House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Nuclear Waste Nuclear Waste Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Dunstan Leader of the Opposition Nuclear Waste Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:57): My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier admit that he would not be bound by the result of any referendum given that he has said that Aboriginal communities would be able to veto any proposal or decision? The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly Cheltenham Premier Nuclear Waste The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (14:57): Well, this is an important question about the role that the citizens' jury played in uncovering what I think is a profound issue about our relationship with Aboriginal people in South Australia. What we had was very powerful representations that were made from Aboriginal people where they called for the citizens' jury to stand up for them and represent their interests in protecting their land, and the citizens' jury, I am advised, was powerfully influenced by that. I think what many Aboriginal people were surprised about, but pleasantly surprised, was the way in which non-Aboriginal people took their part and sought to represent their interests in that process. The truth is that Aboriginal people have many unfinished items of business with the broader non-Aboriginal community. You only need to look at the disadvantage and degradation in many Aboriginal communities to know that there is much more work to be done, and so their perspective is: 'You want something from us first, you have to resolve that unfinished business.' I was also powerfully influenced by a delegation of Aboriginal people who came to meet me—especially those from lands that were directly affected by the nuclear industry, such as Maralinga—and said, 'We don't want to have to continue fighting this fight. We don't want to know that this is another generation where we're going to have to see off what they regard as a use of their land that they will simply never agree to.' I was affected by that. I think that is an important observation, and I wanted to give them the surety that it would never happen without their consent. That is not to say that there won't be some Aboriginal communities that may not support such a measure; and certainly at that very meeting one of the Aboriginal representatives, much to the concern of the environmental groups that brought them along, said that, if it could be demonstrated that there were real benefits, they would want to have that discussion with us. So, there is not a single voice that comes from all Aboriginal communities, despite the way in which it has been represented. I know that some people don't want to hear that, and I know some people don't like to represent the position that they hold about their community for fear of criticism by other communities. But that is the truth of the matter. It is what the royal commissioner found and it is certainly the evidence of my own experience with people speaking directly to me. This is something that I think is important. I think this also is a bigger issue than the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. We are going to have to reconcile with Aboriginal South Australians if we are going to do many things which are about development on their lands. I think there are some important ways forward which are about looking at discrete Aboriginal nations and using the Indigenous land use agreement process, which has yielded benefits (some better than others). But it has identified in many respects people who speak for country and can form a basis on which we can reach secure and lasting settlements with Aboriginal people which can form the basis for the growth of trust and form the basis for future investments with those communities.