Patrick Dodson's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Australia: Reconciliation | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
Minister, why does the way we talk to each other matter for the kind of country we live in and the country our children inherit?
Does the minister believe that, in order to achieve justice for First Peoples, we need to work constructively and bring Australians together?
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Why is the Albanese government committed to continuing on the path of reconciliation?
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Joint Committee; Report | Committees | Senate debates
I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. It's an inquiry into the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of...
I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. It's an inquiry into the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Australia, and I seek leave to move that the Senate take note of the report. Leave granted. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. As chair of this committee, it is a bittersweet moment to table this report. It's a very significant report on behalf of Indigenous people's rights, but it will be my last report to this parliament. I want to first thank all of those who engaged in the inquiry by providing submissions or appearing as witnesses. I particularly thank the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and organisations. I cannot list you all right now, but your thoughtfulness was so valuable. I also want to acknowledge the work of the many people around the world who have contributed to the advancement of Indigenous peoples' rights, such as Madame Daes, the founding chairperson of the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations, with whom I worked back in the eighties; Dr Sheryl Lightfoot, a current member of the United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that provided expertise to this inquiry; Sir Taihakurei Durie of the New Zealand Maori Council; and Professor Claire Charters. This report is the culmination of the contributions from many experts, public officials, organisations and community members who generously shared their insights and experiences with this committee. This inquiry saw a significant number of Indigenous witnesses: There is true value in listening to First Peoples. Indigenous perspectives deepened the committee's understanding of the complex matters we explored and were indispensable to this report. Background to UNDRIP UNDRIP was drafted and formally debated for almost 20 years before its adoption by the United Nations General Assembly in 2007. It remains the most comprehensive universal human rights instrument addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples. Australia has been a signatory since 2009, and so we accept the UNDRIP to be a 'standard of achievement to be pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect,' and that comes straight from UNDRIP. The UNDRIP contains 46 articles affirming the collective and individual rights of Indigenous peoples. These relate to cultural, spiritual, economic and social rights, rights of self-determination, and to be free from discrimination. Importantly, UNDRIP does not create any new or special rights. It reflects existing human rights from other instruments and applies them to the specific context of affected Indigenous peoples. Overview of the c ommittee i nquiry We were asked to undertake an inquiry into the application of UNDRIP in Australia, with particular reference to: We held seven hearings and we had the benefit of over 140 submissions. We drew on international experiences. When we drew on those, we explored the successes and the challenges. We were also conscious to ensure the unique Australian circumstance was considered. UNDRIP as a standard consistent with our democracy It is clear the UNDRIP offers us an accepted standard for an improved relationship with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Some in this place might get nervous about the idea of international standards. However, there is no need for that, because they are consistent with our Western democratic institutions. The UNDRIP reaffirms the rights of Indigenous peoples, but it also guarantees that the realisation of these rights must preserve the integrity and unity of the nation state—that is, the unity of Australia. Like many human rights instruments, UNDRIP reinforces fundamental pillars of our democracy: These should be the aspirations of any healthy Western democracy. When Indigenous peoples etched their aspirations into UNDRIP, they did so with the wellbeing and survival of future generations in mind. It was born out of a shared history of dispossession and loss. The UNDRIP is a touchstone for how modern nations, like Australia, move forward with First Peoples. It provides a structure to that process and avoids Indigenous rights being tabooed or applied only in an ad hoc or selective way. These rights will become real when they are determined and achieved domestically through negotiation with First Peoples. We must continue to seek common ground, with courage and not capitulation. Committee findings and recommendations This report makes six recommendations on how to improve adherence to UNDRIP in Australia. Broadly, we recommend that the approach to developing policy and legislation affecting First Peoples be consistent with UNDRIP. We suggest the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 be amended to include consideration of UNDRIP. This will be a simple and effective way and means of improving how we in this place consider Indigenous people's rights in the development of laws. The committee recommends developing a national action plan that is determined in consultation with First Peoples to outline an approach to implementing the UNDRIP in Australia. This is underway in Canada and New Zealand. It can be a mechanism for us to design the way forward together. Decisions about the form and content of the plan will require deep and committed negotiation with First Peoples and it will take time because the consultation must be thorough. First Peoples' contributions must determine the application of this in our context and how they should proceed. Such efforts should occur in coordination with all levels of government. As senators, we know the important role that states and territories play. We also recommend greater education on Australian history, civics and human rights, because international experience tells us this is key. Finally, the committee recommends that the Commonwealth establish an independent process of truth telling and agreement making. I have not had the courtesy of reviewing the additional comments or contrary positions that may be contained within this report, so I can make no comment on those. However, the evidence was overwhelmingly clear and our terms of reference specifically asked us to explore these reform ideas. The principles underscoring such aspirations are reflected in UNDRIP. Concluding remarks The UNDRIP is a strong foundation for taking Australia forward in its relationship with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, a relationship underpinned by a mutual recognition of, and respect for, one another's rights and responsibilities. At the heart of this report is a call for governments and civil society to genuinely engage with the rights of Indigenous peoples. It proposes possible ways to do so in a coordinated and good-faith manner. I hope that the report provides guidance to us all as legislators to look towards achieving common ground for our nation.
Aboriginal Deaths in Custody | Matters of Public Importance | Senate debates
Any death in custody should concern us all. It's clear that the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples dying in custody is a sad matter for families and reminds governments that...
