in my view, a historic, once-in-a-generation opportunity to acknowledge the unique status and cultural significance of the first Australians and to remove discriminatory provisions that have been used against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this nation. We must not let the opportunity pass. The Australian Constitution is our founding document and it is lacking in a number of respects, as has been made clear, and this is our chance to make that right. There are ongoing discussions to make sure that we have a way forward. It is my view that we absolutely cannot walk away from this moment of promise. (Time expired)

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition (Sunset Extension) Bill 2015, I strongly support the view that we need to extend the act of parliament that was established, from memory, in 2012. By doing so, I think we at least continue to provide some level of legal recognition of the fact that the Indigenous people were here prior to white settlement. Indeed, it has taken us over 100 years, following the establishment of our Constitution, just to get to this very point of providing that kind of recognition. The extension of the sunset clause associated with the original legislation is appropriate.

I assume that it was hoped at the time the legislation went through parliament in 2012 that, by now, we might have got to the point of having held the referendum and thereby resolving this issue. If we had held the referendum, we would have hopefully got a yes vote to the changing of the Constitution and, in turn, that would have sealed the issue that is the subject of this discussion. Indeed, one would have to ask just why, when the Constitution was established, it was framed in the way that it was. I accept that in 1901 the thought processes of the people who established the Constitution would have been entirely different from those of people of today. The Constitution reflects the general attitude of white settlers in this country towards Indigenous people. The treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people since white settlement in Australia has not been a record that Australia as a nation can be at all proud of. From the moment Captain Arthur Phillip and his crew set foot on Australian soil, it has been an uphill struggle for Indigenous people to be treated with the equality to which they are entitled both as human beings and as the 'settlers' who were here prior to white settlement.

I have been reflecting on some of the key process that we have seen in the last 100 or so years. Whilst I do not want to go through an exhaustive list by any means, I want to provide a snapshot of what has happened since white settlement in 1778. From 1778 right through to 1928, we can look back on a whole list of what we call Aboriginal killings, or Indigenous Australian killings, some referred to as massacres. That went right through to 1928. They have all now been documented for all to see. In 1909 right through to the 1970s, Indigenous children were removed from their families. We saw the presentation of the Stolen Generations report by Sir Ronald Wilson and Mick Dodson, highlighting the injustices that were committed over a period of almost 100 years. And that was after the establishment of the Australian Constitution and the national government, so we cannot just point the finger at individual states who had their own laws in place the time. In about 1935 we saw William Cooper form the Australian Aborigines League, which was perhaps the first protest movement by Indigenous people in this country—again, protesting the injustice that they were continuously subjected to. In fact, a few years later in 1939, we had the Cummeragunja walk-off, where some 200 Indigenous people walked out of a mission in New South Wales, crossed the river Murray into Victoria, and then settled on the other side in Victoria—in a different state—again, that was because of the unfairness with which they were being treated.

In 1967, we saw the first breakthrough when, at least in the referendum to change the constitution, there was some recognition finally afforded to the Indigenous people of Australia. At about the same time, interestingly, Vincent Lingiari initiated the Wave Hill cattle station walk-off, where the Indigenous people who worked on that station were being treated very differently to the white people, and that led to an eight-year strike which, in the end, was resolved. But it was an eight-year strike, that arose because of the discrimination that was being perpetuated against Indigenous people working in cattle stations across Australia. It was also Vincent Lingiari into whose hands Gough Whitlam poured the soil in 1975, as a symbolic acknowledgement that this was their land and that they were entitled to land rights. Those land rights were finally confirmed by the Mabo case in 1992. That was, in my view, the first time that the question had been properly tested in the courts; the question as to the legitimacy of their claim that they had been in this country prior to the arrival of white people in 1778. That was immediately followed by the Native Title Act. The Native Title Act came into effect 215 years after white settlement in this country—it took 215 years for Indigenous people to finally be recognised as having been the previous custodians of this land, before white people. That shows just how slowly we have moved as a nation in recognising Indigenous people. Then in 2008, the apology by Kevin Rudd was very well received—but it took 100 years after children had been taken away from their families for that to happen as well. And we have seen the Closing the Gap process begun.

