Who’s driving the agenda?

Who’s driving the agenda?

Tom Calma

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and

Race Discrimination Commissioner

Australian Human Rights Commission

The 10th Annual Native Title Conference 2009

Melbourne Cricket Ground

3 June 2009

---

Thank you for your warm welcome to country, and to Brian Wyatt for his introduction.

I begin by paying my respects to the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nation, the traditional owners of the land where we meet today, and I pay my respects to your elders, to your ancestors and to those who have come before us. 

I would also like to acknowledge the many traditional owners in the room, and pay my respects to your elders, past and present.  I admire your courage in fighting for the recognition of your rights as the traditional owners of this country. 

It is a pleasure to be here today, Mabo Day, the 17th anniversary of the historic decision of the High Court which recognised the truth of this lands history, that it was cared for, occupied, and identified as lands belonging to its Indigenous peoples.

This is my fifth and final native title conference as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner.  These conferences are a vital opportunity for us to get together and talk about something which is so critical to our existence as peoples – and which Eddie Mabo and his legacy stands for – our rights to country.   

I would like to thank AIATSIS and Native Title Services Victoria for making this possible. 

To AIATSIS, congratulations on 10 years of successful conferences and through them, 10 years of important dialogue.

To Native Title Services Victoria, thank you for having us back for this 10th anniversary conference.  It is an opportunity to return to where we started 10 years ago, to reflect on just how far we have come and where we want to go next. 

It is a pleasure to speak here today.  Not only do I get the privilege of kicking off the proceedings, but I also get to speak to the most important people in the native title system.  To you who have been through, or are going through, the complexity of a native title claim; and to you who dedicate your working, and in many instances your personal lives, to representing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are trying to protect their rights through native title. 

I have said it before at this same forum; I am both personally and professionally committed to native title. 

Personally, I am involved in a native title claim over the township of Batchelor in the Northern Territory and my Iwaidja countrymen were, and still are, involved in the Yarmirr sea rights claim.  I understand the processes, triumphs and frustrations of native title.  I have seen the impact on my communities and my family, who work tirelessly for recognition of our traditional rights. 

Professionally, native title is a central focus of my role as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. 

My position was created in 1993 to ensure ongoing monitoring of the human rights of Indigenous Australians. 

Some of you might not know that under section 209 of the Native Title Act I must report every year to the Attorney-General on how native title impacts on our human rights. 

I fulfill these roles through writing an annual Social Justice Report and Native Title Report; the most recent were tabled in Parliament on 30 April this year.      

Through these personal and professional experiences of native title, I have seen governments and Ministers come and go, I’ve seen land claims settled and the native title system twist and turn.  I’ve seen many Parliamentary debates where Ministers talk about our future and what is right for us.  And I have witnessed Indigenous peoples and communities divide under a native title law which is defined by western understandings of land ownership and western priorities for land.

That has got to change.  We can not continue on this path if we are to achieve a sustainable and just system.  And right now the landscape is changing in a way that opens up a few new opportunities for us to influence and drive the policy agenda.  If we can take advantage of these opportunities then native title, and the myriad of related policies, could be improved. 

What new opportunities am I talking about?  Over the past 12 months of so, a number of important changes have occurred.  Among other things, at the international level we have seen this government signal its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 

At the domestic level, we are in the process of establishing a new national Indigenous representative body.  And of particular interest to us here today, the Government has signalled its openness to reconsidering some of the fundamentals of native title law. 

So we are on a different path to when I first came to the native title conference as the Social Justice Commissioner in 2005.

But who will decide what comes from these new developments?

My speech today is called ‘Who’s driving the agenda?’  I want to take this time, at the beginning of this gathering, and on this 17-year anniversary of the Mabo decision, to talk about who should be driving the agenda; an agenda which will impact each of our lives and the lives of our families and communities across Australia for generations to come.

When I ask that simple question - ‘who is driving the Indigenous policy agenda?’ It should have a simple answer – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

As people who hold native title or who work for native title bodies who represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, you are under extreme resource constraints.  You have statutory obligations and timeframes to meet.

Because of these constraints you need to think carefully about what opportunities and alternatives for change we want to create, or seize, as the landscape shifts.

