Aboriginal Representative Body Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 October 2021.)

Mr BROWN: Sir, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pederick): There not being the numbers present, ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (17:05): When I was talking to this bill a couple of weeks ago, I was talking about a response I had sent to Councillor Brown at the City of Onkaparinga. To remind members where I was going with this whole conversation, it was about where we are now at a point in history where I think we should be able to have these conversations and respectful consultations with people of our First Nations in a modern, grown-up way.

However, it is clear from some of the people we have still in positions of leadership, sadly, that they do not have a full understanding of the impact of history upon their present day. I was talking to the letter from the councillor which I had in my possession at that time and which I replied to, but since then I have trolled through a little bit of my information from the FOI I submitted after writing this letter and I thought I would like to share a couple of little pieces with the house.

The original email that went to Minister Coleman from Councillor Brown cc'd in the members for Gibson, Davenport, Waite and Black. It griped on about citizenship protocols and ceremonies and, to be clear, I did not get any response from any of the members. I do not think they really bought into what was happening here. It was all a bit kneejerk in its reaction.

The email from Councillor Brown was, 'Hi, I've just come from a citizenship ceremony. Rather offended by what I heard and watched unfold,' pointing out again that this is a white Caucasian, older woman in the community taking offence at a state politician acknowledging that we are on stolen Kaurna land.

I have spent a lot of time with and take very seriously my conversations with local Aboriginal people in our community, and I deeply treasure the relationships I have formed with particularly elders, such as Aunty Georgina (who many would be aware has since passed) and Aunty Georgina's family, as well as the O'Brien family, the Buckskin family and a number of others I have spoken to about what is and what is not appropriate with respect of the conversations we had.

Of course, they fully endorse my talking about stolen Kaurna land that has not been ceded because it is fact that many Aboriginal communities feel most aggrieved and still suffer the trauma of the stealing of their land. It is an ongoing conversation to negotiate the return of land to traditional people.

To get this email from an older white woman, accusing me of blasting citizens with a brazen attitude in order to inflict guilt or humiliate those conducting a citizenship ceremony—she said she thought she was hearing things and repeated what she heard, questioning a fellow councillor if she had heard it right. I do not think she did hear it right; in fact, I know she did not.

I had present Aunty Georgina, as we did in nearly every citizenship ceremony for many years. Before every citizenship ceremony I attended, I would sit and talk with her because of her deep connection to an area of land in our community called the Washpool. She told me its traditional history and why it is so important, and I would not do it justice if I tried to tell you the story right now. It is not really my story to tell, but I just say that there are deep reasons why that land was sacred to Aunty Georgina and continues to be to her family.

I made a note that this is something I would keep advocating for—to keep that land as treasured cultural land. I personally felt that it should not be sold or developed or what have you. I did that speaking with the community there, as a way of saying, 'History is so important. We must respect history because we learn from it, and if we learn from our history we either don't make the mistakes of the past again or we improve our pathway in the future.' I think that just makes good sense, and I am sure nobody in this chamber would disagree with that.

We had this older white female firing off this letter of grievance to the federal minister. She said that she had not spoken to the council about her problems. She sent a further email off saying that it was shocking and that people should not be guilted—I am paraphrasing because I do not have time to go into the full rant—and how this was not a political rally and so on.

This time, she went further and she cc'd Nicolle Flint into the email. I want to say that in fairly quick succession after her original email a good member of staff of the member for Davenport had responded to Sandra Brown, giving her a link that took her to the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code. I will quote from a staff member of Davenport: 'I believe that some who attend citizenship ceremonies do refer to Kaurna land as "stolen".' Someone else, another staff member from the member for Davenport's office, says someone 'from our office has certainly heard it at Marion citizenship ceremonies. I hope this is useful'.

Well, thank you very much to the staff member from a Liberal member's electoral office, trying to defuse this situation which was completely ridiculous. I did write an extensive letter to the councillor explaining my position, really just saying, 'Calm your chops. This is not what it is about.' I hear stories from and have dialogue with new members of our community, and actually some of them are not quite so new because we know that some people have been in Australia for 70-odd years and not taken out citizenship and finally decide to—I think 74 years is the longest. It was 'Calm down. That is not what this is about.'

