Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

There are moments in time and events that become embedded in our memories—moments of profound personal or public importance that sometimes change our outlook on life, that may bring an era to an end or that may herald a new direction. The national apology delivered by former prime minister Kevin Rudd on 13 February 2008 was one such moment. It brought an end to decades of disgraceful denial and terrible injustices perpetrated against Australia's Indigenous people. The apology brought dignity and respect to people who, since white settlement, had been discriminated against and disadvantaged. For most Australians it brought a divided nation together. It was one of the most significant and meaningful acts of our national parliament, I believe, since federation over 100 years earlier.

On Monday morning, as I watched the film clips of that memorable day, which I was fortunate enough to attend, it reinforced in my mind the historical significance of 13 of February 2008. The faces of those people present, both inside this building and outside, picked up by the cameras said it all. It just showed the impact it had on their lives. It was significant not because it rectified all of the wrongs of the past, or that it would fix all of the problems and disadvantages that still exist, but because it signalled a new approach to dealing with the unfinished business that needed to be resolved. It gave hope to the tens of thousands of Indigenous people—and, equally to many, many other Australians who, for so long, were looking for answers—but particularly for the Indigenous people who had suffered throughout all of that time.

All of that was put into context in another captivating speech by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Unlike his 2008 speech, which was made in the chamber, the speech on Monday was made in the Great Hall and will never be recorded in Hansard. My personal view is that it should be recorded in Hansard. I will not propose that we incorporate it today, because I have not spoken to members of the opposition about that. But certainly I would encourage anyone who is listening to my remarks today to read Kevin Rudd's speech—a speech entitled 'The arc of history bending slowly towards justice'. It was not only a speech that I believe outlined the process of white settlement in this country and Indigenous disadvantage and how we have slowly tried to change that. It also talked about the future and where we need to go.

It has taken 235 years to address many of the injustices faced by Australia's First Nations people. Yes, we still have a long way to go. And can I say, with respect to that, that the proposed Voice to Parliament, as Kevin Rudd quite rightly pointed out—which will be an advisory body to parliament—is I believe another slow step towards the justice and equality that need to be addressed here in Australia.

I want to talk briefly about a couple of other matters. I note that the Leader of the Opposition is calling for another royal commission as his alternative proposal to the Voice. In 1987 the government of the day instigated the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. That commission ended up with 339 recommendations. Of those recommendations, only 64 have been adopted or carried through with. That commission was headed by Elliott Johnston, a Supreme Court judge from South Australia, with the support of Pat Dodson, now a senator in this place.

Elliott Johnston was someone I knew well. Years later, he addressed a forum in the city of Salisbury. I had asked him to come along and address a forum on Indigenous matters in respect of his role as the commissioner of that inquiry. We heard directly from him about many of the issues he had heard of in his inquiry and about his own frustration that the recommendations he had put forward had not been followed through with. It is now some three decades later, and those recommendations have still not all been adopted. So, I stress this point. Royal commissions are important. They certainly bring to a head the very issues that we need to deal with. But they don't always resolve them. It takes governments who want to embrace the recommendations and follow through with them to do that.

The subsequent royal commission led to the Bringing them home report and was headed by Sir Ronald Wilson and, interestingly, supported by Mick Dodson. That report was presented to parliament in April 1997. Immediately upon its being presented to parliament I contacted Sir Ronald Wilson and asked him to address a forum, again in the city of Salisbury, on his findings and his work on that commission. He agreed, and he came out here. In fact, it was his first public appearance since presenting the report to parliament. I heard directly from Sir Ronald Wilson about his inquiry. He talked about how it nearly brought him to tears as he was listening to the evidence being presented to him about the injustices in the course of the inquiry.

That report was handed down in April 1997—again, a quarter of a century ago. Have we embraced and adopted, in the spirit intended, all those recommendations? My answer is that no, we have not. Whilst I understand the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that we need another royal commission, I say to the members of this place: it's not a royal commission we need. I think we all know what the issues are that need to be addressed. We need a parliament that is prepared to move forward with the recommendations that have been presented to this parliament in the past, and with respect to other inquiries that have been made by members of this parliament, and deal with those very issues and get on with adopting the recommendations. That is what we need to do.

I believe the Voice to Parliament, as Kevin Rudd quite rightly said, an advisory body, is another step towards doing exactly that. The 15-year anniversary was also a reminder of the unfinished business that we as a parliament have to deal with. I commend the minister's statement to the House.

See this speech in context