I highlight of those occasions simply to make the point that it has been a very uphill struggle for Indigenous people, from day one, in order to be in any way recognised. The truth is that, whilst we have made all of those changes and all of those recognitions, we still have a long way to go. I am pleased to say that most of those critical changes that I have referred to were initiated by a Labor government. Earlier this week, the House debated the Closing the gap report. In my view, equality and closing the gap is not confined solely to measurable statistics, such as health, housing, education, employment and so on. There are many other examples of Indigenous people having been treated appallingly over the years, for which those responsible should hang their heads in shame.

There are countless examples of Indigenous Australians who enlisted for service in World War I and World War II and other conflicts, who served this nation with honour and who were prepared to die for their country, Australia, but when their service ended so did the brief recognition that had been given to them. They were effectively sidelined with no recognition whatsoever.

I recently spoke at service in Adelaide about what happened in the bombing of Darwin. One of the things that happened in Darwin subsequent to the bombing was that Indigenous people played a crucial role in protecting the coastline and assisting in any way they could. These were not enlisted people; these were Indigenous people who just lived in the area and took it upon themselves to help out in any way they could. They were never recognised. I believe it was the current member for Lingiari, the Hon. Warren Snowdon, who finally provided some measure of recognition to them. It is that kind of recognition that goes a long way towards closing the gap between what they have done and not been recognised for in the past and affording them the recognition that they quite rightly deserve.

I referred to stories. Again, there are many, many stories of people such as Eddie Gilbert. He perhaps could have been one of the finest cricketers in this country. He was one of the few people who the records show was able to bowl out Sir Donald Bradman. I believe he bowled him out for a duck. He was a person who was such a good player and yet he was denied the opportunity to play cricket for Australia simply because he was Aboriginal. I am aware of other similar stories. Whilst I am aware that things have changed today, again, it took a long, long time. Indeed, it was not until 1964 that we had the first Indigenous person representing Australia in the Olympics. That just simply highlights the discrimination I refer to. Closing the gap would be given a huge boost if we equally recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders when they have served Australia in an exceptional way as we do for all other Australians. I am pleased to see that we are starting to do that now.

In making my contribution to this discussion today I want to recognise two Indigenous people who come from South Australia and who have come to my attention in recent days for the special place that they deserve in our history. The first is a person by the name of Hubert Frank Tripp. He was an Indigenous person from South Australia who served in World War I. Shortly before his 23rd birthday he enlisted. He was sent to join the 10th infantry, from memory, at Gallipoli. He was there for several months and then returned later on in that year. My understanding is that Hubert Tripp was also the very first Indigenous South Australian to be allowed to play in the South Australian football league in 1910. He was one of those people who made a breakthrough. He broke through in being enlisted and sent to Gallipoli and also being allowed to play South Australian league football. I understand that later this year his name will be engraved on one of the papers at a special Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander memorial that is being established at the Torrens parade grounds in Adelaide specifically to try to redress some of the injustice of these people never having been recognised for their service to their country.

The other person that I take this opportunity to recognise is Hubert Tripp's cousin, Marj Tripp. Marj also made history as the first Aboriginal woman to join the Royal Australian Navy in 1963. She was 17 years old at the time. This was before the referendum, so it would have been quite a feat for her to have been given the right to enlist and join the Navy. I can only imagine that part of the reason for that breakthrough of Marj enlisting at that time would have been her own determination. Nevertheless, it happened and it was, again, a good thing. Today I recognise both of those people. Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders for who they are, for what they have endured and for what they have contributed to Australia will go a long way towards closing the gap and providing constitutional recognition for them.

The issue of constitutional recognition has now been with us for years. It has been the subject of discussion and public debate for as long as I can recall being in public life—and yet we are still not there. It now looks like the referendum might be held in 2016 or 2017. It is my view that to deny the Indigenous people of Australia the right to be included in our Constitution is to deny the truth. In my view the recognition of Indigenous people in our Constitution is, conversely, a recognition of the truth. I cannot imagine anyone having any good reason why the truth should not be acknowledged. The fact of the matter is that it can be acknowledged by recognising that the Indigenous people of Australia were here before white settlement.