I respect the conversations we have with our traditional owners. I acknowledge that the way the land was taken is completely wrong. It is continued trauma. The fact is that much of this land has not been ceded, and I commit that the path to true reconciliation involves that conversation and that acknowledgment.

To draw back to this particular bill, and I think that is an important part of it, it is the consultation and the process that I have a problem with. I have reached out to a number of elders we would consider mutual friends across the chamber, and I have asked them. Many of them have had no consultation on this particular bill. Their response to me is that they are aggrieved they have not been consulted. Again, I am not going to speak for them or verbal people in this chamber about that, but I think we have had four years and it is late in the day to bring this in. It is not to be compared to standard consultation. This is a very important thing from a cultural point of view.

I absolutely applaud and respect Roger Thomas. Dr Thomas is an incredible mentor to many and a leader in our community, so this is not in any way a criticism of Dr Thomas, who I think had some comments to make on this in September on ABC radio. He said:

I've expressed to the Premier, I've expressed to the process, I find it very, very insulting that it doesn't give Aboriginal people sufficient time to talk this through because it's such a significant piece of legislation.

I think there are some problems with a lack of consultation in regard to this bill. I think the right thing to do—and it may well be happening behind the scenes; I do not know—is to have some additional consultation with other elders. I noticed that the Premier was frustrated. He looked frustrated last time he was in the chamber while this bill was being debated, probably surprised at a lot of the commentary around the lack of consultation, but that is what we are getting told and we can only report what we are told.

I would prefer a proper voice to parliament, a true voice to parliament, and I refer to the Maori voice and how that happens in New Zealand, that true independent Maori voice that can be frank and fearless on the floor of their parliament. This one is more like a voice via committee that will have the control of that, engineered by its numbers and by the government.

My interpretation of the intent of the bill is to give voice, but we are not giving true, frank and fearless and independent voice. I understand that it takes much more than this bill to do what the New Zealand parliament has done; I think that goes way back to 1876 or thereabouts.

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms COOK: Yes. I think we are grown up. We need to be heading here to acknowledge our traditional owners and to make sure it is a proper voice. So I do have issues with the way that Aboriginal people will be heard by the cabinet, by the state parliament and by the authorities via this voice.

I have a problem with the consultation, or the lack of full consultation, because, as we know, Aboriginal elders may not necessarily have the same opinion based on the parts of the lands they are from. Many of our Aboriginal elders, who are mutual friends in this chamber, are from a multiple set of lands within our state, so they have a whole range of conversations to dig down and have. I think that has not happened, so I do feel a bit uncomfortable about how far we go with support, but I am listening in to all the speeches that are being made.

One of the examples we also have in this chamber of fantastic voice and consultation is our flag. I think it was a year 6 student from Surrey Downs or somewhere who brought the question to the member for Wright. I do not remember the story fully, but it was perhaps through a meeting or after a tour of the parliament. They asked—

Ms Bedford: Yes, but I have been writing letters for years.

Ms COOK: Yes, I was coming to you, member for Florey. The meeting that followed the conversation has led to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags flying in our chamber. It actually provides that additional layer of rich conversation that we have with the kids who come here. I certainly had a great conversation with some of the kids I brought through here the other day from Emmaus Catholic School about the flags, and why we fly all of them in here.

The member for Florey, through great consultation and listening, has brought to us the Acknowledgement of Country that we do every day that we sit in parliament—not just the first day but every day. There is a flag on the roof. For a very long time, up in our Balcony Room there was a little painting. That painting needs to be found because it is symbolic of how action and consultation can then lead to further action.

I lament that we do not have an Aboriginal voice in this chamber. We have Kyam Maher in the Legislative Council, who does an amazing job, and I feel so grateful that he brings that rich information to us in our caucus. This bill just rejigs a committee by appointed membership. This bill does not show a direct vote and I do not think this bill is enough.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (17:21): I rise today to make a quick contribution on the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill and, in so doing, I would like to pay homage to everyone who has spoken so far. I certainly respect the diversity of opinion with regard to this bill. I wish to make it clear from the outset, though, that I certainly do respect the wonderful contribution that Aboriginal people make to South Australia, especially that which the Narungga people make to the electorate I am lucky enough to represent and, of course, after which the electorate is named.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Aboriginal people do need a stronger voice in parliament, but I have to admit that I hold some concerns with this bill and the particular way that it goes about achieving that. Before I outline those concerns, I want to take the opportunity to congratulate the Premier on the initiatives that he has taken thus far in this term of parliament to achieve greater representation and to strengthen the ties that Aboriginal people should feel to this place.