Any death in custody should concern us all. It's clear that the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples dying in custody is a sad matter for families and reminds governments that things need to change. I was a commissioner of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, which reported more than 30 years ago. More than 500 Aboriginal people have died in custody since that time. That is a statistic that I know unsettles us all. As the royal commission found after its exhaustive four years of inquiry, it's not that the death rates of Aboriginal people are higher than that of non-Aboriginal people in custody; it's the rate at which they are taken into custody that leaves Aboriginal people so grossly not only overrepresented in our prison populations but vulnerable to deaths in custody. What's the root cause of this dreadful statistic? There are simply too many Aboriginal people being locked up. Imprisonment should be the measure of last resort, as the royal commission said. The Productivity Commission reported last year that First Nations people are 13.5 times nor likely to be imprisoned than non-Indigenous Australians. First Nations people make up only 3.8 per cent of the Australian population but represent 32 per cent of the adult prison population. These figures are completely unacceptable. There have been dreadful examples of neglect and abuse in our state and territory criminal justice systems, in lock-ups and prisons and in custody more generally. It's long been my position that those who have responsibility for care and supervision of people in custody must be held to account. I was particularly disturbed by the findings earlier this year by the Victorian coroner, who inquired into the horrific death of the lady who died in spite of having sought help from custodial officers more than 30 times. I do note that the coroner found that, if all the recommendations of the royal commission had been implemented, her death would have likely been avoided. But I reject the premise of this matter of public importance—that the government of which I'm a part is unwilling to take action. We are serious about reducing the number of First Nations people going to jails. That's why in October's budget last year we committed $99 million to fund First Nations justice packages. Of that money, $81.5 million will be invested in up to 30 community-led justice reinvestment programs across the country. We've already identified two priority sites for early intervention: Alice Springs and Halls Creek. We want to build on the success of initiatives like in Bourke, New South Wales. There the Aboriginal community has worked with governments and service providers with great success to support local initiatives. That's what's going to have to happen across the country if we're going to meet the justice targets under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap for both adults and youth. Of course, this is not the only approach required if we are to make progress. In our federal system, many of the levers of change sit with states and territories. They are the ones with control of the police, the prisons and the health care that is provided within them. National leadership is critical. The previous government was intent on abdicating responsibility back to states and territories. This government will not shirk its duties. This government has reinstated the Standing Council of Attorneys-General and made Indigenous justice a standing agenda item. It's working with states and territories to develop a proposal to raise the minimum age for criminal responsibility. It's funding, for the first time, legal representation for families at coronial inquests. And it's advancing real-time reporting of deaths in custody to ensure better accountability across the country. We need to keep First Nations people out of jails and out of lock-ups. That's our goal, and we're determined to achieve it.
Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. This bill provides the foundation for a fair and transparent referendum on a voice to parliament by the end of this...
I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. This bill provides the foundation for a fair and transparent referendum on a voice to parliament by the end of this year. As already noted, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act has not been used since 1999. It has not kept pace with the improvements we have made to the Commonwealth Electoral Act—improvements that ensure we have free, fair and democratic federal elections. The primary purpose of this bill is to replicate the improvements that have been made to the Electoral Act for this referendum and for referenda into the future. It will mean that the experience people have come to expect when they vote in a federal election will be the same as when they cast their vote on referendum day. This will be one of the most significant votes most people will make in their lifetimes. Referenda are infrequent, but they are at the heart of our democracy. They provide Australians the opportunity to use their right to vote to consider changes to the Australian Constitution. The Constitution is an act of the Westminster parliament for the people of Australia, passed in 1901. Only the people of Australia, voting in a referendum, can change the Constitution. In that sense it is the Australian people's document. In the forthcoming referendum the Australian people will be asked if they support the principle of recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution and whether they should have a say to the parliament and the executive on matters that affect them. The details of what the Voice is, how it functions and how it will influence change for the better will be dealt with by the parliament after further consultations with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. So what does this bill actually do? It seeks to update the laws governing the machinery of referenda. The last referendum was held without modern online systems, without social media and without email campaigns. It was also held without many of the rules and protections that have been built into the Electoral Act since then. Those incremental changes may not be obvious to many members of the public or even to many of us in this chamber, but they have become essential to the smooth running of the voting process. The important changes made by this bill will include banning foreign donations from the referendum campaign, allowing people to apply for a postal vote online rather than using a paper form, vote-saving measures so that the people's vote can be valid where their intentions are clear, enabling early sorting of pre-poll votes to support a timely result on the day, extending protections to prevent multiple voting, updating authorisation rules so voters know who is behind political materials and extending contingency measures to enable the AEC to conduct referenda safely in times of emergency. The bill also introduces a funding and disclosure scheme to ensure there's transparency and accountability. No matter what your views are on the Voice, these changes should be a no-brainer. It's about ensuring people who turn up to vote at the referendum can vote in the same way they are used to voting at a federal election, it's about transparency and accountability, it's about bringing our referendum machinery into the 21st century and, importantly, it's about ensuring an efficient and fair vote so that when we head to the ballot box later in the year, we can be confident that this referendum is conducted on a sound and safe foundation. It is important too for Australians to be able to focus on what the referendum is about and the significance of the principle they are being asked to vote for: a voice to the parliament for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Leaders of the Uluru statement understood that it is the Australian people who make decisions about our Constitution. That is why they invited us to all walk with them and support their recognition in the Constitution. For 122 years our Constitution has failed to recognise the First Peoples of this country and their continuous connection to the land for more than 60,000 years. We were deemed by the founding fathers to be a dying race, so Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are conspicuously absent and unrecognised in our founding document. The political power to lord it over us was held by the states. It was not until 1967 that we were finally counted in the census and the Commonwealth was given a clear power in the Constitution to deal with us. While the 1967 referendum was an historic moment of national unity, the work of constitutional recognition is unfinished business. Fifty years later and more than a century after Federation, there was another constitutional convention at Uluru, this one held by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Uluru convention followed months of consultation and 12 regional dialogues that involved more than 12,000 First Nations people from across the country. It built on work previously done by the constitutional recognition committee. At Uluru, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people spoke up about how they wanted to be recognised in the Constitution. They presented us with a proposal that is elegant in its simplicity and potent in its capacity to achieve practical change for their lives—a constitutionally enshrined voice that can advise the parliament and government so that better policies and laws are made. It's a fact: you get better outcomes when you consult people on the issues that affect their lives. This is what is proposed after almost 250 years. During the last sittings, I spoke about meetings I held in regional Western Australia during the week of action on the Voice. I spoke about the traditional owners, elders and community leaders from these small and often forgotten communities. They explained why the Voice is important to them. We heard from the Kariyarra elders that the Voice is 'the next step in a long history