But you here today, are a group of people who are in a very good position to participate and provide input into the new and emerging discussions on a range of policies.

Why? For starters, you’ve either had your native title rights recognised or are working toward having the native title rights of Traditional Owners recognised.

Although the native title system is far from perfect, our rights to our country are at the core of our physical and mental wellbeing. And because of this, the protection of our native title and other land and water rights is essential to other aspects of our lives, like health. 

This crucial link is something that policy makers are just starting to grasp, but we know it intimately, and we must continually remind government, and all non-Indigenous Australians, of the connection between land and water and our wellbeing.

Rights to land and water are also a significant way Indigenous communities can leverage economic outcomes. For example, the biggest policy challenge the country now faces is climate change and carbon trading. These policies, and the impacts and opportunities they create will depend on who has rights in the land, including native title.

Whether the impact of climate change on native title is positive – for example, whether native title is the basis for a potentially lucrative right to the carbon; or whether the impact is negative – for example, whether some native title is extinguished by changes to the climate; will be a matter of science and the government’s policy response.

Right now in Canberra, the government is considering if and how carbon rights will be granted to native title holders for the purpose of the reforestation scheme.  It is a complicated policy on which the government will be consulting in a few months time.  And you here today will know better than anyone else how this policy will impact on native title holders.

You’re also in a privileged position to drive the policy agenda because native title is one area where there are established bodies, which work across the whole of Australia, in one system.

Other policy areas, including land rights regimes, differ markedly across the states, many don’t have an umbrella organisation like the National Native Title Council, and the vast majority doesn’t have one unifying piece of legislation.

When you put all of these factors together, you are in a very good position to significantly influence the government’s agenda and create positive change which will last for generations.

And your leadership and voice is essential in order to achieve this.

Just last week I was in New York at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, where the Australian Government recognised that ‘[c]ritical to Australia meeting its human rights obligations and closing the gap is the degree to which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can set the agenda, and affect policy and service delivery.’

So I will now give you a brief overview of some of the newer ways you can help set this agenda. 

[International – Declaration]

Internationally, we have a relatively new, and admittedly largely untested, system for the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights that is quite comprehensive.

First of all let me turn to the document which underpins it all; the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Most of you will have heard that in April this year, the Australian Government gave its formal support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

What the Declaration does is recognise human rights that are inherent to us as the Indigenous peoples of this country.

It is an aspirational document that sets out ambitions for a new partnership and relationship between Indigenous peoples and the nation states in which they live.  For example, it affirms that indigenous peoples make a unique contribution to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, and promotes cultural diversity and understanding. 

Importantly for everyone here today, it includes a number of explicit references to rights related to our lands and waters. It refers to our rights to maintain traditional connections to land; for ownership of our lands; to redress and compensation for lands that have been taken; to conservation and protection of the environment; to protection of traditional knowledge; and access to processes for development on our land.

So the commitment that the Australian Government made to the Declaration in April, has added significantly to the foundations for a new partnership between the federal government, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the wider community.

[International – forums – PFII, Expert Mechanism, Special Rapporteur]

There is already a growing momentum around the Declaration at the international level.  It will be the main basis for discussion at international human rights forums which are focused on indigenous peoples, such as the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people and the Expert mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues is a United Nations forum dedicated to considering the human rights of indigenous peoples the world over.  Formally, the Forum is comprised of sixteen independent experts, functioning in their personal capacity.  One member is our very own Mick Dodson who will serve until 2010.

Together the members form a high-level advisory body that deals with indigenous issues related to economic and social development, culture, environment, education, health and human rights.  It will use the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework through which it interprets its mandate, and accordingly the framework through which just about every United Nations agency and member countries will be held to account. 

Another development at the international level was the appointment last year of Professor James Anaya as the new Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people.  He has a specific role in monitoring compliance with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  His mandate includes considering individual communications, or complaints, as well as making country visits.

Importantly, Professor Anaya will be visiting Australia in August on an official country visit. During his visit, he will meet with Government, the judiciary and some civil society and organisations like native title representative bodies. A network of Indigenous peoples coordinated by Les Malezer is organising his trip, with input from Brian Wyatt and ME. 

