Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for External Territories) Share this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Barton for her contribution. She's very appropriately outlined, in very much detail, our support for the legislation, the features of the legislation and our concerns about some aspects of the legislation which have been picked up and addressed by the government, so we've now got a bill we're able to support. I want to make a couple of observations. One observation I want to make that is of particular importance is that the ILC board retains some oversight role of the account. Whilst the Future Fund, of course, is responsible for its investments et cetera, ultimately the ILC board is charged with the responsibility of making sure that the funds for which they have been made responsible are dealt with properly and appropriately, so they need to have a clear line of sight as to how the account is being invested.

I note the comments made by the member for Barton around those issues. We welcome, as she said, the government's decision to require that the Future Fund brief the ILC Board on their investment decisions, in a sense restoring the capacity of the ILC to oversee, as a part of its responsibilities, the investments which are being made. It's obviously a passive role. It's not a role which is designed to give them the capacity to interfere with the Future Fund's decisions, but it is important nevertheless. We're of the view, as the shadow minister said, that these proposals strengthen the bill.

I do want to go back to my friend's discussion around Mabo and just try to bring it into a current context. My memories of those days are really strong. The debates which took place in this parliament were enlivened not only by some great, great orators in the parliament itself but also, most particularly, by Aboriginal leaders outside the parliament. Current Senator Dodson was part of a group of people who spent a lot of time negotiating with the Prime Minister, Paul Keating, and a cabinet subcommittee of which I was a member around the content of the native title legislation and what should happen as a result.

I want to just say that we're going through a process external to this parliament in a sense, and there's a parliamentary committee of which I'm a member and the member for Barton is a member looking at the issues to do with constitutional recognition. When we're contemplating it, we're very far removed from the engagement that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had then with the processes of this parliament. Currently, they're largely not to be seen, and that is a shame. One of the reasons for that is that there's no national body. At the time of this discussion around Mabo and the legislation, ATSIC was alive. ATSIC was alive as a body which represented the voice of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and was very much part of and central to the discussions with government. There has been a call for a structure to be set up—a voice—which will give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people the capacity to interface again with ministers, prime ministers and the parliament. If only it existed today.

We, I think, have a responsibility in this place to understand that there's a huge vacuum which is there as a result of the displacement, initially, of ATSIC. Sadly, because of the failure of the present government and its predecessor to recognise and fund the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, we don't have a body which has been properly resourced and can be seen to be representative of the interests and views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people around this country. It's very important for us. In 1992, there was Mabo and the legislation subsequently, which was all the result of constant interaction with Aboriginal people on the ground and at a leadership level here in Canberra. We've now got different groups coming to see us, but there's no organised structure through which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can express their views, apart from the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, which, as I said, has not been resourced properly and is finding it very difficult to carry out its remit.

We have a responsibility here to think about these things in the context of this legislation. This legislation was arrived at because of the activities that happened in the 1990s, not because of something that's happening today. This was set in place, set in stone, by former Prime Minister Keating and his government as a result of the Mabo decision and the native title legislation and the negotiations which took place with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people through the leadership that was expressed through ATSIC and those other organisations that were at the table. They were seen to represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests. They were legitimately representing those interests. As a result, we have the native title legislation, the land fund being set up through the ILC, and then the third tranche, as the member for Barton said—the social justice package—dropped off the edge when the Keating government got defeated at the 1996 election.

We've got a long way to go. We can retrace our steps. It won't help us much. What we've got to do is think about what is appropriate now and into the future to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that place at the table they richly deserve, and which they currently do not have. This is despite the good work of the Minister for Indigenous Health, who is at the table, my friend here the member for Barton, Senator McCarthy and Senator Dodson, who are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this place. They are strong voices and they are seen to be strong voices. But we do not have, external to the parliament, a structure which can be seen to be representing the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and properly representing their views to us.

There have been a series of consultations undertaken to get to this point—I think 17 was the number I heard. That's terrific. I remember the days—this has got little to do with this piece of legislation, but you'll understand what I'm saying here—when the Howard government did a review of the Northern Territory land rights legislation. They employed to do that a person who was a friend of mine: John Reeves QC, now a Federal Court judge. He came down with a set of recommendations around changing the land rights act in the Northern Territory. Aboriginal people around the Northern Territory were consulted. They set up a process to consult themselves through their land councils. I went to regional meetings right around the Northern Territory and saw Aboriginal people burn the report because of their disgust with some of the recommendations within it. Of course, ultimately it went nowhere. It went nowhere because of the strength of their view. They could do that because they had structures to organise, to help them actually articulate their views. Currently we've got a disparate set of structures around the country and we need to be thinking very seriously and making sure this parliament comes to terms with its obligation. Not everyone agrees with what came out of the Statement from the Heart—I understand that—but it is just common sense. It is just smart to ensure that Aboriginal people have a voice—that they have a voice and are listened to, and are listened to in a way where they are seen to be engaged with properly and not disparaged and have their views disregarded.

This legislation is welcome. But we have a responsibility in this place to go a whole lot further. We'll get into discussions about regional agreements and treaties and the like, but we still need a structure. I'd implore particularly some of our colleagues on the other side of this chamber to be thinking positively about it and not see it as a threat. I'm pleased to be able to support this legislation.

See this speech in context