of advocacy by Aboriginal people of the Pilbara'. We heard from the Yinggarda people and their elders, who said, 'The Voice will empower community voices.' And we heard from staff who worked at local organisations, health services and organisations rehabilitating young people about the differences that the Voice will make to their work. They need to have a say over the policies and laws that we make in this place that affect their lives, laws that affect their health and ability to get jobs and housing and the wellbeing and education of their children. These are people who have worked hard to improve the living conditions of their communities. They deserve to be heard at the national level, and they will be heard if the referendum is successful. So, when we consider this bill about the mechanical provisions, keep in mind what it is ultimately about. I want to briefly reflect on our experience of negotiating this bill with some of those opposite. From the start we have extended the hand of bipartisanship on the referendum. The Voice should be above fearmongering and political gains. The government has agreed, in a show of good faith, to reinstate the official pamphlet, yet the support of the opposition is still wavering—or, as I've heard today, they will not be supporting the bill. On this side, we are treating both 'yes' and 'no' campaigns even-handedly—zero public funding for both, because, as I have said, this is the people's referendum; it's for the people to organise their own campaigns and their own funding. Those on the other side believe in the free market. Well, to them I say that both supporters and naysayers are free to fund their own campaigns, within the legal constraints of the bill, of course. So now is the time for those on the other side to support this bill, whether or not they intend to finally support the Voice, because this bill is about fair, transparent and accountable processes. It is about recognising that it's a modern world, much changed from the time nearly a quarter of a century ago when Australians last voted in a referendum. It's a modern world, and it will be a better world if this legislation is passed, because it will lay the groundwork for a referendum that will create a legacy—if the referendum is supported—that all of us in this chamber can then be proud of. In closing, let me say something about the AEC. The AEC have been working very closely with the engagement group that the government has set up, and they have been very responsive to many of the group's suggestions and concerns. In parts of our country and some of the jurisdictions, their work has actually increased the voter registration for Indigenous peoples. They have been responsive to the calls about remote polling and the need to stay longer, and they are even considering other matters. They are undertaking work to help Australians attend, be informed about the process and be able to exercise their vote in this very important referendum. This bill is well worth supporting, and I commend it.
Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
I rise to share the success of the National Week of Action for the Voice. This historic week was held from 18 to 24 February. Across the country Australians from all walks of life came together...
I rise to share the success of the National Week of Action for the Voice. This historic week was held from 18 to 24 February. Across the country Australians from all walks of life came together in town halls, parks and workplaces to show their support for the Voice. Australians took time out from their busy schedules and their busy lives to learn about the Voice, to ask questions and to discuss their roles in the upcoming referendum. This is because the communities are ready for change. The Week of Action gave me a great amount of faith in the Australian people and their generosity and good will. There is much room in their hearts for this proposal. Ultimately, the Australian people themselves will determine this referendum, not politicians. Leaders of the Uluru statement knew this. They did not equivocate in their message to the Australian people. The Voice referendum is an invitation, an opportunity for the Australian people to walk with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This is a great country, and, after the week of action, I believe that the majority of Australians will accept this generous offer. But change must start at home, within our own backyards. For me, the backyard happens to be the big state of Western Australia. The vastness and diversity of the state is not lost on me. As a Western Australian senator and special envoy, I'm committed to engaging with people from all corners of this country—urban, regional, and remote. I believe we need to reach out to all parts of our country in this referendum, and so I spent the Week of Action travelling down the remote west coast of Western Australia, talking to communities about the Voice and answering questions. I started at my traditional country home of Broome, alongside the Kimberley Land Council CEO and engagement group member, Mr Tyronne Garstone. We spoke to a packed hall at the Notre Dame campus at Broome. The next day the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the Deputy Prime Minister and I held a series of meetings in Port Hedland because the cabinet was meeting there. In a meeting organised by my colleague Senator Lines we heard from the Kariyarra people, the traditional owners and elders, on why the Voice is important to them. In their words they say it's the next step in a long history of advocacy by the Aboriginal people of the Pilbara. I made a promise to return later in the year to speak at the historic Yule River meeting on the Voice. I then went on to Carnarvon, a small town 900 kays from Perth. Here I met the shire president, and I held a community forum for the Voice at the cultural centre. Carnarvon has been the subject of much speculation in the media, particularly on issues of youth and alcohol. Senior members of that community shared their views about the Voice, that it will be an important element in addressing many of these concerns because, in the words of a Yingkarta local elder, 'The Voice will empower community voices.' Too often regional and remote communities are spoken of and down to, but on each of my regional visits there was a strong support for the Voice because regional and remote communities know what it is like to be ignored by governments. The Voice makes sense to them. I do want to acknowledge that at times, in these meetings, some elderly non-Aboriginal people disagreed with the Voice proposal and its proposition. I want to say to such senior persons that they are entitled to their view, and that they are appreciated and respected for the contributions they have made to the country. And I would like to put on the record my appreciation for the many non-Aboriginal people who have helped to improve the living conditions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. You are appreciated and respected. We thank you for your contributions over the years. Change is coming. Don't feel threatened by the change. The change will bring us together and not force us apart. We certainly need your support in the forthcoming referendum. My final days of the Week of Action were spent in Perth. I held meetings with the Noongar Wudja traditional owners where we discussed the importance of the Voice and Western Australian support. This was followed by a meeting with local health organisations and service providers including the Wungening Aboriginal Corporation. Wungening has been operating in Perth since 1988, providing health and family services to those most in need. One staff member, who's been with the organisation for nearly 30 years, shared that she believed the Voice will improve practical outcomes by giving Aboriginal people more of a say. These are the real voices of the Voice and the real stories about the Voice. Fair-minded Australians know that the Voice is a positive step for the nation and for the First Nations peoples as well. The Voice deserves to exist above the fear-mongering and political games. That is why I concluded the Week of Action with a cross-party panel which included me; Senator Cox; the member for Curtin, Ms Kate Chaney; along with the esteemed academic, Dr Hannah McGlade; and Marcus Stewart, the co-chair of the First Peoples' Assembly of Victoria. We came together to talk with, and to listen to, hundreds of people and members of the Perth community on the Voice and its importance to the nations. The Voice must exist above party politics, and I will always extend the hand of bipartisanship wherever I can. The Week of Action is just the start. Momentum is building for the Voice. The official 'yes' campaign recently launched in Adelaide, and I look forward to advocating alongside them as special envoy. But if this week demonstrated anything, it is that the Voice is a movement of the people. It is the Australian people who will secure the success of this referendum. It will be won around the dinner tables and the sporting grounds and the local RSLs. Do not underestimate the power of a single conversation. As I said to the people in Perth during the Week of Action, what a moment of liberation this will be for all of us—a moment of a successful referendum. Once that's declared, the shackles of the past will fall from us. We will stand with clean hearts and clean consciences and we will know our country is on the path to a better future. We, the Australian people, will make that decision on that day when we cast our referendum vote. Our vote for the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, for them to be part of the Australian Constitution and for them to be able to make representations to the parliament and the executive on matters that affect them, finally having their say in the places where it amounts to very important matters. This will be transformative for our nation and an enhancement to the quality of our own citizenship. It'll bring us together, rather than divide us.
