 Thank you first of all to Andy Agnes for your very warm welcome tonight and I'd like to extend my acknowledgement to your family and your fellow traditional owners from this country and also congratulate you and the ANU in respect to coming to their successful discussions about renaming Union Court to Canberra. And as the VC has said to recognise and embed our Indigenous story in the heart of the UN, ANU campus. Thank you Brian for that welcome and I'd like to also acknowledge even though you're not here, Professor Gareth Evans, the ANU Chancellor and the other executive members, Professor Marnie Parkinson and Margaret Harding and also Richard Baker who I have made me welcome into the ANU as as part of my role of the ANU Council. Can I also thank Karen Mundine as the co-host and sponsor of this lecture for your words. I'd like to also acknowledge the all of the respective dignitaries who might be here tonight and your representatives who've taken the time to come and I also thank the continuing and generous Porta Wula sponsors to the ANU. I do want to make special mention of Mick, Professor Mick Dodson, my esteemed Yara Countryman and it's not going to turn into a Yara Love Fest here tonight but who heads up the ANU Centre for Indigenous Studies which hosts this lecture and as Mick indicated he'll be leaving the position soon and I think very shortly and I'd like to thank Mick for enriching this university and our nation with his commitment to Indigenous scholarship and maintaining his high standard of advocacy and his continuing contribution to public discourse. I also acknowledge Dr Ann Martin, Director of the Indigenous Higher Education Centre and all of the Indigenous and Torres Strait Island students and scholars. Can I also acknowledge my chair for Yama Burriero, Deborah Pickram who's here with us tonight as well. Finally I'd like to acknowledge Senator Pat Dodson, my another, that's why I talked about the Yara thing but another fellow Yara Countryman, Senior Countryman who gave the inaugural reconciliation lecture in 2004 and then again in 2013 and thank you Ryan and the others for accommodating this is supposed to have happened last year in December but unfortunately there was a death of a very close family relation and sought to have this postponed and Brian graciously was able to accommodate me in putting the state back further to this so thank you for that. And I'm very privileged to be able to deliver this annual reconciliation lecture against much more esteemed people before me who've delivered this but I have to say from the outset that I believe that the once laudable concept of reconciliation whose initial objective was to heal the wounds of our nation's historic injustices and include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in a modern Australia under the terms of an agreed political settlement no longer exists. I believe that reconciliation has lost its moral and political gravitas while I know and I believe that sections of the general community remain extremely committed to the concept and the aspirations of reconciliation and only remain committed to those things but work very very hard in that area. It has become a nebulous and meaningless term and used by anyone as a throwaway concept to apply their interpretation about the relationship between Aboriginal people and the Australian state. It has become part of the lazy dialogue concerning Indigenous people dominated by symbolism which has little connection with the realities of people's lives. Personally I find the first few weeks of the year an unsettling period with an obsessive focus on Australia Day or Invasion Day or Survival Day and then as soon as we get past the 26th of January the national dialogue becomes immersed in the anniversary of Mr Rudd's historic apology on behalf of the Australian nation to the stolen generation and sadly the worthy national milestone is diminished by the Prime Minister's annual report to the National Parliament which highlights the nation's collective failure to close the appalling socio-economic gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. Throw in recognition of Indigenous peoples in the Constitution and the potential severing of constitutional links to the British Monarch and what we have in this country is a facile dialogue of disconnected symbols which is supposed to define Australian nationhood. Juxtaposed with the focus on symbolism and rhetoric about doing better to close the gap is the unacceptable reality of increasing imprisonment rates, appalling health outcomes, homelessness and overcrowded houses, family and community violence concerning Aboriginal people. The list of benchmarks which describes the crisis confronting many Indigenous peoples particularly in remote Australia but not only in remote Australia is depressingly familiar. A key element of this national tragedy is that governments have normalized what should be an unacceptable failure of Australian nationhood. Symbolic and political incrementalism is cruel as it raises expectations and hope and distracts from the truth that can erode the culture and the soul of peoples and their communities. Australia has reached a point in its history where we should have a genuine dialogue about establishing a realistic national approach to end the tragedy of Indigenous peoples marginalization. The fact is that we as a nation