Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2610 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

As Mr Stanhope has said, there are many areas which need more substantive work, including more support for housing, indigenous youth, health, et cetera, et cetera. We have had the debates often enough in this place, and the government would do well to listen to and act on what has come out of the community report card on the Are we bringing them home in Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 report?

I might add that more substantive work could be done in the area of heritage places. The government could make a much stronger step towards reconciliation by devoting reasonable funding to the assessment of reports of Aboriginal places so that the minister can make decisions about listing places on the interim heritage register within the 14 days as required by the Land (Planning and Environment) Act. But, as to this motion, as long as this is done with proper consultation among all members of the indigenous community in the ACT, this could be a good symbolic step.

Alice Springs, for instance, includes interpretive signs showing names and stories from the local people and from geologists. Putting up these signs would educate people, thus building the most basic level of awareness of the indigenous connections to this place. The Greens would also like to see the government investigate changing the names of significant places along the lines of Ayres Rock being known by its traditional name of Uluru.

Full consultation, I stress, will be an essential part of the process, given the different versions of place names among the indigenous community, but there are always ways through. I welcome the opportunity to give in-principle support to renaming the signs, particularly as it implements a resolution of the ACT reconciliation committee. I also emphasise that it is absolutely vital to see concrete steps towards reconciliation and social justice taken in structural areas, not only the symbolic and educative.

I have an amendment to Mr Smyth's amendment. Mr Smyth, through his amendment, is saying that, unless all groups indigenous to the Canberra region are in agreement, this should not proceed. I want to amend that to say that this is subject to consultation with all groups indigenous to the Canberra region.

I want to do that because I think there is an interesting double standard here in some way because I do not see that you would normally do that with the broader community. You would not normally say we will only do a certain thing if every single interest group agrees, so why are we saying that to the indigenous community? They are a diverse community, obviously. Of course, as I have said several times in this short speech, we would want to ensure that the consultation process was good.

The government has a consultation protocol, which is good. They do not use it very often, but if they did use those principles it would mean that there was a proper feedback. There would be that loop showing what was done with the information that came in and that there was a respectful approach to people, whether they have different views or not. There would be a clear understanding of why the government took the position that they took. These fundamental principles of consultation which are respectful of the community and diversities within it would apply. I think that would be a good process, an appropriate process. That is why I have circulated this amendment to Mr Smyth's amendment.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .