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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2612 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Smyth has drawn attention, for example, to the spelling of the word Ngunnawal. That is a matter which continues to be of great vexation to, in particular, two of the major groups representing local indigenous people. I would hate to think that a measure which was designed to foster reconciliation in the ACT region between white and black Australians became a device to heighten tensions between groups of black Australians.

I appreciate that consensus is not easy to achieve. It is a very slow and painful process. I know that some of us would like to see things happen instantly and to score a quick result on this so that we can point to it and say, "Look what we have done," but if by doing that we heighten those internal tensions I think we have not served the stated objective of this exercise. If the Assembly wants to say consultation rather than agreement, well, that is fine, but the government's clear intention is to try to work for consensus on these issues. We want to get agreement with Aboriginal people about the way in which these things should be achieved and to advance a program which has brought support, and hopefully at the same time achieve a strong measure of support from the non-indigenous community of this city as well.

We also need to be clear that there have been adverse reactions to the renaming of public places in other parts of Australia. I think the ACT community is particularly aware of the issues that give rise to this program of renaming places, or at least to giving dual names of places, and I think we should work towards making sure we bring along the non-indigenous community every bit as much as the indigenous community in this program.

I want to add, Mr Speaker, that the issue of signage is important because it relates to the use of the land and the acknowledgment of the prior occupation of the land, but far more fundamental to a program that looks at what we call the land is the issue of who actually owns the land. I do not think I need to remind members in great detail about the government's proposal to local indigenous people to make an acknowledgment of a form of native title by the granting of a lease over Namadgi National Park to local indigenous people. I point out that that offer is also predicated on agreement between Ngunnawal people on the way in which the title that is being offered will be held; agreement on what kind of trust or common body will hold the title which has been acknowledged or given, if you like, by the ACT community. In that process it is important not to pre-empt consensus, and I would urge members to consider that consensus is also important here as well.

Mr Speaker, I hope that we maintain a strong sense of reconciliation being a multipartisan approach in this place; that it is not the preserve of any one party or group or side of politics. It is a matter which of necessity must be worked out by all leaders of the community to demonstrate a way of being able to genuinely reconcile black and white in our community after two or more centuries of injustice and division, and I hope we will see a sense of working together on these sorts of proposals.

I have been concerned about the way in which I understand the regional reconciliation committee dealt with the issue of the renaming of signs in public places. I am told that the meeting of the regional committee which addressed this issue was called together at very short notice; that people were contacted about two hours before the meeting to discuss the matter; that there are usually government representatives on the reconciliation committee but because of the short time frame they were not able to attend the meeting; that neither of the co-chairs of the council or the committee were present for the meeting,

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