It is only a small gesture, but the hanging of the flag—the genesis of which I am not entirely sure—no matter how it was brought about, I think is a tremendous addition to this chamber. It is really pleasing to see it there and to point it out when I, too, take school tours through this chamber. So congratulations to the member for Florey or whoever was the driving voice behind the hanging of that flag.

This bill is designed, as we have heard already, to create an independent body which is tasked with representing Aboriginal people in the South Australian parliament. It would be chaired by the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, who is currently Dr Roger Thomas. He is doing fantastic work in the role, and I do not wish to undermine that by any means whatsoever. In fact, I have had the great privilege of accompanying Dr Thomas out to Wardang Island in the electorate to see the work going on out there with the local Narungga people. He is a tremendous person to be around, and I congratulate him on all his work.

I understand this bill creates a body which in future will be elected by Aboriginal South Australians through a formal election. They would then go on to meet with cabinet twice a year and help inform a new parliamentary standing committee on Aboriginal affairs and representation. Instead of pouring our efforts into holding a separate election for this body, I query why we should not be using those resources to help Aboriginal people become a member of cabinet, the actual cabinet, or part of a parliamentary standing committee, rather than just having the opportunity to meet with them. Surely the best possible voice to parliament is one that is elected to our parliament.

The great thing about democracy, and the great thing about democracy in South Australia, is that every single person has an opportunity to run and be elected to parliament. In my view, we would be better utilising these resources to give Aboriginal people the skills, training and impetus to become a member of parliament and have a direct influence on our democracy, rather than the indirect impact they might have through the passage of this bill. I also believe that a separate election would be unnecessarily divisive, when we could instead encourage Aboriginal people to become more involved in our democracy and to run and be elected to parliament.

Finally, I also hold concerns that this body will lump all Aboriginal people into one group. I understand Indigenous Australians to be an incredibly diverse group with differing views and customs across different regions. You only have to visit the Narungga community in Point Pearce to know that there are different views even within the same community.

Separating the state into five wards, as this bill has done, is an attempt to accommodate this; however, the Aboriginal people in Mount Gambier and the Narungga people of my electorate, who are miles and miles apart, are both taken in by ward 5 in this bill. I find it difficult to see how this is appropriate. The Mount Gambier community would surely have different views from the Narungga community.

I understand the elected body will be tasked with going out and seeking the views of all Aboriginal South Australians, but I wonder whether this is even possible with such a diverse group and where such a diverse range of opinions exist between groups. I will not oppose the bill. I intend to support its passage through this place, but I did want to take the opportunity to put those concerns on the record. I hope that I am proven wrong with the passage of time and that it is a wonderful addition to our democracy here in South Australia.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (17:26): I would like to take a few moments to make a contribution to this important bill. Before I go into some individual issues, I would just like to indicate that a lot of what I am going to say is actually based on a report prepared for me by my intern, this year's university intern, Susan Roberts, an Adelaide university student. She has done a wonderful job with her report.

While I had some ideas, she has done some extensive research. Her thinking is exquisite in the sense that she has gone really deep and taken a really broad view and put Aboriginal rights, etc., in a broader context. Her paper is essentially about the wellbeing of Aboriginal people, First Nations people, in this country. The topic, which is relevant to this—and I will provide some more details—is: 'Has the wellbeing of First Nation Australians been adversely affected by well-meaning but ultimately misguided policies?'

Ms Bedford interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, that's right. Without being too critical, I think this bill is well meaning but I also think it is misguided and therefore will have a negative impact on our First Nations people. It is interesting because the conclusion to her report says as follows:

…after a thorough theoretical analysis and examination of key policy periods, that the wellbeing of First Nations Australians has been adversely affected by well-meaning, but ultimately, misguided policies.

