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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 5157 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

It is certainly a very good thing, Mr Speaker, that the minister does not have responsibility for reconciliation. That honour, as I understand it, rests with Amanda Vanstone. Nonetheless, for a Commonwealth minister with a responsibility for multicultural affairs to describe us as "being here first"really has to be noted. Basically, he was making it clear that indigenous Australians are not us. They remain still, even in this day and age, excluded. They are not Australian, presumably not deserving of children, or culture, or responsibility for the land which shapes their identity.

It is an extraordinary damnation of the superficial, conservative, narrow cultural view that the Australian government has been championing since John Howard became Prime Minister. No wonder that the Prime Minister himself cannot say sorry. Why should he? These people do not have the status of true Australians, Mr Hardgrave has told us. No wonder the government has white-anted-how appropriate that word is-the National Museum here in Canberra. It clearly is telling the wrong story when the right story is the white story of Anglo-Australia.

In fact, Canberra is the only capital city in Australia with anything approaching an indigenous name. It makes sense then, given the extraordinary distance we need to come in our understanding and acceptance of people, that Australia Day should be entirely a commemoration of the invasion of this continent by a foreign military power and the beginning of a process of destruction of extraordinary cultures and a great celebration of the survival, humour, and creativity of the indigenous people of this continent and the land to which they belong.

I echo the things that have been said by others in this place, particularly Mr Stanhope and Ms Dundas. I disagree absolutely with the people who have cried shame and scandal with such passion because we have dared to challenge who we are as Australians. In fact, I was interested in Mr Cornwell's comments where he says we need to build pride in this country.

I am proud of many aspects of our country. I am ashamed of some of them. Mr Cornwell said that we need to build pride in who and what we are. To build pride in who and what we are we have to think about who and what we are. What Mr Stanhope and Ms Dundas did in their comments, as is their right, was to raise those questions about who and what we are. That is healthy in a democracy and it is one of the things I am proud to be Australian for. In Australia we are allowed to raise issues and challenge the status quo, although the Liberals and Mrs Cross find that somehow unpatriotic.

On the contrary, I would say that it is unpatriotic for people to close down discussion, debate and reflection in the way the Liberals and Mrs Cross have done tonight. That is unpatriotic. If we actually want to progress as a nation in this world with all the challenges that we are dealing with, we do not close down; we open up; we have this discussion. Australia Day, I believe, is a day when we can choose to reflect on those things.

The other part of this motion is about the particular arrangements that this government has now changed to in terms of deciding where public money goes in terms of festivals. I really do not want to go into the detail; I do not think it's particularly important. I know that the feeling of the Liberals from what they have said is that it should not have been competitive and we should have had what we always had. They do not see any real value

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