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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2606 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

symbolic importance. I think it should be supported by the Assembly. I think it should be acted on by the government and it should be seen as a part of our response to and commitment to our reconciliation with indigenous people and vice versa. I commend the motion to the Assembly. I hope that it receives unanimous support and that the government acts on it.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (10.44): Mr Speaker, speaking on behalf of the government, the government considers it entirely appropriate for the Assembly to reaffirm its commitment to reconciliation. The government not only supports the principles of Mr Stanhope's motion; we really do understand the importance of such signage. I think Ms Tucker, probably in March last year, after she and I attended a book launch at the Aboriginal plaque up behind the Australian War Memorial, asked whether we would do it. I said, "Look, I have already spoken to the Chief Minister and the government would be delighted to do it." That is why I have to move an amendment to what Mr Stanhope has proposed today.

We have not found it as easy to put up such signage as we would have liked it be. I guess consultation with the Aboriginal community is the nub of this. The signage is certainly a powerful and important symbolic step towards reconciliation, and the government is willing to pursue it. However, we need to do it properly, and we need to make sure that the good intention behind the idea can actually be realised. Otherwise, through misunderstanding and insensitivity, we might run the risk of driving a wedge between the various groups that make up our local indigenous community.

An integral part of the government's approach to reconciliation is its consistent effort to obtain agreement with native title claimants in the ACT. That is being done in the spirit of reconciliation and in recognition of the disposition and the dislocation that many indigenous Australians have suffered. While we cannot change the fact of the dispossession, this government always seeks to be inclusive of all the local Aboriginal groups, all the local voices, and to recognise the cultural concerns and the differences that occur among the territory's Aboriginal people. The government understands that local Aboriginal people are still debating and negotiating these issues amongst themselves, and this includes the issues of traditional ownership, traditional titles and ,indeed, even the spelling of the word Ngunnawal.

The ACT government would certainly support signage that acknowledges the Aboriginal people who were the traditional owners and that observes traditional titles of the landmarks so long as the correct and appropriate names are known. These are matters of particular concern and sensitivity to the indigenous people. We have to take care and time in consulting with the right people in order to decide on the right words for the signage in the ACT.

This is interesting because there is some school of thought that says there are potentially three or four names that might have to appear on these signs. There are some that say that it is Wiradjuri territory and it extends into the ACT. Do we choose to spell Ngunnawal with one n or two? In the southern ACT it may be Walgalu territory. What we have to do is make sure we get it right. If you are serious about a spirit of reconciliation, putting up the wrong name, even with good intention, may drive wedges into these communities that none of us, I believe, would want to see happen.

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