Then she goes through a whole range of examples and some recommendations, and I will come to those because they are very much relevant to this bill.

From my understanding of what the Premier, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, has said, the bill is supposed to respond to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, but my understanding of this bill is that it only deals with one of the three issues. It only deals with the issue of voice, and even the issue of voice has its issues, which I will talk about in a moment. It does not deal with the issue of truth and treaty.

As I said, the voice in this bill is not a proper voice. It is actually just a voice to a new parliamentary committee and, as the member for Narungga indicated, even he has some difficulties with this bill in terms of the way the voice is given to the First Nations people. Contrast that with the South Australian Labor Party committing in July 2019 to a state-based implementation of the Uluru Statement.

My first concern about this bill, in terms of the voice, is that the Aboriginal representative body has zero elected members. However, once elections are held, only five of the 13 members will be directly elected and nominated by existing elected Aboriginal bodies; the rest will be appointed.

When I saw the proposed structure and model for a voice for First Nations people, I thought about the tours of parliament I do with students. When we talk about responsible government, I talk about how our first government was effectively a governor on behalf of the English sovereign. He literally ran the colony. He then set up an advisory council—appointed—which was then half elected, I understand, and then we had the first Legislative Council, which was fully elected. That is what we seem to be repeating today in the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill.

What we are saying is that Aboriginal people, First Nations people, are not ready for self-determination—that is what this bill says—in the same way the English sovereign and British parliament said back in 1840s and 1850s that this colony was not ready for responsible self-government. This bill actually takes us back to colonial days, and that is how we are treating our First Nations people: like we treated them in colonial days. The so-called 'voice' is a colonial-day model, not directly elected, not formed by the opinions of people affected by it. It is done in a paternalistic way that has pervaded our policies over decades in relation to First Nations people, and I do object to that. I think for First Nations people the time has come to have the ability to have a voice in this state. That is my first concern.

I am happy to be corrected, but my understanding is that the consultation on the bill was seen to be inadequate and flawed and was open for only nine days. I would find it hard to consult with my community or with any community in my electorate in nine days, so how you consult with First Nations people right across the state in nine days, properly and in an effective way is beyond me. I do not think it is possible to do it properly. You can do it in a tokenistic way perhaps, as I said a bit earlier, in a colonial way. The issue I have about that is one of the concerns raised by Susan Roberts, who researched it. She addresses the issue and says:

Legacies of colonial thinking which promote an individualistic philosophy of thinking rather than the collectivist view have, and continue to influence wellbeing policies in Australia.

In other words, we are doing this process as white western people would do it. If it were a true consultation process, we would use the process used by First Nations people and get together and discuss things over time, etc. This is not about honouring and respecting First Nations people. This is about us imposing the way we do things.

Sadly, it appears that we have learnt nothing in over 150 years. We are still doing things the way we did back in colonial days, which I outlined a bit earlier. I think that it is important to learn from our mistakes. Anything we do as a parliament and as a government is about the wellbeing of people, in this case the wellbeing of our First Nations people. One of the other findings that Susan makes is:

Western quality of life measures cannot adequately capture the interconnected nature of First Nations…wellbeing.

That means First Nations people see their wellbeing—see their being—differently from how we do as white western people. Any model of governance that talks about First Nations people should adopt First Nations philosophy. We should adopt that and come together with western philosophy and not impose our philosophy upon them.

The bill, in my opinion, does not reflect, if you like, the essence or the meaning of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I mentioned the voice, which this bill was supposed to create. I do not think it meets the requirements of that statement at the state level. That is the only conclusion I can reach in terms of what the First Nations people are seeking.

In terms of the second element, the treaty element, I will quote from the report because to do anything else would be an injustice to this report because she has done a wonderful job. She quotes Noel Pearson, who is well known to all Australians, and this is about treaty and she describes the meaning of the word 'Makarrata':

The Yolngu concept of Makarrata captures the idea of two parties coming together after a struggle, healing the divisions of the past. It is about acknowledging that something has been done wrong, and it seeks to make things right.

