Legislative Council Wednesday 26 October 2016

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT (CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLE) BILL 2016 (No. 53)   Second Reading

Ms FORREST (Murchison) - Mr Deputy President, my contribution will no doubt reiterate what some of the honourable members have said.

First, I would like to commend the Government and the Premier in his role as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, in that he has done quite a bit of work in this area - particularly in taking an inclusive approach with people who identify as Aboriginal all around the state, and who have felt excluded at other times because of the way other groups or other Tasmanians have responded to them.

A number of these people reside in my electorate, particularly in the Circular Head area.  I have had many discussions and cups of tea, and spent a lot of time with them, understanding what their issues are, and the frustration they feel when they have been recognised by the Australian Government and they have received funding as Aboriginal corporations providing services to Aboriginal people but the state did not recognise them.  It has been a longstanding point of frustration which I have shared with them.  Not being an Aboriginal person myself, I do not understand it as deeply as they do but I certainly get a sense of their frustration.  I have sat down with some of them who have given me reams of information that support their claim for Aboriginality, their family history, and for some of them it was one missing document that meant they could not meet the criteria that was needed to prove their Aboriginality.

We know that a lot of Aboriginal heritage and history is passed down verbally.  Much of it was not written, and sometimes what is written is lost, destroyed by fire or flood or other natural disaster, or simply lost. Whilst symbolic in nature - and having no serious legal ramifications we are assured, but I am sure the Leader will address that more fully in her reply - it does say that we recognise the Aboriginal people of Tasmania have a great and long connection with this land, the First People who were here.  I cannot see what is wrong with saying that.  There is plenty of evidence, plenty of history, both written and spoken, to confirm that.

 There are different views.  I know there are authors who have expressed different views and some Aboriginal people agree with one author and disagree with another.  If you look at what has been written about European history, you will find the same thing.  It depends on which side of history you sit as to what you feel about that history.

This is slightly off the track, but it was interesting when I was on the Frank MacDonald Memorial Prize trip we had a British soldier as our guide, talking about the impression that we, as Australians, have of ANZACs being really brave, fearsome, larrikins in many ways, and the British soldiers were seen as perhaps more timid, less brave, less willing to face the enemy.  He took us to a ridge in Sarre in Belgium, and talked about the British troops who fought on that ridge.  It was a very low ridge, as all ridges are in Belgium, and he talked about the nine groups who went over the top, and the wire had not been cut.  The advanced artillery had not damaged or destroyed the fences, and other things like that, and men were just mown down.  They were all British men.  He then asked the young students on the tour, were British men less brave than Australians?  In Australia we thought perhaps they were.  That is the way our history was taught to us.  History is taught to us in ways that we take on board.  There will always be competing views of the same historic event.  I use that as an example of how to demonstrate that, whilst nor everyone of them will agree with this decision for a variety of reasons, everyone has their own interpretation of the right thing to do in this.

It is important to recognise the Aboriginal people as the original owners and custodians of this land.  In doing that, it is symbolic, yes.  We are advised it does not provide any legal right or entitlement.  But it does recognise the importance and contribution of Aboriginal people past and present and that the future generations will continue to make to Tasmania.

I commend the Government for taking some steps.  It has not been entirely popular.  It has been easier in the past to step away from some of these decisions because it is too hard, trying to bring different people together to get a common view - not just in matters of Aboriginal recognition, but in a whole range of matters.  In a democracy, different views are what makes it work.  I commend the Government for getting on with this, even though we are the last state to do it.  That is not necessarily this Government's fault.  Some members of the Aboriginal community have said the time has moved on, we have moved past that.

Anything we do from here has this behind it, which is an important message.  It is not inappropriate, too late, or not the right thing.  It does not mean other things cannot happen.  It does not mean discussions about land transfer cannot happen.  It does not mean discussions regarding treaties cannot happen.  It is a small step - but an important step.

Other members have raised the question about legal ramifications of this, including this in our legislation, the Constitution Act.  We heard in briefing, other states have all done this but in different ways.  Some have done it in the preamble, some in the body of their legislation.  The justiciability issue has been in other states' legislation, particularly where it is part of the body of the act, but one does it also in the preamble.  The Leader said in her second reading speech legal advice was sought and provided by the Solicitor-General.  What was the question asked of the Solicitor-General, not necessarily the specific question, but in broad terms?  If that question was not asked, yes, she would have received legal advice perhaps about the question of ownership and the legal ramifications but I need to be sure these matters raised were canvassed and addressed in the legal advice.  We are not going to see the legal advice, but it would be helpful to know the questions put to the Solicitor-General did cover these areas requiring further explanation.

I respect the rights of Aboriginal people in Tasmania to hold different views on this.  Being a non-Aboriginal person, in some respects it is not right for me to make the decision on this.  But we are elected to this Parliament by people, many of whom are Aboriginal.  Many I represent in my community are Aboriginal.  I have not heard them say they do not wish to see me support it.  There may be some who may later, and that is fine.  But overall it is the right thing to do.  I acknowledge there may be criticisms from others who disagree, but this is the case with all pieces of legislation we pass.  Rarely does everyone totally agree with it, and our job is to try and find the best way forward.

This is appropriate legislation.  I am proud to support it.  I commend the Government for bringing it forward.