Closing the Gap, National Apology to the Stolen Generations: 15th Anniversary | Documents | Senate debates
nator DODSON () (): I rise to note the 15th anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations and the Commonwealth's Closing the Gap implementation plan 2023. The apology from the...
nator DODSON () (): I rise to note the 15th anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations and the Commonwealth's Closing the Gap implementation plan 2023. The apology from the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, at the time was a momentous occasion for the nation, a huge step forward for reconciliation in Australia. We should never forget our history—the good, the bad and the ugly—but we also need tangible action to address the poorer outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. That is why the tabling of our government's first Closing the Gap implementation plan under the national agreement is important. It is a strong demonstration of our commitment to improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. I was grateful to attend several events in honour of the anniversary of the apology and speak with survivors of the stolen generations from right around the country. It is both humbling and motivating to hear their stories, their optimism and their hope. In statements today we must not shy away, though, from the landscape that is before us. While there has been some progress, the efforts of previous governments have been ineffective. The data speaks plainly of a stagnation in addressing the needs of Indigenous communities. Progress across most socioeconomic outcome areas has stalled. Some have even gone backwards. In the midst of all of this we must not lose sight of the very real human cost of inaction. Aboriginal lives must not be treated like some beads on a departmental abacus. Closing the gap demands a spirit of transformation, genuine partnership and focused attention on outcomes. The government, in partnership with the Coalition of Peaks, is committed to securing real and transformational change for First Nations peoples. The new 2023 implementation plan is about exactly that. It gives purpose and direction to our efforts to transform government, in line with the national agreement's four priority reforms. We are investing $424 million in additional funding to Closing the Gap across water infrastructure, food security, family violence and health. This is a top-up of the $1.2 billion in practical initiatives already being implemented following the October budget. These announcements are significant: real funding and real investment in Aboriginal communities on the issues that matter most. But the implementation plan is also about accountability and transparency, by bringing together the actions that each department is taking over the next 12 months. Perhaps the most significant is that the implementation plan exists in a context that is in need of broad structural reform. What has been missing is the Voice. It's the missing piece. A key element of the government's commitment to improve outcomes in closing the gap is its pursuit of a referendum to establish a voice to the parliament. It is grounded in evidence. Outcomes for our people are simply better when we have a say, have choice and make decisions about our lives. The Voice will do exactly that. Consistent with the national agreement, the Voice will be transformational and will better enable First Peoples to be engaged in decision-making and priorities. This prospect should attract bipartisan support, especially given that these priority reforms were agreed by the previous government. The 2023 implementation plan and up-and-coming referendum promises a truly transformational moment for First Nations and real, lasting change: recognition in the Constitution and ability to make representation, to the government, into the parliament on matters that affect First Nations peoples and a matter for which a voice is needed to improve the outcomes in this closing the gap space.
I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I wish to take note of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs on its inquiry into community...