That is what treaty is about, that process of doing that. It is relevant to the extent of this bill because I think we should use those principles in forming this bill, and in this new body and we have not. We have not done that. I think we need to do that.

The other element of the Uluru Statement is about truth. In terms of truth, I again quote from Susan's report:

…a truth-telling process that completely exposes the previous injustices First Nations [people] have endured since Colonisation and the ongoing effects this has had on their wellbeing. This would encourage a greater understanding of Australian history amongst its citizens and assist in proper reconciliation.

This bill is about forming a body which would advise parliament and the government on how we proceed to actually reduce the gap between white western Australians and First Nations Australians, but again I do not think neither the process nor this bill does that.

I think the significance of the Uluru Statement from the Heart is not well understood. Sadly, it has been dismissed by the federal Liberal Party in the way they behaved. That is my interpretation; others may disagree. I think the previous Prime Minister made some token efforts, but I do not think the current Prime Minister has even done that. Again, I quote Susan's report:

Overall, The Uluru Statement from the Heart is not a list of demands rather a means of finding common ground between First Nations Australians and Non-First Nations Australians. As quoted by Dean Parkin, a Quandamooka man and signatory of the document, 'It is not a submission or a petition to the government. It is an invitation to you, the Australian people.'

Then it goes on to quote Alyawarre woman Pat Anderson, when she says:

We meaningfully and consciously gave the Uluru Statement from the Heart as a gift to the Australian people…It's a gift of healing. And indeed love. We don't often like to use that word. But, you know, it's a very…emotional document.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart is about establishing some principles, a process where First Nations and non-First Nations people can come together, find common ground and, as we are told at various ceremonies, walk together from now on. While this bill, I think, is a part of that process and seeks to do that, I come back to Susan's examination of this subject area where she says:

The wellbeing of First Nations Australians has been adversely affected by well meaning but ultimately misguided policies.

I think this is another example of well meaning—I do not wish to suggest there is any ill meaning—but it is misguided. Certainly, people in my community would have some problems with that.

I think, if I wanted to summarise and conclude my comments, if we are going to do this, we do it properly. If we do it properly, it means genuine engagement and genuine engagement usually reflects a respect for the other parties, and it is also time for self-determination. A bill that sets up the structure for a voice based on colonial principles is certainly not the way to go.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (17:40): I rise to speak in relation to the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill 2021 that has been introduced by the Premier. This is a bill that is supposedly to give a voice to parliament for Aboriginal people in South Australia. However, unfortunately, it does not appear to do what it purports to do.

This is a bill that would give some voice—and I will get to the detail of that shortly—not to the parliament or to the government but to a committee of this parliament. I think it is fair to say that this bill has been met with a significant degree of disappointment across Aboriginal nations in South Australia, and it comes on the back of a number of disappointments over the past few years.

All of us will know very clearly the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It called very clearly for truth, voice and treaty. This bill does not even attempt to deal with two elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It attempts to deal with one, but it deals with that very badly. There is no attempt to deal with truth, there is no attempt to deal with treaty, and in relation to voice it is not a voice to this parliament but a voice to a committee of this parliament.

It is a voice in which originally the body will have zero elected members from our Aboriginal communities in South Australia, and then once elections are held only five of the 13 members will be directly elected; two will be indirectly elected and the remainder of those members will be appointed.

This is a bill which, from its very basis, has had a very flawed method of consultation. Consultation is something that is talked about a lot in regard to the development of legislation. The Attorney will know that we do raise it quite often in relation to her bills that she introduces here. But no bill, I think, is more important to have a firm basis of consultation behind it than this bill to set up an Aboriginal representative body, as it is being called.

This has got to be one of the worst consultation processes that I have seen in my time in this parliament. From what we have heard, the bill was drafted in the last week of August 2021. Consultation, I am told, opened on 7 September and closed on 17 September—giving people, to be generous, 11 days as part of that consultation. It was not on the YourSAy website, it was not put out on the Premier's website, it was not put out by media release. There was not any promotion made available of it. There were no resources in video or in languages for Aboriginal people across our state to be able to understand and get the details of in their own language.