The success of the referendum is entirely in the hands of the political leaders of this country. If there is goodwill, if there is bipartisanship from all politicians and all party leaders, the referendum will succeed. If there is not goodwill then I know that in one way or another it will be undermined. My call is for political leaders across the country to unite and once and for all correct the injustice that has been done to Indigenous people by the denial of their existence in this country prior to white settlement.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition (Sunset Extension) Bill 2015 is very important for the nation of Australia and I have no doubt it has bipartisanship support. It comes about because in 2013 the parliament passed the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act and for the first time the continent and the islands now known as Australia were deemed to have been first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples—in other words, we recognised through that parliamentary act that Indigenous Australians existed. I have always had trouble with the word 'occupied'. My family's farm has been in the family for six generations, and we never refer to that land having been occupied by the family. We say we owned it. I do not know why we have this incredible difficulty in Australia in using the word 'owned' when it comes to Indigenous Australians and this continent. Let me say, for the sake of the record, that we should recognise that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples owned their tribal areas, their countries or their nations whether as island states in the Torres Strait or on mainland Australia, when ownership of the country was divided up into some 200 or so separate nations on the mainland.

The issue now is that Australia's Indigenous ownership of the country needs to be recognised in the Constitution. The act in 2013 gave us a two-year sunset period for the referendum to be put forward and ideally supported so that we could have the Constitution changed. That would then give us this recognition that we all in this place believe is deserved—it is a no-brainer. The difficulty for us is that on 27 March 2014 a review panel was set up in accordance with the act and the review panel reported back, on 19 September 2014, that in its view we needed to extend the sunset period by a year to make it three years before the vote so that there was less likelihood of the referendum being not supported by the majority of Australian people. It is a fairly complex matter and we have to make sure that the final proposal is understood by Indigenous Australians, parliaments and the people. We have to make sure that it is not contentious in any way, that recognition is just understood as being the right thing for Australians to be doing, so that we have a result similar to the one we achieved for the referendum on 27 May 1967.

At that referendum we had 5,700,000 Australians vote yes, which was 91 per cent favourable for the proposal that Indigenous Australians could now have laws made for them in the federal sphere—in this parliament—and it also talked about ensuring that Australian Indigenous people were counted in the census.

That was an overwhelmingly supported referendum. We want to have the same result for this referendum, and that is why it would be a shame, we all agree, if we went to the people too soon, before all of the work has been done. That is why I very strongly support this amendment. Let's extend this time frame—that is why this is called a 'sunset extension bill'—to a third year so that we can properly acknowledge our shared history and the incredible value we place on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their heritage. I would hope that we will acknowledge their ownership of the country before colonisation and the continued ownership of parts of it by Indigenous Australians.

I want to put a little history into this debate, because I think it is always important to know where we have come from and how we have evolved in our thinking about Indigenous Australians. Some people do not understand that we do not in fact at this point in time have a very—how shall I put it?—'commendable' history in relation to recognising the rights of Indigenous Australians in modern Australia.

I want to quote from the statutes of Western Australia 1944, from the Native Citizenship Rights Act. This is where they decided in Western Australia to grant a certificate of citizenship to Aboriginal people on certain conditions—and it could also be withdrawn upon certain conditions. Let me read to you from section 4(1):

… any adult person who is a native within the meaning of the Native Administration Act, 1905-1941, may make application for a Certificate of Citizenship to a resident or stipendiary magistrate or Government Resident in the magisterial district in which he resides.

It goes on to say that by the date of the application the person making the application has to show that:

… he has dissolved tribal and native association except with respect to lineal descendants or native relations of the first degree, …

In other words, you can continue to talk to your mum and dad and perhaps your children, but anyone beyond that degree of relationship should be disassociated from forthwith.

The person may also have served in the Navy, Air Force or Army—at least that acknowledged that more than 1,000 Indigenous Australians were in the First World War, fighting for their country bravely and courageously beside the non-Indigenous Australians. And we are talking about 1944, so they were also at that time again looking to defend Australia. So if you had served in the navy, air force or army you could be entitled to citizenship as long as you received an honourable discharge. You also had to show that you were a proper and fit person to get this certificate.

What did that mean? The act said:

(a) for the two years immediately prior the magistrate shall be satisfied that applicant has adopted the manner and habits of civilised life ;

(b) the full rights of citizenship are desirable for and likely to be conducive to the welfare of the applicant ;

(c) the applicant is able to speak and understand the English language ;

(d) the applicant is not suffering from active leprosy, syphilis, granuloma or yaws ;

(e) the applicant is of industrious habits and is of good behaviour and reputation ; …

It is interesting that we still do not require a lot of our new citizens to be able to speak English but in 1944 the Western Australian Indigenous person had to demonstrate that.