I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I wish to take note of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs on its inquiry into community safety support services and job opportunities in the Northern Territory. As chair of the committee, I tabled the report out of session last week. I want to first thank those who engaged in this inquiry, specifically the community members, Aboriginal organisations and frontline service providers who gave evidence. Unfortunately, it was not possible to get across all communities in the Northern Territory, due to the time frames. However, we did visit Darwin and Alice Springs, and we had a delegation of Maningrida community members come to Canberra to put their concerns to us. We held virtual hearings with community members, peak organisations, Commonwealth and Northern Territory government departments, the alcohol industry and leading researchers. We also receive submissions and private briefings as part of the inquiry. It was important to hear from all of these witnesses because they brought a breadth of perspective forward. There was not one witness who denied the social or economic difficulties being experienced by Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. However, almost all the witnesses came with practical, holistic and strength based solutions. I'm so grateful for their time, patience and generosity. We were asked by this chamber to undertake an inquiry with particular reference to the preparation of the sunsetting of the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act, community safety and alcohol management, job opportunities and community development program reform, justice reinvestment community services and any related matters. This was important because these policy areas are all so interconnected. We heard consistent themes about the need for locally led initiatives, for more data sharing and for outcome focused efforts and investment. We heard that the status quo has not worked and change is required. As a committee, we made findings across each of these areas and made nine consensus recommendations to the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments. Many of these are about the importance of local, place based initiatives. They recognise that past attempts by governments through the Northern Territory National Emergency Response and the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act were ineffective. We commented that, in fact, the intervention and the stronger futures legislative packages: … systemically disempowered communities—in their delivery, implementation and transition—causing immense trauma that now requires concerted effort by all levels of government to enable and invest in the re-empowerment of these communities. In relation to alcohol management, under these past regimes, the Commonwealth government overrides the Northern Territory by exercising powers to legislate alcohol restrictions. The committee considers it is the appropriate role of the Northern Territory, rather than the Commonwealth, to make such legislative decisions. We also heard extensively about the ineffectiveness of focusing solely on reducing supply of alcohol and not properly supporting people at risk. Witnesses such as the Alice Springs Hospital personnel told us that, instead of focusing only on alcohol: We really need to go back to looking at the social determinants of health. We really need to start looking at housing, meaningful employment, education, hope and despair. That is why it's so important that the Commonwealth is supporting the Northern Territory government, by committing to a $250 million package under the title 'A Better, Safer Future for Central Australia', which intends to address service, community and infrastructure needs. We also heard far too regularly about the failures and, in many cases, the entire lack of service accessibility in remote communities. Where you live should not determine the services or basic amenities you receive. And yet it does for people living in remote communities. As a committee, we all agreed that investment in services and support programs in remote communities is fundamental. We also considered that there needs to be a greater focus on the following: working with communities to determine that service investment; opportunities to enhance place based models of funding and support collaboration amongst local organisations; embedding holistic health approaches to service provision that focus on social, emotional and cultural wellbeing; and sharing real-time data with local communities as necessary. We know that governments need to transfer both power and resources to communities to improve the outcomes. In terms of economic development, we heard a breadth of advice about the potential of a reformed CDP. We know that currently the CDP does not adequately consider what real job opportunities there are in remote communities. We also heard about the innovation in some organisations as part of a trial underway to give greater flexibility in the CDP. The report also makes recommendations to the government to consider how to stimulate economic activity outside of CDP. In relation to justice reinvestment, we've heard about the benefits of justice reinvestment models and alternatives to custody initiatives. Many witnesses talked about their experiences and their hopes for this. The committee recommended that both Alice Springs and Katherine be sites as part of the Commonwealth government's landmark $81 million commitment to community led justice reinvestment programs. It is clear that the Intervention and the Stronger Futures legislation failed to improve conditions for Aboriginal people living in remote Aboriginal communities. These acts did not work. In fact they did the opposite. Children born in 2007 and 2008, at the height of the Intervention, are the children at risk of causing harm today. I'm grateful to those young people who spoke with us in private briefings, because it is critical that their voices are central to this discussion. Too often they are talked about instead of engaged with in the solutions. Overall, Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory are incredibly resilient, but they have been let down enormously by governments of all stripes. Yet they continue to show up with solutions and preparedness to work with governments in good faith. This is despite their right to self-determination being entirely denied. In response to that resilience, this report makes recommendations that seek to address the disempowering legacy from the top-down approaches of the past 15 years. There are additional comments to this report added by Senator Thorpe and Senator Liddle. I commend this report to the Senate.
Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
This year, the Australian people will go to a referendum on enshrining an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in our Constitution. The Constitution holds part of the story of Australia,...
This year, the Australian people will go to a referendum on enshrining an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in our Constitution. The Constitution holds part of the story of Australia, and it's time that our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are included in that story—better yet, that they be given a voice in the Constitution to tell their own Australian story. The Voice is an extraordinary opportunity, a genuine path towards improving the lives of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It's a proposal that has been put to us, the Australian people, and to this parliament by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and leaders themselves. It emerged from a series of regional constitutional conventions held across the country and one of the most extensive dialogues on our constitution since Federation. It culminated in a national convention at Uluru in May 2017. Since that day, the Uluru statement has travelled the length and breadth of this country. Many hundreds of people from all walks of life have signed their names to the statement. Despite the claim of some within this chamber, the voice continues to receive over 80 per cent support amongst Indigenous communities. This support is shared amongst the broader Australian people. The statement of intent signed by our state and territory first ministers is just the most recent indication of the broad consensus that is building across the country in support of the voice. Essential polling has revealed that over 65 per cent of Australians continue to support the voice. This support has remained steady over recent years. This is because the communities we represent are ready for change. I have a great amount of faith in the Australian people and in their generosity and goodwill. This is a great country, but we can make it better with a successful referendum. We all want to find peace, honesty and justice in our history. We all want to prosper in a more united nation, a nation in which all Australians can see themselves reflected, a nation where all are respected from the uniqueness of the contributions they have made to this country from their own social and cultural frameworks. Australians know that, when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the laws and policies that affect them, when people on the ground are listened to and engaged, better laws, policies and strategies are made. The voice is about making our work here in the chamber more responsive, accurate, informed and, hopefully, more collegiate in the future. The voice will improve the work of parliament and its integrity. I must say with confidence that many senators in this chamber have at one time or another benefited immensely from the advice and wisdom of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders. This is what the voice is about—genuine exchange, the sharing of knowledge and wisdom, and mutual respect. This provision, promoted by the Prime Minister at Garma last year, will give recognition to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution and provide a guaranteed way for their voice to be heard in this place and the other place. The voice will be chosen by First Nations peoples based on the wishes of their local communities. It will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It will be empowering, community-led, inclusive, respectful, culturally informed and gender based, and it will include youth. Importantly, it will be accountable and transparent, and it will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures. These principles agreed by the working group have been out there in the public space for more than four months now, and the working group and the government may have more to say on the architecture of the voice before Australians vote later this year. Some of these matters are under consideration by the working group. I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Attorney-General for their attendance at the last working group meeting and Senator Bragg for his continued in-principle support for the voice. Many detailed matters can be worked out subsequent to a referendum. There will be and there has already been a significant amount of misinformation in the debate about the voice, and I ask that each of you embrace what is fact and reject what is fiction. This is our duty as senators and as elected representatives of the people of this country. As a senator, I can say unequivocally that parliament will retain its supremacy and it will be unencumbered in its lawmaking functions. As an Aboriginal man and traditional owner, I can also say unequivocally that the voice will not cede sovereignty nor curtail future efforts towards agreement-making and truth-telling. Constitutional experts have consistently confirmed this, including the Group of Eight constitutional lawyers advising the working group. In advice published last week, all members of the expert groups agreed draft provisions would not affect the sovereignty of any group or body. In fact, the voice will strengthen and reinforce the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We must not lose sight of this as the first step in improving our relationship with the first peoples of this country. We are at the beginning of a new journey. This journey will make us face the consequences of colonisation and settlement, and its destination will be a more united and unified nation. The upcoming referendum is an extraordinary moment for our country. Every vote will count. We must grasp this moment and take our nation forward. Many of those who have walked along this long road for reform and who signed their names to the Uluru Statement have already left us, and some far too early. I urge everyone to open their hearts, to imagine an Australia that supports Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to have a say over matters that affect them, and to have that voice enshrined in the constitution. In doing so, it will help us to be a prouder nation, and I hope to walk with you all later in this year as we go towards yes.