James will then provide a report to the Human Right Council, the main human rights body of the United Nations, on his assessment of the main issues affecting our rights; and the Australian Government will be expected to respond. 

The new Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples commenced work late last year.  It will provide expertise on the rights of indigenous peoples to the Human Rights Council.

Because the Expert Mechanism has only been recently established, it is still developing its work program.  But again, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be a focal point.

So as you can see there is a growing and extensive international system that will explicitly address the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights.

These forums are supported by other human rights treaty bodies – which already interpret the binding legal obligations of governments under various treaties.

For example the United Nations Human Rights Council will continue to consider how rights, like the right to culture, apply specifically to indigenous peoples.  It will also continue to question and raise concerns about individual country’s policies and behaviour.

In April this year, a UN Committee gave its concluding observations on Australia’s report under a treaty called the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It raised concerns about the high cost, complexity and the application of the rules of evidence to native title claims. It recommended that the Australian government ‘continue its efforts to improve the operation of the Native Title system, in consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.’

Just last week, another United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights said a similar thing, recommending that the Australian Government increase its efforts to improve native title and remove obstacles to the realisation of our rights to our land.

[The application of international law in Australia]

But what does this all mean for us here in Australia?

The current Government has made a renewed commitment to engaging with the United Nations.

This commitment has opened up a powerful way for you to use the international human rights framework in your work, and in your fight to secure the rights of our communities.

But for this to be effective, it is critical that we work to create a better understanding of our human rights.

Currently in our communities, people have a limited understanding of their rights. But this understanding goes to the capacity within communities to deal with serious violations of rights such as violence and abuse. Put in a positive way, better understanding and exercising of rights is something that can empower communities and contribute to better outcomes for those communities.

So community education about human rights and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is critical.

Even so, there are already good examples of people using the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to support better policies which will ultimately strengthen and empower communities.

When the recent decision to reduce the resources for homelands in the Northern Territory was made, Jon Altman from the ANU referred to the Declaration saying that the federal Government has an obligation to support, rather than damn, the outstations. He referred to the Declaration which provides that indigenous peoples have a right to live on ancestral lands, even if it is more costly.

Two weekends ago, when the Government announced the compulsory acquisition of town camps in Alice Springs, the Indigenous Peoples Organisations of Australia called on the Government to comply with its international obligations to respect the rights of the Indigenous Peoples of Australia by ensuring that the representatives of the Aboriginal people in the region of Alice Springs are able to make an informed decision about housing and services for the occupants.

And finally, after recent negotiations were undertaken by the Kimberley Land Council for the location of the gas hub with Woodside and the Western Australian Government under the right to negotiate provisions in the Native Title Act, the land council held the other parties to the standard in the Declaration: that indigenous peoples have the right to give free, prior and informed consent before their lands are used.  This is a higher standard than required currently by the Native Title Act.

As you can see, the impact of the Declaration will depend on the circumstances.  But ultimately its value will lie in building a consistent pattern of usage over time.  With constant and regular references to our rights, the Government, and other parties will not be able to avoid them. 

[New international human rights network]

Although it has the potential to be a powerful tool, the international human rights framework hasn’t always been easy to use or access.  But I hope this won’t always be the case. 

In an attempt to improve this, my office, Oxfam and the Diplomacy Training Program at UNSW have partnered to create the Indigenous Human Rights Network of Australia (IHRNA).

Over the next three years, we will establish a network of Indigenous people to advocate for Indigenous rights. I hope to launch the project with a new website next month. So you will soon have a one-stop-shop where you can keep up to date on these forums, and the opportunities that emerge through it. Many of you also know that Brian Wyatt and other brothers and sisters attend expert meetings and workshops around the world relating to extractive industries, bio diversity, water rights etc. Outcomes of these meetings will also be placed on the website.

[New National Indigenous Representative Body]

As international forums are slowly becoming more influential in Australia, new home-grown opportunities are opening up too.

We all know that since ATSIC’s demise there has been limited engagement with Indigenous peoples in policy-making processes by the federal government. That will soon change. 

The federal government has committed to supporting the establishment of a new national Indigenous representative body.  It has acknowledged that the system for administering Indigenous affairs that was created in the ashes of ATSIC is simply not working.