will never close the gaps if governments continue their current policies and practices. We as the first peoples of these nations have enough experience with governments over many lifetimes to understand that this is not possible. Only Indigenous peoples can close the gap but that means fundamentally changing the relationship between the Australian nation that the relationship that it has with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We do need to own our own risk of any dramatic shift and change in our circumstances for the better of our children and our families could only come from our own determination, our own disciplined commitment and leadership at an individual and collective level in driving the required change. Then we can argue for renewed commitment to reconciliation by joining the fundamental symbols of our nationhood as a grand national political settlement. The idea of a national framework agreement or treaty which supports localised agreements incorporating traditional owners or native title holders, the Commonwealth and the state governments, local governments and industry and community stakeholders should supersede the current dysfunctional federalism arrangement which we all know is failing. A localised development approach would simply extend the existing Indigenous land use agreements which are increasingly embedded in loud administration arrangements under the Native Title Act except that it would be anchored in constitutional recognition. A political settlement approach to Indigenous constitutional recognition should be fundamentally tied to a future independent Australian Republic. The last time there was a serious debate about Australia becoming a Republic was almost 20 years ago and culminated in the 99 constitutional referendum which we all know was rejected and the case of course again was hijacked by base politics. But back then there was no attempt by those advocating for Republic to make the connection between Indigenous rights and reconciliation. They simply wanted to replace the British sovereign as head of state with someone appointed by a list at least two-thirds of the national parliament under their banner, in other words a resident for president. Yet in light of the High Court's determination of native title in Marlborough and Wick and the central matter of the British government's intent concerning the recognition of Indigenous rights, the question to me and to many Indigenous people was how could the political push to change Australia's constitution by severing the connections with the British Crown not involve Indigenous peoples. Aboriginal people have an enriched understanding of symbols, historic traditions and the law. The connection between the current British monarch and her fourth great-grandfather King George III are seamlessly pierced together as one symbolic temporal entity of profound significance to Aboriginal people. Coinciding with the 1998 Constitutional Convention in Canberra, we had our Aboriginal people held our own Constitutional Convention in the Kimberley near Derby which resolved to set a delegation to London to tell the British monarch that she should not leave her job under the unfinished business of achieving Indigenous consent to British occupation and settlement was properly addressed. So we're all sitting down in the red dirt one night and a very senior old man got up and said that he's very clear and straight English, you've got to go see that old girl overseas. And I said, why should we do that? And he said, because they call him by his name wrong way here. And so what he was talking about fundamentally was that the only time that we come in touch or know the Queen or the monarch is when we're getting arrested by the police, getting arrested by and we're being put in jail by the screws. But it also reflected on the fact that the instructions on settlement in Australia in relation to the treat with the natives was something that yet had not been adhered to. Instead, as we know through history, the repugnant notion of terranullius forged the beginning of our relationships. So actually I took him up on that and I did write a letter to that very wonderful Australian man Sir William Dean who was the Governor-General at that time and sought his advice. And I just happened to be one day standing out at Fitzroy Crossing when those brick, as they call them, mobile phones were just becoming into place. They got this call and it was Sir William Dean on the other end of the line. And he said, I've received your letter. And I said, oh, Sir William, he said, Bill will be fine. And he said, what do you want to go and see the Queen for? And I said, oh, well, the senior people here feel that we ought to pay our respects to her and to, given the context of the current debate, we were not involved in the Republic debate. It would be useful for a Majesty to be able to hear our voice directly. He said, OK, that's fine. So he said, here's the number you can call Buckingham Palace. There's the Queen's Private Secretary is waiting to hear from you. So sure enough, I rang Fitzroy Crossing and I got through to Buckingham Palace and he said, hello? Hello? Well, I can't do a very posh pommy exit, but it's like, you know, Sir Robert Divid. And anyway, he said, yes, I've been expecting your call. So from there, we then organized in 18 months later, an Australian