Closing the Gap | Ministerial Statements | Senate debates
I move: That the Senate take note of the document. The Commonwealth government's first annual report under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap shows we have a lot of work to do. While has...
I move: That the Senate take note of the document. The Commonwealth government's first annual report under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap shows we have a lot of work to do. While has been some progress, the previous government's efforts over the last decade in government have been very ineffectual. Progress across most socioeconomic outcomes has stalled. While the national agreement and the partnership with the Coalition of Peaks provides a helpful architecture, the previous government's implementation leaves much to be desired. Since coming into government just six months ago, our government has demonstrated our commitment to improving outcomes for First Nations peoples. In the October 2022 budget, we locked in significant investments across portfolios, seeking to address these disproportionate outcomes. We are investing in First Nations health workers, vital health infrastructure and community led justice reinvestment initiatives. In all of these commitments, we are working with First Nations peoples. This concept of working with First Nations peoples to make decisions about policies and programs so that they are more effective is not new. I and many other leaders have been talking about this for decades. It is grounded in the evidence: outcomes for our people are simply better when we have a say, have a choice and make decisions about our lives. The national agreement provides one piece of architecture to improve outcomes, and my colleagues will work with this framework to continue important progress across the socioeconomic areas. But to achieve better outcomes, after a decade of stagnation, we must fundamentally change how governments work with First Nations peoples. We cannot allow these outcomes to continue in this way. That is only a shame on governments for failing to listen to First Nations communities. To make meaningful and lasting change and progress requires systemic and structural transformation of how we are going to go about it on all sides of government. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to the parliament and to the government will do exactly that. Our government is steadfast in the commitment to the full implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart because we know that it will lead to better outcomes for First Nations communities. That very statement calls for constitutional reform through a voice so that First Nations children can flourish. The Voice will give our people a real opportunity to advise the parliament and the government on how to do things for the better of our people. After 250 years, that's not such a bad idea. The Voice to Parliament will be a significant shift for our nation, a structural change that will lead to better outcomes for our people and all Australians. To take the two concepts of closing the gap and the Voice to Parliament as mutually exclusive is flawed and misses the point.
Closing the Gap | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
Can the minister outline how the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to parliament supports the objective to close the gap?
Can the minister outline how the government is working to accelerate progress towards closing the gap?
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Can the minister update the Senate on the findings of the Closing the gap report 2022?
Northern Australia Joint Select Committee; Government Response to Report | Committees | Senate debates
DODSON () (): I rise to speak on the response to the Juukan Gorge inquiry. I was a member of the committee that did the inquiry. On Thursday, the Minister for the Environment and Water tabled the...
DODSON () (): I rise to speak on the response to the Juukan Gorge inquiry. I was a member of the committee that did the inquiry. On Thursday, the Minister for the Environment and Water tabled the government's response to the interim and the final reports of the inquiry into the destruction of 46,000-year-old caves and Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. The destruction of the rock shelters at Juukan Gorge was a wake-up call for the nation It was absolutely necessary that the parliament thoroughly interrogated how such an atrocity could occur within existing legal frameworks. As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, we had the important task of finding out what went wrong. We needed to understand how to stop it from happening again. I want to acknowledge the resilience and the strength of the PKKP throughout this inquiry. Their integrity and capacity to leverage opportunity by participating even when they had every right to be disengaged has been commendable. As a committee, we adopted a unique process to ensure cultural safety for witnesses and to show respect for what had been lost. We went on country to hear directly from the people so tragically affected by the needless destruction of culture and the causing of pain to themselves. We held roundtables so that hearings were more accessible and less formal and encouraged conversations and knowledge sharing. As a result, all the committee members could see and feel in person the deep impact of lost culture. I commend the work of my fellow committee members, particularly chairman Warren Entsch, Warren Snowdon and Rachel Siewert for their care and commitment to this inquiry. The inquiry's interim and final reports demonstrated quite clearly that this incident was endemic of a broken cultural heritage system. Rio Tinto's failures were appalling and systematic of a 'don't care about culture' approach. But they were also legally entitled to do what they did. This destruction could happen anywhere, by any mining or development company and even by governments. There are still existing section 18 notices under the Western Australian Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act that are active in Western Australia, and there are sites that are just as much at risk. We currently have a system that doesn't protect First Nations culture but equally isn't clear for the proponents of development. We have a scheme that allows destruction of heritage that runs very close to destroying evidence of 60,000 years of First Nations history. While it is legal, proponents should not presume that they have a social licence to cause harm within an existing broken system. In public protests and outrage, Australians showed what occurred at Juukan Gorge should not have been legal and was definitely not moral. They must adopt processes of free, prior and informed consent. They must do better. I'm proud the Albanese government has accepted seven of the eight recommendations to reform the Australian cultural heritage system. The future cultural heritage system needs to be strong, and it needs to protect that culture for our families and our communities. We have committed to developing standalone cultural heritage legislation in the future. It will be developed in partnership with the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance. It will holistically adopt reforms to address the existing flaws. In this co-design process, we're working through the final recommendation about ongoing portfolio responsibilities. Federal leadership on this is critical to sustaining the preservation and protection of our ancient cultural heritage. That is why there must be minimum standards in federal legislation for states and territories to live up to. Those minimum standards will be rigorously adopted in our future standalone Commonwealth cultural heritage legislation. That is because there has to be a floor—not only aspiration—if we're to protect culture. Many of the cultural heritage protections are currently to the detriment of the free, prior and informed consent of First Nations peoples. Clauses that enable such disregard to exist, such as section 18 in the Western Australian heritage act, should be rooted out and replaced with positive provisions. The operations of our future legislation should not be constructed with commercial obligations which force First Nations peoples to negotiate under duress. We found there were clauses in these negotiations that, basically, amounted to putting people's right to express their concerns at risk. We need to ensure that negotiations between First Nations people and resource development companies are not conducted so that compensation is simply to offset the cost of operations. The new regime needs to set the expectations for resource developers to be that they need to win the social licence from traditional owners and the public, not find ways to work around the statutory requirements. First Nations cultural heritage is precious. It is interconnected to who we are as a community. It is the flipside of the commercial bottom line. I am proud that this government will address the long overdue reform. The PKKP's strength throughout the inquiry will lead to greater protections for all First Nations cultural heritage across these lands. My hope is that we do justice to the PKKP's resilience with real reform to ensure the destruction we saw at Juukan Gorge is never allowed to happen again. If we continue to allow it to happen, it will be the way to incrementally devalue, destroy and eradicate the presence of the Aboriginal peoples of these lands.