Much of the failure of service delivery to Indigenous people and communities, and the lack of sustainable outcomes, is a direct result of the failure to engage appropriately with Indigenous people and of the failure to develop priorities and programs in full participation with Indigenous communities.

And this, ultimately, is what the discussion about a new national Indigenous representative body is about.

It is about our place at the table in making the decisions that impact on our communities and on our children.  It is about creating a genuine partnership.  With shared ambition, mutual respect and joint responsibility.

The detail of what the new body looks like is yet to be determined.  And this is where you come in again. 

Toward the end of last year, the Australian Government asked me to convene an independent Steering Committee to develop a preferred model for the body.

In March, the Steering Committee convened a national workshop in Adelaide to identify the key elements. Consensus was reached at this workshop on a range of issues but further consultation and discussion is needed to address four outstanding issues. And right now we’re undertaking a round of consultation which will look at those four nuts and bolts issues. 

Firstly, we’re asking how the body can best represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in a way that includes local and regional issues.

Secondly, we also need to resolve the structure of the new body and determine whether members should be elected, whether they should be nominated to the national body through self nomination or by regional or state/ territory level organisations, or whether it should be a combination of both.

Thirdly, we need to probe what the body’s relationship with the federal government and the Parliament should be and how it should be constituted.  For example, should it be a statutory authority, a company limited by guarantee or a non-government organisation?

And lastly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have maintained throughout the consultations to date that the body should be sustainable and able to operate independent of government funding over time, so the question of funding and sustainability is another critical issue to be resolved.

This is probably our last chance to get this right, for a very long time at least.

We have to get this right.

We must ensure the new body provides a strong, independent and credible voice on issues that matter to Indigenous people now and into the future.

But the timeframe is short. 

The Steering Committee must present a preferred model to the Government by the end of next month and then the Government has committed to have an interim body established before the end of the year.

So tomorrow, between 3.30 and 5pm, three of the Steering Committee members will be holding a session to get your views. I strongly encourage you to get a copy of the discussion paper which is available as part of the materials for the conference, and contribute to that discussion. If you can’t go tomorrow, write a submission by the 24th of this month, or complete the online survey on the Australian Human Rights Commission’s website by next Wednesday. 

By participating in this discussion, you will not only be helping to shape the new body, but you will also be helping to shape how we engage in all future dialogue with the federal government.

[Native Title law and policy]

But until then, and even once the new representative body is set up, you here today - as native title holders, claimants, and those who work in native title – are in a privileged position that enables you to lead and engage in the policy agenda and the discussions which are taking place now. 

And at the moment, the possibilities are endless. Nearly every state and territory has been reviewing laws which relate to native title and Indigenous land rights. For example the NSW government is currently consulting on how to best recognise traditional fishing rights. The Qld government is still amending the Aboriginal Land Rights Act and the Torres Strait Islander Land Rights Acts.  In South Australia, the government is also reviewing the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act and the Aboriginal Heritage Act.  In the Northern Territory this year has already seen a review of how homelands will be resourced. 

And across the country, the federal government and federal Parliamentary committees are consulting on climate change, environmental protection and biodiversity, heritage, Indigenous enterprise, the Indigenous Economic Development Strategy and native title and broader land settlements.

All of these laws will impact on native title and our rights to land and waters.

Regarding amendments to the native title system itself, It is fair to say that there is a lot wrong with the existing system.  We all know that native title today has not lived up to the promise of Eddie Mabo’s case that native title would result in some kind of justice and recognition of our cultures. 

But now, thanks to the involvement and commitment of many people over the years, not least Eddie Mabo and his co-claimants in the case, we are gaining traction. 

Last month, while Parliament was considering the Native Title Amendment Bill which will give management of mediation to the Federal Court – many members of Parliament recognised the serious limits of the current native title system and mentioned the need for further and more significant reform. 

During that debate, not one Member of Parliament said that the native title system was working.  No one denied that further change was necessary.  No one talked about native title threatening non-Indigenous lands. 

Quite the opposite, Parliamentarians acknowledged what you here know all too well – that native title can create conflict in communities.  It doesn’t result in just outcomes.  It has caused pain.  It is not what it was held out to be. 