delegation, Indigenous delegation, had an audience with the Majesty Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace and told her that Britain had a historic responsibility to the Indigenous people of Australia, which was central to reconciliation. And it was interesting at that time because we also had a visit to Ireland and that was during the period of the kind of settlement in Northern Ireland and a very strong view. We visited Northern Ireland on invitation and that and Ireland being the first colony and us being the last that there hadn't been the kind of reconciliation achieved between the British monarch and those countries. And quite interesting that there were very similar kind of sentiments in sections of the Irish community about reconciling with the British Crown. So, and the delegation was led by Patrick Dodson and the late Guchel Jakura, Chairman of ATSIC, previous Chairman of ATSIC, Blohorch or Donahue and Professor Marcy Langton and myself. Unfortunately, Galeroy Unipige was too sick to travel at that time and had to withdraw. But we presented the Queen with a written statement outlining the unresolved relationship between Britain and the Indigenous people of Australia, which one day we hope will be made public. But we also sought advice when we were over there in terms of Australia becoming a republic and whether or not that would abrogate the international or the legal responsibility to us as the first nation peoples in this country if we were to proceed to become republic. It was a very interesting question and there's a mixed kind of as you would expect with lawyers, a mixed kind of response as to the strength of our case. But there was a very strong opinion suggesting that there was a, if not illegal, then a very strong moral and ethical responsibility. The day we met the Queen, we learned that two great Australian lawmen had passed away. One was Kenny Uba-Gurma, a senior war war man who lived the Maungan community in Derby and who had been a leading philosophical voice in the Kimberley Aboriginal and Constitutional Convention which prompted the delegation to visit Buckingham Palace. The other was Ron Caston QC, the great friend of Indigenous people, the Torres Strait Island people and the lawyer who prosecuted the Marbeau case on behalf of Eddie Marbeau and the Murray Islanders. We knew Ron was undergoing a life-threatening operation to address the long-standing health problem but his death came as a terrible shock. As a lawyer, a political advisor and friend, Ron was irreplaceable. Ron had become concerned about the rights of the Tibetan people after the exile of the Dalai Lama from Tibet and along with a number of his young legal colleagues, been a number of months living with the Dalai Lama and made a true and lifelong friendship with his holiness. Before we left for London, Ron had arranged for Patrick and me to meet his holiness in Milan, Italy, which we planned to do on our return journey. It was an emotional meeting for us but the Dalai Lama infused in us, infused us with a sense that despite whatever sadness and loss we felt with losing Ron, life should always be hopeful. The Dalai Lama as we all know have witnessed, we have all witnessed an extraordinary insightful and profound thinker. He has visited Australia many times and told us that we should feel positive about the potential of our nation. He said, Australia is a young nation. It's not scarred by civil wars, theoretical rule and massive publishments. Australia, he said, has the potential to transcend its colonial and blood-strain birth and reconcile its history to become a beacon of light to the world. And when I feel grounded by Australia's petty politics of division, the wedge politics and dog whistling that appeals to the worst of Australia, and when I feel like I'm drowning in the murky swamp of videocracy and incrementalism, I often think of the Dalai Lama's inspirational vision of what Australia could be. I seriously believe that the Australian nation is far better than the political system which represents us. And where there is a groundswell of goodness in mainstream Australia, the political system can change. We are not America, we are as the Dalai Lama says, a nation with the potential to be a beacon of light for a troubled world. This is not a naive, romantic position because I have had fortunate to have many great mentors in my life who have inspired me to think this way. A profound influence on my thinking was Nugget Coombs. As many of you would know, Nugget was a great intellectual and political champion for the establishment of the ANU and was the university's chairman between 1968 and 1976. In his later life, he became a wonderful friend and visited the Kimberley regularly and on occasions when I got to Cold Canberra, and on occasions stayed with me at my place. Those of you who had the pleasure of spending time with Nugget would know that he was a compelling storyteller, particularly when lubricated with a glass of red wine. We would regularly talk well into the night and he would regale me with extraordinary accounts of what this nation was capable of. Central to his belief was that governments must lead. Nugget would explain that good government leadership involved sound policies and the capacity to communicate to the mob that these policies were good for individuals, for families and the nation. His