Uluru Statement from the Heart | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
The Uluru statement is an invitation to the nation and it requires a response from the nation. It was given to us with goodwill by the 1,200 First Nations representatives that participated in 13...
The Uluru statement is an invitation to the nation and it requires a response from the nation. It was given to us with goodwill by the 1,200 First Nations representatives that participated in 13 regional meetings across the country in 2016 and 2017. The 250 delegates that they selected to attend the final constitutional convention at Uluru formed a consensus on how they wanted to be recognised in the nation's Constitution. What emerged was a call for voice, treaty and truth, and since that day the Uluru statement has travelled the length and breadth of this country. Many hundreds of people from all walks of life have signed their names to it. We as Australians have each been accorded an opportunity to lay a new foundation for our relationship, rather than the one our nation was built on—the lie of terra nullius, that there were no people here when the British came. What First Nations people have asked for is a very simple thing: a say in how the parliament makes laws about their wellbeing and their lives. It will give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples a say on the issues that affect them—after 250 years, not a bad idea—by allowing communities to have a say on their destinies, and that will improve their lives and their circumstances. The government's role is to ensure that the bricks and mortar of a referendum are sound and that we give the Australian people the best chance of making a clear and considered decision on a voice to parliament. We are consulting with First Nations leaders and constitutional experts to lay the groundwork for a referendum. We have established three key groups to assist this preparation. The first group is a referendum working group of 22 First Nations leaders, all of whom have deep experience on voice, treaty and truth and we know have been working in these spaces for years. The second group's called the Referendum Engagement Group, a group of more than 60 First Nations leaders and community members drawn from regions across Australia to provide advice on what communities need and to propose ways for First Nations peoples to be meaningfully engaged in the Constitution. The third group is a constitutional expert group from across the political spectrum to consider the words on the questions proposed by the Prime Minister at Garma this year and to ensure the ultimate supremacy of the parliament. The work of each of these groups is ongoing. Let me share one part of the work to date, a set of principles for the Voice that have been agreed by the working group. It will be a body that provides independent advice to the parliament and the government. It will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples based on the wishes of their local communities. It will be representatives of those communities. It will be gender balanced and include youth. It will be accountable and transparent, and it will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures. The Voice will not have a program delivery function. Nor will it have a veto over the parliament or the executive government. I want to make one thing very clear. The government is here to facilitate and support what is needed to deliver a referendum. The Voice to Parliament is not the creation of the Labor Party, nor should the referendum be a campaign dictated by politicians. This is for the Australian people. The Aboriginal politicians here represent their parties and their diverse electorates. We are not the unified advocacy for First Nations that the Voice to Parliament will provide. If the referendum is to succeed— (Time expired)
Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
DODSON () (): Four years ago, in August 2018, I stood in this place and spoke against a private senator's bill, the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation Bill) 2015. That...
DODSON () (): Four years ago, in August 2018, I stood in this place and spoke against a private senator's bill, the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation Bill) 2015. That legislation failed, and not just because I voted against it. Now we have the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 to consider. This bill will remove constraints on the legislative powers of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory—constraints that were enacted in 1997 in order that the Commonwealth overturn Northern Territory legislation which was the first in the world to legislate euthanasia. Four years ago—that is, more than two decades after the NT legislation was cancelled—euthanasia was legislated elsewhere across Australia. The Victorian parliament passed voluntary assisted dying legislation in November 2017, but it would not come into effect until June 2019. My home state of Western Australia was next. Legislation was enacted in December 2019, and I protested about that. Today every state in Australia has voluntary assisted dying legislation, although in some places the laws are yet to come into effect, so the landscape now is markedly different from that of four years ago. Euthanasia will soon be able to be practised in all parts of Australia—apart from the ACT and the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory legislation, back in the mid-nineties, was called the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act—ROTI was the acronym—and four people took advantage of it before the Commonwealth intervened. I recognise that the legislation before us now, the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022, does not automatically revive the Northern Territory ROTI Act, but, as the explanatory memorandum spells out, it will ensure that the ACT and the Northern Territory parliaments will be able to allow their citizens the same rights as people living in the six states now hold. If the two territories want to follow suit, they will have the benefit of lessons from the legislation that the states have already worked upon. Personally, I still hold the same reservations that I held four years ago about laws which license euthanasia or assisted dying, especially as they may affect First Nations peoples. But in the end I see euthanasia legislation as whitefella law, to be used by the non-Indigenous population. It's worth recording the research that was quoted previously by Senator Scarr. The research was into Aboriginal views on euthanasia, which was commissioned by the Northern Territory government when its ROTI Act was passed. The research team conducted 21 meetings across the Territory, involving 900 Aboriginal people from around 100 communities. They found that at least 90 per cent of those Aboriginal people opposed the legislation, as distinct from the 70 per cent support nationally for euthanasia. Palliative care was universally supported by Aboriginal people as the way people were traditionally cared for under their law, and that's still our way. We nurse our elderly into their death in our own communities, sometimes at great personal sacrifice. And remember this: in remote communities, as has already been alluded to, there aren't the palliative care services available that are supported elsewhere. As I said in this place four years ago, any proposal by the