There were no in-person consultations while the draft bill was online. There were no summaries provided of any in-person consultations and comments had to be emailed. None of them were posted publicly online. So this was a significantly poor process right from the beginning. This should have been a process that involved Aboriginal people from nations across our state every step of the way. Unfortunately, that has not occurred, and I think we really need to now go back and do that consultation, to listen to Aboriginal people.

We are lucky to have some amazing leaders of Aboriginal communities in South Australia, and one who I would like to pay the greatest respect to and thank for his incredible work is Dr Roger Thomas—and all of us in the opposition do that. He was, of course, the Treaty Commissioner under the previous Labor government and is now the current Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement. Speaking on ABC radio on 17 September, Dr Thomas said:

I've expressed to the Premier, I've expressed to the process. I find it very, very insulting that it doesn't give Aboriginal people sufficient time to talk this through because it's such a significant piece of legislation.

I certainly back the views of Dr Thomas in relation to that. We have a piece of legislation that has been presented that does not meet the key asks of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It does not meet a proper definition of a voice to parliament because it is a voice to a committee, and it has gone through a very poor level of consultation with Aboriginal people across South Australia, and is now presented here and asked for us to pass it. I have very significant concerns in relation to that, and I think that all members should very assiduously listen to leaders such as Roger Thomas when they are expressing those concerns.

We should be having a proper voice to this parliament, but we should also be progressing the need for treaty in South Australia. That is what the government—of which I was proud to be a member in the past four years of its term from 2014 to 2018—was embarking upon doing. It was establishing treaty but, unfortunately, that process was halted upon the election of Steven Marshall as the Premier. In fact, he went as far as to say that treaty was 'a cruel hoax.'

It has now been more than 1,600 days since the Uluru Statement from the Heart, more than 1,700 days since the South Australian government, under the previous Labor government, announced that we were working towards negotiating treaty with Aboriginal people in this state, and then the Marshall government was elected and described treaty—which is, of course, one-third of the Uluru Statement from the Heart—as a cruel hoax. Let's refer to what the Uluru Statement from the Heart says. It says:

Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.

There is hardly self-determination in what has been put forward when we have hardly even spoken to Aboriginal people across South Australia before the Premier is pushing forward this legislation, let alone stopping the work on treaty that was started under the previous government. I am very proud that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Croydon, made it clear very early on after taking the reins of our party that one of the first things we would do upon, hopefully, winning the next election was to restart those treaty negotiations and also to have a proper voice to parliament.

I think that this will be a very clear choice for people in the lead-up to the next election, where we will be committing to treaty, and we will be committing to a proper voice to parliament, one where we properly talk to Aboriginal people and offer them the ability to give us and to give the parliament views on how that is shaped, rather than a very disappointing consultation process that led up to this legislation.

I think it is also important to note that there is so much work to do in terms of making sure that we address the inequalities, 'closing the gap' as it has been called. Unfortunately, we have seen very little action on a whole range of measures.

Recently, I had the privilege of being with the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the member for Giles, as well as the Hon. Kyam Maher and the member for Wright, to visit the APY lands. The needs there are very stark and they are being significantly ignored under this government. We are not seeing any action in terms of addressing the housing needs on the lands that are very acute and that have been raised repeatedly. We are not seeing the health service issues addressed.

Nganampa Health, who do an excellent job in terms of providing health services, spoke to us very clearly about their concerns in terms of their ability to meet the requests under Gayle's Law—that they have insufficient funding at this time to do so and that their calls have fallen on deaf ears from this government. As well as that, they expressed great concern about the lack of funding and assistance they have had in terms of the vaccine rollout and understanding what the plans would be, if and when COVID cases are identified on the lands, in terms of assisting people. These are very real needs that should be addressed.

I think, unfortunately, when the Premier has taken on that role of Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, we have not seen action to address those needs in terms of closing the gap and we have not seen action in terms of treaty. We have not seen appropriate action that meets the needs and wants of the Aboriginal communities in this state in terms of a voice to parliament. Everywhere, there is not enough action to address what are very real needs to help the First Nations people of our state.

We see this legislation, and I am sure that the Premier regards this as a tick, 'Oh, here's something I've done,' but in a real sense there is very little that has actually been achieved. This legislation is completely insufficient. As to the treaty and the ending of that process, it is a great shame for all South Australians, I think, that that process has been ended and that the needs in terms of health services and other services such as housing go unresponded to.