love and dedication to his country was based on his belief in Australia's potential to be the most humane nation on earth. Australians, he would say, were not grounded down by enmity, fear and class divisions. People had come from all over the world to make Australia home and to seek a better life. Australia had attracted the best of global humanity in terms of people possessing the values of empathy, inclusion and enterprise. For Nugget, reconciling the injustice with Australia's first peoples was fundamental to Australia reaching its true potential. He was a true believer in a vision for Australia to be infused with the values and knowledges of indigenous people so that we could be an inclusive and creative post-colonial nation like no other. And in my mind, Nugget was one of the greatest non-indigenous champions of reconciliation we could imagine and I think Mick coined the phrase that very senior old white elder. His belief in Australia's potential to include indigenous people in the fabric of Australian nationhood was based on his intimate knowledge of nation building as the person put in charge post-war reconstruction by Prime Minister Ben Chiffley and transformed into the modern nation we have become. He authored and oversaw the implementation of the famous white paper on employment. Manufacturing industries were created supported by clever targeted fiscal measures. The education and trading system was modernized and universities were built. As Nugget would say, when governments lead the creative resilience enterprise of the Australian people could be mobilized. And long after his death, he continues to inspire me. If Nugget Coombs was the commander and chief of Australia's economic development policy as he was for decades following the Second World War, we would have an audience with someone capable of advising and motivating government into action. People will often say as a counter to Nugget Coombs vision that Australia is innately conservative and that change can only happen incrementally and in biteable chunks. Be careful not to scare the horses. It's a common Australian expression that embeds inertia and incrementalism. But that perhaps that's why the great Gullaroy Unipping told me years ago that beware when governments tell you there's a light at the end of the tunnel. It's a bureaucrat with a torch running backwards. I know conservative Australia. I come from conservative Australia. And I have dealt with what some would describe as the hard right of rural Australian political conservators. I reject the proposition that conservative politics holds back the potential for Australia to embrace Indigenous peoples in our nation's constitutional and institutional fabric. I do not accept that Aboriginal people and our non-Indigenous supporters should be impeded in our advocacy and thinking because we think the conservatives won't like us. In 1997 and the early part of 1998, I participated alongside a range of National Indigenous leaders in discussions with conservative politicians from both the Liberal and National parties and rural political advocates about negotiating a treaty between Indigenous peoples in the Australian nation. The treaty was designed to supersede the Native Title Act and the various Indigenous and land and heritage laws across the federal jurisdictions and bring about a lasting political settlement to resolve past injustices and continuing Indigenous grievances. It was proposed that the treaty negotiation would also be accompanied by a comprehensive investment in documenting Australia's history, which was designed to put an end to the destructive history wars and the abuse of history as the weapon in wedged politics. The context of these discussions was the rise of one nation and the very real threat by the then Prime Minister, John Howard, to call a double dissolution general election on the WIC amendments, the Native Title Act. There was, of course, a serious motivation of self-preservation on the part of the conservatives. There was nothing that Paul Enhanced would have loved more than to have a general election based on Indigenous rights. The National Party felt seriously threatened that they would be wiped out. The mining industry, which was also involved in the discussions, felt that their interests were better served by John Howard's parliamentary brinkmanship and withdrew from the process. As we know, Senator Harrodine gave John Howard the vote he needed to pass the WIC 10-point plan bill. Yet, despite this, the dialogue continued for a couple of years in general exploration by Indigenous leaders and Conservative political leaders about negotiating a treaty. That experience convinced me that Conservative Australia is not opposed to a grand settlement of reconciliation. In fact, I believe that many Conservative Australians, off considered opinion, are more thoughtful and committed about reconciling Australia than many of those who had described themselves belonging to the progressive sides of Australian politics. Ron Castan was passionately involved and helped to build a bridge between Conservative interests and Indigenous leaders as we sought a partway towards a negotiated treaty. We needed to believe that these discussions went beyond the expediency of Australian party political self-interest. Ron's untimely debt in late 1999 reminded us all of the precious quality of