Northern Territory to reintroduce assisted suicide legislation must occur in consultation with First Nations health services and communities because First Nations peoples are at a higher risk of being in a situation where assisted dying might take place. I said that four years ago. I have pondered deeply how to approach the legislation before us now and, in spite of my fundamental spiritual opposition to euthanasia, I have never held to the slippery slope argument. I accept that adequate safeguards have been written into the laws that now prevail in the six states. They may not be adequate, but they're better than what was proposed. For that reason, and in recognition of the widespread non-Indigenous support for voluntary euthanasia, I intend this time to abstain from voting. I would not want to be the one person whose no vote sank this legislation. I want to talk about other factors that have come in to weigh upon my deliberation. Many of you here would have been lobbied by faith based organisations to oppose this legislation. Some of those lobbyists have invoked my advocacy—in particular, about the anathema of euthanasia in First Nations people—to support their cause. The Australian Christian Lobby, for example, has campaigned against this legislation under the headline 'Protect Indigenous lives'. Yet this very same organisation, which purports to be concerned about First Nations peoples, has been peddling offensive propaganda which scoffs at the Aboriginal spiritual beliefs and belittles arguments for a First Nations Voice to this parliament. Mr Martyn Iles, the managing director of the Australian Christian lobby, harangues his followers with video clips called 'The truth of it'. In an 18-minute rant back in June he railed against the Uluru Statement from the Heart as a 'pagan document', which he screwed up and tossed at the camera. A Voice to parliament, Iles asserts, is 'the agenda of critical race theorists' who want to divide people on the basis of their skin colour and to implant, in his words, 'some kind of trouble, some kind of cancer' into an otherwise good system. Iles compounded his offense in another video only a couple of weeks ago when he said he eschews the welcome to country because it 'affirms paganism and entangles one in false spirituality'. I've been distressed by these scornful, hateful diatribes from so-called Christians, who are prepared to recruit First Nations peoples to support a campaign against euthanasia yet won't allow them a seat at the table. Those sorts of diatribes are injurious to respectful discussion. They have no place in our national discourse as we progress towards a referendum to entrench a Voice in the Constitution. Those opponents of the Voice to the parliament say that it will be divisive. Those same opponents fail to recognise that their argument is in itself divisive. I say that rather than dividing us a Voice will be an instrument of healing and reconciliation, a first step in the journey to resettle our relationship.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
This week I was moved by the first speeches of our new colleagues. A senator's first speech is a unique insight into their character. But when you listen to several, as I have this week, it is...
This week I was moved by the first speeches of our new colleagues. A senator's first speech is a unique insight into their character. But when you listen to several, as I have this week, it is impossible not to realise that they hold a common thread across the political divide. They reflect a shared desire that our time in this chamber will leave a country in a better place. Despite the cynical public view sometimes, most of us occupy our places here because we want to do good. We want to contribute to the difficult but rewarding work of nation-building. We want to shape a fairer, more just and freer society. We want to look back, when our time comes to be done with this place, and tell our children, our grandchildren and their grandchildren that we were a part of putting things right. Those of us in this 47th Parliament will be asked to make a choice on one such issue of nation-building—whether or not to support a referendum on a Voice to Parliament. As envisaged in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, the Voice to Parliament is a modest and generous invitation to the nation. Out of the torment of our powerlessness, it weaves a simple and hopeful suggestion for a way forward. It proposes a First Nations representative body to advise the parliament on the laws and policies that will impact upon their lives, and it proposes that this body, the Voice, be enshrined in the Constitution to ensure it has a place of recognition, responsibility and contribution into the future. Importantly, the Voice is not the work of the Labor government or any other political party. It is the culmination of decades of advocacy by First Nations people and their leaders. There is a clear line from the advocacy of early leaders such as William Cooper, the 1938 Day of Mourning, the 1963 Yirrkala bark petitions and the 1988 Barunga Statement to the regional dialogue processes that birthed the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The process brought together over 1,200 First Nations delegates in 12 regional dialogues across the country. The final convention at Uluru resulted in a historic consensus around the proposal for a Voice. It was the largest consensus of First Nations' people on a proposal for recognition in Australian history. It is about recognition in the Constitution and it is also about practical outcomes. There is a long history, and we know it, of failed government programs, broken promises and waste. Everyone knows that. A Voice means that First Nations people, the people who know what works, will advise the parliament in a focused and consistent manner about laws that impact their lives. It is about shaping better policies and strategies that make a practical difference. It is about getting it right for the first time. It is about giving a constant voice to the people who don't have one. It is not the end of the road. It is not the only thing we need to do. But it is the next significant nation-building step in our journey towards reconciliation. In my own first speech I made a commitment to work with my fellow senators to build a better country—a stronger, just and inclusive Australia. As I hear the new colleagues across the chamber express similar sentiments I feel hopeful that, together, we can play our part in responding positively to the generous invitation of the First Nations people contained in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, for a Voice.
Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs; Reference | Committees | Senate debates
This is a reference to a new committee. The committee hasn't yet had a meeting. It's a complicated subject, and the committee, I think, ought to be accorded some curtesy as to the time line of...
This is a reference to a new committee. The committee hasn't yet had a meeting. It's a complicated subject, and the committee, I think, ought to be accorded some curtesy as to the time line of the workload and be given the capacity to do its work of due diligence and to report back to this chamber at a time that it feels it can undertake the task. It will deliver a report that will be so crucial to the future directions of our nation.
nator DODSON () (): I seek leave to make a short statement.