This certificate of citizenship could, of course, be withdrawn in the following way:

Upon complaint of the Commissioner of Native Affairs or any other person, a magistrate may suspend or cancel a Certificate of Citizenship if he is satisfied that the holder-

(a) is not adopting the manner and habits of civilised life; or

(b) has been twice convicted of any offence under the Native Administration Act, 1905-1941, or is of habitual drunkenness; or

(c) has contracted leprosy, syphilis, granuloma or yaws.

I find this extraordinary as we today debate, very carefully, the morality of withdrawing citizenship, from someone who has dual citizenship, on the basis of a terrorist act. And yet in 1944, it would seem given this legislation that we were quite comfortable withdrawing citizenship from an Indigenous Australian on the basis that they had contracted a disease, had been drunken, or had in any other way been seen not to be living a civilised life. I am making this point to demonstrate how far we have evolved in the 70 or so years since Indigenous Australians were not considered to be Australians in any sense of the word.

We have come a very long way—even though the Closing the gap report of last week demonstrates that we still have a huge distance to cover, in terms of the capacity of an Indigenous Australian to lead a life that is in any way comparable in terms of health, employment, safety, freedom from discrimination, or even having similar levels of incarceration to non-Indigenous Australians. We have so far to go. But I want to make the point that it was only in 1944 that we thought it was quite appropriate to require an Aboriginal Australian to deny their Aboriginality in order to get a piece of paper which allowed them to vote or to drink. Another condition was that they no longer associated with their family, unless they were immediate family—mother, father, son or daughter. This Citizenship Act was also promulgated in like-minded states at about the same time. And we had some very famous cases. We had the very sad case of our very famous painter, Albert Namatjira, who was first given citizenship, and then had his citizenship checked, because he chose to share alcohol with some of his relatives at the time.

I am strongly supporting this bill, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition (Sunset Extension) Bill 2015 so that we extend the time for Australians to be educated about the need for the referendum to be passed absolutely unanimously—if that is humanly possible in Australia with a referendum!—and for us to embrace a constitutional amendment which would recognise the unique status of Australia's Indigenous peoples. We must acknowledge our shared history. We must acknowledge the bad parts of our history so that we do not continue to blame the victim, as we often do in Australia today. We have to acknowledge that, for Indigenous Australians, the first 100 years—at least—since 1788 were made desperate by warfare between them and the native police, some frontier settlers and pastoralists. In the case of Indigenous Australians, they were trying to defend their country and their own peoples, and in the case of the pastoralists and the new settlers, they were trying to defend their lives too, and their flocks and their possessions. We have to acknowledge that warfare. We have to acknowledge the fact that Indigenous Australians were pushed off their land to places where they did not belong, or onto country that they did not own themselves, which caused further distress between competing Indigenous nations, which led to more warfare, and more bloodshed. We have to acknowledge the poverty, the degradation, the lack of employment, and the disease, that typifies a lot of that early contact history. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that there were triumphant parts. There were the times, again for about a century, when Australian Aboriginal and Indigenous peoples were indispensable in the white settlement of remote Australia, and in the pastoral industry; they were the stockmen, they were the managers of very remote places; and they were great managers of livestock, husbanding livestock in difficult circumstances. We have to acknowledge the Indigenous women, who were pioneers in every sense with the white Australians at the time in the work they did—domestic work and often also as stockwomen—and who were at the same time surviving and raising their families in extremely difficult conditions.

We have to acknowledge the terrible period when we thought that it was wise to take away children of mixed descent because we thought that their 'white blood' gave them the right—which is how we explained it at the time—to be raised as whites, or because we felt that they would be contaminated and further degraded, discriminated against or neglected if they stayed with their Indigenous mother, who was often living in impoverished and dire circumstances in remote places or even in cities.

We have to acknowledge all of that so that we can understand why today a lot of Torres Strait Islanders and Aboriginal people are drinking at high-risk levels, are using drugs of dependence and are in despair, as evidenced by their rates of suicide, gender based violence and incarceration. If we understand our history, we can then put into greater context why Indigenous Australians today are very often in great distress. I chair a committee inquiring into the high-risk use of alcohol in Indigenous communities. Speaker after speaker conveys to us in evidence the distress of these Indigenous communities, most recently in Cairns just last week.