leadership and how certain people of grandeur can influence history. Sadly, the dialogue, the treaty between Indigenous leaders and the Conservative political interests waned after Ron left us. In recent months, I have thought deeply about the quality of leadership of people like Nugget Coombs, Ron Castan and the Dalai Lama. Last year, 55, 50 years, after more than nine and 10 Australians voted to raise those appalling provisions in our nation's constitution, that Indigenous people should not be countered to the national census and that our people should be expressly excluded from section 51, subsection 26, giving the Commonwealth power to make laws for any race, we have needed national leadership more than ever. When 250 representatives of the Indigenous nation from throughout Australia met at Uluru on the very anniversary of the 67 referendum to produce a statement that reached out to the hearts of all Australians, we sought the considered response from Australia's political leadership. The poetic words of the Uluru statement were clear, evocative and unifying. It called for the establishment of a First Nations voice, a shrine in the constitution. It called for the establishment of the Macarate Commission to supervise a process of agreement made between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history. In the days following the Uluru statement, I wanted how the great Australian nation building political leaders who I have encountered, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating would have responded. I am sure that each of them would have captured the historic moment and wove it into the fabric of our nation. Instead, we got deafening silence and platitudes of delay and then months later we the Indigenous people of the nation as a whole alert to the government had rejected the whole constitutional recognition process. Contrary to what our current privatist says, our national constitution does not enshrine the principles of equality of citizenship. The history of the Australian constitution is not inclusive, it is in fact opposite. Our nation was born with the constitutional powers to exclude Asians and non-white people and to enable the continued genocide of Indigenous people by ensuring that the Commonwealth had no responsibility for a people who were not considered worthy of being counted in the national census. That is what the original race powers was all about. Reconciling that history and amending the constitution to enshrine the principles of equality of citizenship is what Indigenous people have fought for all along. They are more than just words and legal powers. The constitution defines the values of a nation. My mother is aboriginal and my father is Chinese. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the values of exclusion and racism, values which should not be part of modern Australia. Sometimes we turn to humour to deal with this bleak situation. My late friend and comrade Indigenous leader Tracker Tillmott once rang me out of the blue one night and said to me, Yui, that's Australian for pity you. I feel sorry for you, mate. I said why is that track? He said because that redhead woman hates you twice. But on a serious note, if we're going to transcend the nation's bloodstain history of violent dispossession and exclusions of Indigenous peoples and become, as the Dalai Lama has said, a beacon of light to the world, we must embark on a national commitment to learn about our history. This is what the Uluru statement has called for as a fundamental aspect of reconciliation and treaty making. And as I wind up, I'd like to refer to some aspects of the ANU reconciliation action plan but also outline what I think could be the responsibility of ANU in this national commitment for renewed reconciliation of historical understanding and truth telling. Nugget Kermans' vision for this university was to be a nation building learning institution and a leader in public discussion and policy formulation of big ideas. Reconciling tens of thousands of years of Indigenous occupation ownership of Australia, lands and waters with European colonisation settlement since 1788 is a big idea which this university is ideally placed to make a significant contribution. The New Australia National University reconciliation plan was launched in January this year on the 31st and it states the ANU will renew, build on its history of engagement and seek a new partnership with Indigenous Australia. It is intended to set new benchmarks for initiatives that are to be implemented at a university-wide level and to create a historic holistic approach to advancing reconciliation. ANU has invested in research and learning with an Indigenous focus and bill on organised national architecture which has the capacity to reach out to every corner of our nation to join with Indigenous communities and others to transform learning and knowledge sharing. While there are important strategies designed in the RAP to target greater equity and opportunity for Indigenous students, scholars and administrators, it is also pleasing to note and acknowledge that the RAP is not limited to a narrow Indigenous specific outcome only, but rather more seriously to fill its responsibility as a national university by putting the national back in the end of ANU. The strategic and executive plan acknowledges that it is not only the question