You only have to look as well at what we have seen in terms of Ceduna Aboriginal health services, who are in a building that is literally falling apart. It has been said to be basically condemned. This is an SA Health building they are operating in, and the pictures, if people have seen them, are absolutely shocking. They have been turned down for any help from the Marshall Liberal government.

It is extremely concerning that those health services are stuck in that service. This is something where the Hon. Kyam Maher and I have been meeting with those health services. I acknowledge as well the interest and the advocacy of Senator Marielle Smith from the federal parliament, who has been advocating on behalf of health services for Aboriginal people in Ceduna as well. We do not see sufficient action to address those needs.

I hope that we can make sure there is a better process to address these needs, not only in terms of treaty, which needs to be restarted, and not only in terms of a better voice to parliament than is currently being proposed as a voice to a committee and without proper consultation in the lead-up to that, but ultimately as a better voice to parliament that will help to raise with this parliament those issues of concern to Aboriginal people.

As to those issues of concern—in terms of health services, in terms of employment, in terms of local policing services that have been raised, in terms particularly of the needs of the housing situation that are shockingly bad—we need to make sure that there is a robust voice to this parliament so we can truly listen to the needs and concerns of the First Nations people in this parliament. Sadly, I do not believe that what has been put up so far is going to meet that requirement.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (17:54): I acknowledge parliament meets on Kaurna land, as I rise to speak on the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill, a bill for an act that aims to give Aboriginal people a voice that will be heard by the South Australian parliament, coming here through cabinet, state authorities, other persons and other bodies.

I would first like to acknowledge the work of Commissioner Roger Thomas, who has done his very best in drafting this bill to address the competing demands he and the bill face in encouraging acceptance of it as a voice to this parliament for Aboriginal people.

It would be fair to say I had no real awareness of Aboriginal people until 1988, when I attended my son's school. He was in grade 5 and his teacher had come down from the APY lands and taken over a job at The Heights School. He put on an invasion play, which, it would be fair to say, most of the parents in the room were fairly shocked by, but it began my awareness of Aboriginal people and their struggle in this country.

Not very long after in 1992, when I watched the Mabo decision, I realised I knew absolutely nothing about Aboriginal people. I am afraid to say I was nearly 40 before I realised exactly what was going on, and I think that in itself is something I am ashamed of.

One of the effects of this bill is to repeal the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee Act 2003. This committee aimed to review the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act 2013, the Maralinga Tjarutja Land Rights Act 1984 and the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981. The committee is charged to make inquiries into the interests of the traditional owners of the lands and into how the lands are being managed, used and controlled. It is also charged to inquire into matters of health, housing, education, economic development, employment, training and welfare of Aboriginal people.

The inaugural meeting of this committee was held on 27 November 2003, chaired by the then presiding member, the now late and our former colleague, the Hon. Terry Roberts MLC. Almost a year later, in September 2004 its first annual report was tabled before both houses of parliament, finding most Aboriginal communities remain cut off from parliament and its processes. I quote from his speech at that time, where the Hon. Terry Roberts went on to say:

An ongoing goal of the Committee is to make Parliament a more welcoming and familiar environment for Aboriginal people regardless of their age, life experience or mother tongue.

Standing here today in 2021, I am not sure we have made very great progress on that. In fact, I spent a great deal of my time not long after I was first elected bringing groups of Aboriginal people into this place. They found it all quite traumatic by the end of it all, and it is something we did not carry on with for a number of reasons.

By travelling to the lands in various locations over the years, the committee was able to understand the lived experiences of Aboriginal people and recognise some of their issues and concerns. Unfortunately, membership turnover rates were very high for a number of reasons and meant it was difficult to maintain long and continuous relationships with the various communities, as often members only visited each of the communities once.

I know how important that sort of relationship and the length of time can be because, when I first opened my electorate office in the Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre in 1997, I put three flags in the window: the Aboriginal flag, the Torres Strait Islander flag and the Australian flag. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

At 17:59 the house adjourned until Thursday 18 November 2021 at 11:00.