We have to do better. Part of our need is to recognise Indigenous Australians, their rights, their responsibilities and their unique status in our society as owners of this country before we arrived. Giving another year to make sure that Australians understand that so that the referendum is a resounding success is what this new bill will allow us to do.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I firstly thank members of the House for their contribution to this debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition (Sunset Extension) Bill 2015 over the last two days. There have been some very constructive and, in many cases, emotional contributions from members right across the chamber, and I appreciate the words that they have said.

In some respects, this is a very straightforward bill. All that it seeks to do is extend the operation of an existing act of parliament for another three years. It is an act of parliament which has unanimous support across the parliament and one which we all share in the objectives of. The process of extending this act for another three years also gives us the opportunity to reflect on what the original purpose of the act was and its ongoing relevance to today's debate. When you reflect on the original purpose of this act, you see that it was trying to achieve three things. Firstly, it was a formal declaration for the first time by this parliament that, indeed, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were here before white settlement just over a couple of hundred years ago. That is an important declaration and statement which is made in this act of parliament. Secondly, the act requires an assessment, a review, of the readiness of the Australian people for constitutional recognition, and it outlines in a bit of detail how that assessment should take place. Finally, the purpose of the act was really to be a stepping stone towards constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

In reflecting on those three purposes, I believe that they are largely still relevant. Certainly it is still very relevant that we have this parliamentary declaration that, yes, Aboriginal people were here and were the first inhabitants of this land. The assessment has been conducted; that can be ticked off. That assessment showed that, in fact, the Australian public is not quite ready just yet to have the constitutional referendum and that more work needs to be done to educate people and to let them know exactly what the proposals are going to be.

The goal of this being a step towards recognition is still the most important goal of them all. This is a very important thing for the government, and I know that view is shared by the opposition. We do want to see constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We do want to amend the Constitution, and there are two reasons why we are seeking to do that. The first is that there are some clauses in the Constitution today which, in essence, propose that laws be made on the basis of race. Our view, and I think it is a widely shared view, is that that is not a concept which has relevance in today's day and age—we should not be making decisions on the basis of race and indeed alternative forms of words should be included. The second reason for wanting constitutional change is the proper acknowledgement and recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. People are quite surprised that in our most important document of the land there is no acknowledgement at all, no mention, of the first inhabitants of the country. Of course it acknowledges our British heritage—it does that through the institutions the Constitution creates by its acknowledgement of the British Crown, who remains our head of state—and of course the document is written in English, as a result of our British heritage. So the Constitution properly recognises our British heritage but there is no recognition of the other important heritage which I think is a great part of the nation-state of Australia.

In summary, those are the two things we are trying to achieve through constitutional change. We have heard some eloquent contributions over the last couple of days on why members of this parliament are so committed to achieving this. Given that there is a reasonable amount of consensus about the objectives we are trying to achieve, what is so difficult about it and why does it takes so long? Any constitutional change in this country is exceptionally difficult. Any time you alter any word you need to be very sure about what the implications are going to be. There is still some debate about what the precise form of words should be. We need to come to a consensus on the form of words, and we are being very ably assisted on that by the terrific work which Ken Wyatt and his committee are doing. In the weeks ahead they will be providing a form of words which hopefully will provide a basis for reaching consensus.

There is a warning, and that is that only eight out of 44 constitutional referenda in this country have ever succeeded. Even if you have bipartisan support for a constitutional question, there is no guarantee it will succeed. Our aim must be to find a form of words that will bring the Australian public along with us on this journey so that when we do take this proposition to the Australian people in the years ahead we will get a resounding endorsement of it. As the member for Murray articulated a short while ago, we should seek a unanimous consensus but at least our aim should be something in the vicinity of what was achieved in 1967, when 90 per cent of the Australian public voted for change to the Constitution—a change that had such great moral significance. We are coming up to the 50th anniversary of that in 2017.

I again thank members for their contributions on this bill. The government is absolutely committed to seeing constitutional recognition occur in the years ahead, and we will be fighting very hard to ensure that we get that broad consensus across the community.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.