of university experience and academic excellence important for First Peoples, but how that nature of that experience and achievement can be recognised and leveraged in important other critical areas for the benefit of the nation. Areas like the societal transformation initiative and the proposed public policy and societal impact hub, areas of research, innovation and public policy development to set the agenda in national and international discourse about ourselves, our region and our future together. An important example of that, of course, is the originally announced initiative by the ANU in partnership with the federal Indigenous politicians, the Honourable Ken White and Senators Linda Burney, Patrick Dodson and Mallendary McCarthy and Professor Mac Dodson to host the First Nations Governance Forum to be held in July this year. Coming off the back of the recent rejection of the Uluru Statement by the government and seemingly at this stage no further movement than proposed constitutional recognition, the ANU will host this major forum to consider First Nations governance reform in Australia and lessons learned from other jurisdictions globally at Old Parliament House. This is the beginning of a new engagement with the First People of this nation in a critical public policy leadership and discourse. But this university is capable of so much more if it could harness its potential to collaborate and use resources more efficiently to reach out to partner Indigenous communities and particularly those of us across Northern Australia. Brian will have heard this before and other members about my going on about Northern Australia. I think it's particularly relevant at this time in our history with the considerable attention on the development of Northern developments and the growing discourse of our current and future relationship with China, Asia and India. This is an opportunity for the ANU to grow its investment in Northern First People's communities. Demographically as First People's to the North we still remain the permanent population with significant land, water and cultural assets. Our cultural assets marginally acknowledge and our physical assets underdevelop. First People's of Northern Australia lies in our capacity to economically engage with our Northern neighbours. For some time I have harboured the idea about fusing the collective endeavour and passions of local Indigenous communities, universities, schools and local governments document oral histories of the First People's and settler communities in this country. And to combine those stories with archival source to build a bank of knowledge that would be an uncontested truth. I imagine the process itself of collecting and exploring local histories which could come together as a mosaic of national understanding and wisdom would be reconciliation and practice. I believe the ANU has the capacity and gravitas to lead this initiative. It would be ANU's way of responding to the Uluru statement and meeting the university's high commitment to reconciliation. The idea that we could have a national history and reconciliation centre to become a key source of the energy for the beacon to shine its light on the future pathway for the maturation of this nation through its key role in academic excellence and research and innovation in national policy development areas. Such an endeavour would do more than anything I could imagine to honour the legacy of the great Nugget Coombs. Without a deep and meaningful understanding of this nation's history, I don't believe we will achieve national reconciliation. There simply will not be the appetite or passion for substantial change. The continuing trickle down effect of political symbolism and uncreated policies is akin to the impact of trickle down economics. It's an outdated model in a technologically modern society that has minimal effect on the real lives of ordinary Australians on the ground. I am an optimist by nature and I know Australia is a better nation than the political system that represents us. The failure of success in national governments and parliaments to forge pathways to recognise Indigenous people of the nation's constitution is a failure of Australia's body politic. Constitutional recognition should not be viewed as another contentious issue accompanied by political cajoling and manoeuvring to be ticked along the linear trajectory of Australian nation building. It should be understood as fundamental to our moral and ethical national character. We at the end will have to depend on the goodwill, the fairness and the continuing commitment of the broader Australian community with people like yourselves. Without a reconciled Australia, we will remain destined to remain trapped in its colonial heritage of unfinished picture. Ghalia, thank you very much. 2018, well it's our 2017 really, reconciliation lecture. I won't be there to decide whether we have two of these lectures this year but technically it's last year's lectures. Peter's happy to take a few questions now but there are some people walking around with mics and answer our staff. If anybody's got a question or perhaps an answer. Yes, Ben's got the mic just coming up behind you. Thank you Peter for that passionate, inspired and eloquent and reasoned address. I'm sure I speak for us all in saying that. What I want to do is take you back for a moment to