Mark Dreyfus a Labor Party member from Victoria, said that he is confident the Labor party will consider further amendments, and that ‘Sixteen years after the enactment of the Native Title Act, it has to be said that our nation has not realised the high hopes of that time.  We must continue to strive towards the aim of recognition of native title, which is a beginning of reconciliation, not the end result’.1

Rob Oakeshott, an independent from the north coast of NSW, said  ‘[w]hilst the native title system that has been built up certainly provides access to the law, it is questionable, as of today, whether it is a process that is just in delivering the reconciliation outcomes that I would hope everyone in this chamber is looking for.’2

Mark Butler, a Labor Party member from South Australia, said ‘Sadly, I am sure that nobody in this House could argue that we do not still have a long way to go to fulfil the intention included within the preamble to the legislation...  The delay that we have seen in the resolution of native title claims and the litigation that flows from those claims has resulted in millions of dollars being wasted, opportunities for reconciliation and development squandered, and the flourishing of distrust and disillusionment with the process by all parties involved, Indigenous communities and others with interests in the land…’ He went on to say that ‘[they] accept there is still more to do’ and that ‘[t]his bill is part of an ongoing process of reform.’3

Daryl Melham, a Labor Party member from NSW said ‘[t]here is no doubt that it was legislation that was evolving in an area that was largely unsettled and unknown.  But the principles were: protecting native title and providing this alternative system…It was always recognised that the legislation would need to be amended, that it would not be the final resolution of the matter because there would be court cases and there would be evolution and we would learn from experience…’4

Barry Haase, a Liberal Party member from Western Australia said: ‘… I simply reiterate that the act of 1993 made great changes in Australia, and the aspiration was to improve the lot of Indigenous people.  It has not done that.  Irrefutably, it has not achieved what it set out to achieve… [the Bill] has focused our attention on the subject once again, and that cannot be a bad thing.  But this is an ongoing problem that needs a real solution’.5

In conclusion, the Attorney-General, who will be speaking here on Friday, said that ‘…it is also clear… that the system is in need of reform…’ and that he has ‘an open mind to further legislative change that may facilitate resolution of native title claims.’ 6

Recognising that significant changes must be made, Rob Oakeshott introduced amendments that would shift the burden of proof to the state governments.   He said ‘It should be up to the State, with its 220 year history of advantage, power and resources, to disprove a connection to the land rather than the current model that asks Indigenous groups, with a 220 year history of disadvantage, removal and dislocation.  It is a small but significant shift in the burden of proof as it acknowledges a difficult and fractured 220 year history and replaces it with a legal framework that is a step closer to walking together and working together in the future.’7

Unfortunately, his amendment didn’t get through, but I am encouraged by the comments of other Members of Parliament, including those of the Attorney-General who has committed to considering further change. 

And momentum for that change, and particularly a change to the burden of proof, is building.

The Law Council of Australia, which represents 56,000 legal practitioners across Australia, and various Judges, including the highest judge in the country, Chief Justice French, and Victoria’s native title judge, Justice North, all support it.

However, the Attorney-General has said that the ‘government will not rush into such changes without first consulting stakeholders.’ He recognised that ‘[i]t is very important that there be genuine community support for measures that are after all designed to or intended to promote the welfare of Indigenous owners and their descendants.  Without such consultation history shows that changes can be controversial and counterproductive’.8 

Although we must be careful not to make it look like shifting the burden of proof will remedy all the malfunction of native title, it appears that through the debate on this significant reform, a rare opportunity to improve the native title system may be opening up.

So we must take up the call of the Attorney-General to tell the federal government exactly what we think is needed to improve native title.  We must not allow this opportunity to pass, and we must not give the government the opportunity to say that they weren’t told these things by the most important stakeholders in the system – you and I.

In this process we will need to engage with government to work out important amendments that will actually improve the system in a real and tangible way.  How do we want the compensation provisions changed?  What about extinguishment, compulsory acquisition, connection reports, party status, strengthening procedural rights, commercial rights?  The list goes on.     

Some of it will include repeating ourselves and going over what feels like old ground, but we may finally be approaching a time when an honest discussion may finally be had, and our talk will be heard and addressed.