the remarks you made about the document that you presented to a Majesty in Britain because it seems to me that this document in itself is a shining beacon and I was deeply troubled by your remark that it will be seen by virtually no one. The Royal Archives of course are closed except at the discretion of the Crown. Unlike our National Archives there is no way the Australian public could gain access to such a document and yet its stature, its importance is surely immense. Can you tell us any more of that? My filing system is not the best of the world Bruce but certainly the nature of the protocol as part of the conditions in terms of the, as you would expect, was a confidential meeting, was not a public meeting and certainly we were coached in that regard but I think you can imagine that the contents of that document quite clearly were quite strident in terms of the position of First Nations people of this country in terms of the unresolved relationship both domestically but also its connection to the monarch in terms of the original instructions to George III and the fact that, but you know I don't think if I can recollect it doesn't dwell in the nature of the kind of historical rhetoric so much to say that what the opportunity presents itself particularly in terms of the opportunity that it had Australia gone down the path of the Republic of that stage, what, and I guess its key objective was not only to state the facts as we were concerned but also there was a there was a chocolate meeting in South Africa I think after that with the Queen had to go and meet John Howard. We weren't very popular when he got back of course but didn't get any job offers from the federal government but, but the, well we do believe that we'd like to believe we think that perhaps there were a couple of words said in relation to the concern that we had expressed as part of the delegation visit so, but I agree with you I can't in any way you know in real terms I'd have to follow that up in terms of who might have a copy of it. We have a question up here. Thank you for your speech like awesomeness. My question concerns the what can be done here in Australia to ensure that a treaty between indigenous peoples and the state does not become the colonial weapon of war that was used against my ancestors in the United States and Canada? Well I think we have a lot to learn I think notwithstanding the disadvantage of not having a foundational kind of documents establishing any protocol or structure to the relationship. If one was to be the eternal optimist you'd say what we would be certainly looking towards the example of the US and Canada in terms of what not to do. I think that it's a very hard question but I think it's a challenge for us in our creative thinking as to how we might ensure that there was the security. I think there the fundamental truth of the notwithstanding all the blemishes of the native title act but for instance you know we have currently and continuing existence in terms of the land assets certainly if I know northern Australia more but say more than 80% of the land has a direct Aboriginal interest direct or indirect we that is also on a legal basis in terms of anybody wanting to under the act provides that any level of activity proposed on lands will require some form of agreement and that's the basis of my discussion that those it's not too hard to imagine those agreements can turn into local treaties I think I think that it gives us great strength that we do have this fundamental legal position obtained through the native title act through Marlborough decision and title act is not perfect but we do have a basis I think of strength and the reality is the demographics quite clearly point towards that we continue to be remain at least in the north the permanent population people are born and die in that area in the more populated kind of areas in the south I think the same opportunity exists in terms of elevating the nature of these agreements into local and regional treaties there's a lot of that is going to depend upon the nature of the goodwill of the of the government and the strength and unity of purpose of the Aboriginal community but there are no guarantees I'm not an expert on by the way on US or Canada treaty making but it's something that we have to learn from okay um one here this will be our final question thank you thank you and thank you uncle Peter for your for your lecture um with the kind of ever changing political status in Australia and the Prime Minister's growing bundle of issues that exist on the hill and more recent ones continually changing how do we kind of get through the cloud of rubbish that's happening on Capitol Hill and refocus the the national dialogue around Indigenous issues and what message do you have for the young Indigenous student at ANU who looks to have some level of influence in the political dialogue moving forward when even now with some of the greatest leaders that we've ever had like yourself Professor Dodson and others in the on the hill struggling to influence the the public kind of policy um in response to your first part about getting through all that muddle I'd say with great difficulty but um I um I think part of my appeal in in the delivery tonight was for us as Aboriginal people to consciously consider our positions when I talk about only our own risk um we we have to understand what it takes to be able to challenge the kind of the rhetoric that we can get caught up in significantly in terms of we have to be confident about our and about our the sustaining the cultural and customary practices and values and the integrity of that we we we know that we are capable of doing that that's our business we have to be able to understand that the the current codependency on public sector investment um is very limited in its capacity to deliver the independence or the close the gap as I've said we have to make those determinations ourselves as individuals and so that we need to challenge the rhetoric we need to look at the reality of our circumstance we live the relativity of change as we know in in this the fourth industrial revolution and the most um with technology that the arguments are not the same and the and the base dating points have to shift dramatically in a more sophisticated I mean that in a in a good way a more a more sophisticated way uh to harness the talents of our leadership and I think the I have great faith in young average people like yourself Dwine and others others who are coming up who are the balance is to do the best you can education is fundamentally the great solution finder that we have to have we have to have our children properly educated but we also struggle the other hand if we have in the Kimberley's 25 percent of kids who are born with FASD that are now you know making up the 42 percent population of the state prison system and recidivism levels because if we don't if you if you see that in terms of relativity then the growth of the the crop of the young people who are coming through who are going to be successful who are going to become emerge into the kind of Australian middle class and and attain success and achieve those successes and well deserve successes they should um that's why I'm saying the gap doesn't is not closing because the the fundamentally the other half of that is that we we haven't reached anywhere near our capacity to live a greater sense of benefit outcome for those kids and those people so we have to be honest with ourselves about this who we are in the 21st century who we are as first people of the 21st century whether it's in our own cultural groups or whether we as a collective on a national level um we need to be honest with ourselves and and say that um why aren't we achieving the same level of attraction um to equal the amount of input um to the results that are not coming out so I I um it's an honest relationship it's not really it's a it's a new professional relationship based on mutual respect and endeavor and enterprise um but notwithstanding or being confident in our culture and our language and our law I'm not sure if that answers your question but I think that's um well thank you very much um Peter um firstly I've got to do a few thanks and then I'm going to invite Peter and Brian back up here um but ladies and gentlemen thank you very much for coming out tonight to to hear this lecture every year it seems to get better and better um and um much of its due to responses like the people here tonight who I think are genuinely wanting to see some movement on closing the gap through reconciliation I'd like to thank the diplomatic community uh for joining us tonight um we want to continue this conversation on reconciliation with you uh we can no longer stand alone in Australia on these crucial issues thank you to the ANU VIP SCARPA events team um we could have never pulled off such an event um without your support and um we very much appreciate your assistance I'm also very grateful to the ANU strategic leadership team and the ANU executives the deans directors and indigenous leaders um thank you for your continued support the Seahop acapella singers thank you for sharing that song with us um there is power in in songs um and I think the song you chose to sing today tonight uh perhaps could become the theme song for reconciliation because as you know we must all lean on each other to our ANU donors um relations team and to our donors um we cannot thank you enough for connecting us with people who wish to support the work we do um and um by that you are changing lives in our world reconciliation Australia you're here with your expertise and supporting and guiding us every step of the way thank you so much and I'm very very proud of my NCIS team who work very hard to put out put together such an event and a special thanks to our HDR scholars who've been volunteering tonight and also the Australian Indigenous Governance Institute who's housed in our building thank you to their staff who've also been working with us tonight and finally Peter Peter Peter what a talk you gave tonight um it's restored some fire to my belly I can tell you um and um I think we might go back to our officers in our homes and continue the fight because we can't go back and be business as usual something's better and has to change I think your your words have moved the saw and it takes a lot of courage to address things that many people choose to avoid too many Australians choose to avoid you are certainly doing us proud um being on the ANIA council and thank you for your tenacity your consistency and your call for advocacy um keep doing what you're doing to inspire the next generations to come thank you Peter um Yui for the first president of Australia