As the Member of Parliament Daryl Melham recognised: ‘I think [the recent debate in Parliament] shows that in this area we are maturing, hopefully, which will be to the benefit of not just Indigenous people but our nation.  For too long, a lot of this debate has been as a result of ignorance and prejudice, which has sidelined proper policy.’9

It has been positive to hear Parliamentarians speak some of the truths about the native title system, now we must hold them to it. 

[Other ways to hold Government accountable]

So finally, I want to turn briefly to a few other mechanisms which you can use to influence the policy agenda and hold Government to its words.

[Australian Human Rights Commission]

Firstly, through my office. 

My role as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner is one of five Commissioners who make up the Australian Human Rights Commission. 

As I mentioned before, one of my main roles is to monitor the enjoyment and exercise of human rights for Indigenous Australians including human rights as they relate to native title.

I am required to produce annual Social Justice and Native Title Reports which are tabled in the Federal Parliament and sent out to state and territory governments.

Through these reports I advocate and lobby on behalf of Indigenous people to represent aspirations and issues of regional and national relevance. 

However, these reports are not just about identifying the issues.  They must also be about promoting the participation of Indigenous people and their communities in the development of solutions.

In order for me to advocate credible strategies, the advice and recommendations I provide in my reports must be evidence based.  This is where I rely on individuals, community, the leadership, and representative organisations to provide feedback through surveys, requests for information and suggestions for case studies.

For example, in last years Native Title Report I did two case studies on how climate change and water policy are affecting two separate collective of indigenous communities.  I looked at how climate change and water management and policy is affecting the Indigenous Nations of the Murray Darling Basin and I also examined the possible impacts of climate change on Torres Strait Islanders.  These case studies were only possible with the support, dedication, and participation of people from those regions. 

Information provided by you is the most valuable way I can illustrate to government where the policy gaps are, and how they can go about filling those gaps. Without you, and from my staffs’ desks in Sydney, the Reports would be of very little use to anyone.

So I encourage you to use my office to get clear and accurate messages to governments through my reports.

[NNTC]

One thing that has helped me to present those messages in a way that supports some of what native title bodies have been saying is through an active relationship with the National Native Title Council. 

I would like to congratulate you on establishing the Council.  It has established itself as a driving force in lobbying government and industry to progress the development aspirations of Indigenous people on their lands and for their communities.   

Through providing a united front to government, through effective consultation and engagement with all stakeholders, the Council will be a significant driver of policy and is another means through which you can set the agenda. 

[Conclusion]

Today I asked who is driving that agenda.  And I am pretty sure we all want the same response.

The challenge we continue to face is how we can best position ourselves to drive and own the policies which affect us as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and owners of this country. 

I understand that a lot of the time government does not make things easy. You are under-resourced, information isn’t always easily accessible, and government generally gives ridiculously short-time frames to respond in. When you do respond, they often don’t acknowledge your input.

But despite the constraints you are under, there are new and powerful opportunities opening up. There is a developing international human rights framework, a new Indigenous representative body is being established, and the discussion on significantly changing native title is ramping up.

And you here are some of the best people to be able to grasp these new opportunities.  It is you who know native title; you know its power, its weaknesses and its integral role in our communities.

And you know too well that governments come and go, but the legacy of the law and the policies they make remain, impacting our communities for generations. 

By engaging strategically you, as either traditional owners or people who work for traditional owners, can respond to communities’ rights and aspirations creatively and constructively.  You can drive the agenda in a way that ensures policies complement each other and provide our communities with the power to create the futures they want. 

Finally, in closing I want to say thank you.

My term as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner comes to an end next month.  After that date, you will have a new Commissioner who I am sure will be equally dedicated to native title and to advocating for the realisation of the human rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders people as I am.

Thank you for having me at the past five native title conferences. 

Thank you for inviting me into your communities and homes and for sharing your stories, your ideas, your heartbreaks, your plans, your jokes and your concerns with me and Katie and Cecelia. 

I will continue to use all of the wisdom and knowledge I have gained through this time to help build stronger, healthier and happier communities whose rights are respected and recognised by the broader Australian community.   

Enjoy the rest of the conference, and keep the legacy of our great advocates like Eddie Mabo in your hearts while you come up with your own plans for how we can take control of our agenda back. 

Please remember, from self-respect comes dignity, and from dignity comes hope. 

---