Page 72 – Griffith News

Welcome to the recording of A Better Future For All, Griffith University’s in-conversation series, presented in partnership with HOTA, Home of the Arts.

Professor Carolyn Evans, Vice Chancellor and President of Griffith University

Good evening, a very warm welcome on this very wet night in the Gold Coast. My name is Carolyn Evans, I’m the Vice Chancellor of Griffith University. Griffith University is proud to partner with HOTA, the Home of the Arts. Here on the Gold Coast for the Better Future for All series, our ever-growing collection of conversations hosted by, of course, always our leading journalist and author Kerry O’Brien. I begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the lands on which we meet today, the Kombumerri families of the Yugambeh Language group. I saw Uncle John here before in any of the other elders who are joining us here today. We pay respects to those elders past and present and recognise the continued connection to land, waters and extended communities throughout southeast Queensland. Also recognise counsellor William Owen Jones of the Gold Coast City Council, members of the Griffith University senior executive and HOTA leadership groups. Well, we’re honoured here tonight to have highly acclaimed director, producer, and screenwriter Rachel Perkins as our special guest. Rachel is a proud Arrernte and Kalkadoon woman from Central Australia. In 1993, she founded Blackfella Films as a way of advancing indigenous onscreen participation and representation. She has been described as one of the most talented Australian directors of her generation, and Rachel’s documentaries, feature films and reality television series have not only left an indelible mark on the Australian film industry, but also on the nation’s understanding of our history. Her iconic documentaries First Australians and more recently, The Australian Wars are important contributions to rewriting the historical narratives of this nation from an indigenous perspective. Through television dramas such as Redfern Now and feature film musicals such as Bran Nue Dae, Rachel challenges her audiences by confronting and dismantling stereotypes and making some pretty good television at the same time. Their documentaries and feature films have graced the world’s most prestigious film festivals from Sundance to Berlin and Toronto. In 2018, Rachel’s direction of the six-part television drama series Mystery Road, garnered wide acclaim receiving multiple actor industry awards, including Best TV Drama, along with the Logie for Most Popular Television Drama and Best Actress for Deborah Mailman. Rachel also received the Best Director Award from the Australian Directors Guild for her work on the series. Rachel is a founding member of Screen Australia and the first indigenous Australian to serve on the board. She is also a founding member of the National Indigenous Television service. Previously, she served as a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the Council of Australian Film and Television and Radio School and the Australian Film Commission. There will hold more paragraphs of prizes and awards and other things, but you actually want to hear from her and not about her. So, I’ll just finish by saying that this year, Rachel has taken a year off from filmmaking to devote herself to advocating for the First Nation’s Voice to Parliament. She’s co-chair of the movements fundraising and governance body Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition. And one generation on, Rachel walks in the footsteps of her inspiring activist father of great Australian and Dr. Charlie Kumantjayi Perkins, who famously campaigned against segregation in the Freedom Rides, and that the 1967 referendum movement. 2023 is not 1967, it comes with different opportunities, different understandings, and different challenges. Social media was an unknown concept there, and there was no official no opposing campaign. Undoubtedly, this year will be a significant one for Australia and for the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. And we think it’s incredibly important to have these conversations. Griffith is very proud of the way that we’ve been working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population. We have the largest enrollment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders of any Queensland University. And last year we graduated 180 Indigenous students from across a whole wide range of disciplines. And that included seven PhD students. With creating a better future for all in mind, we’re extremely pleased to have Rachel Perkins and of course, always our wonderful host Kerry O’Brien with us at HOTA tonight for this conversation. Please join with me in welcoming them and thanking them.

Kerry O’Brien

Rachel, thank you too, for joining this conversation. But I’d like to start also by acknowledging that we’re on Kombumerri Country, on which sovereignty has never been ceded. We’re on the edge of potentially a kind of coming of age of our nation, a maturing and coming together around this year’s referendum which has sprung from the Uluru Statement from the Heart and a long process before that. A unique convention in which you participated, and I say, potentially, because we all know that this is a big mountain to climb. It shouldn’t be, but it is. This is a very tantalising and critical moment in our history in which you’re directly engaged, and I’ll explore that closely. But I also want to explore your personal story first, and how you came to be a part of this. You grew up mostly in a middle class, suburban life in Canberra, mostly in the 70s and 80s. But can you briefly just sketch the family history you came from?

Rachel Perkins

Um, yes. I’ve got to say thank you, everyone, for coming out this big rain. It’s very nice to see some familiar faces. And thanks Kerry for having me here on Kombumerri Country. I’m Arrernte and Kalkadoon, so Murri as well as a desert rat. Yeah, so what was the question again?

Kerry O’Brien

I want you to just sketch the family history that you came from. Okay. Hetty Perkins to start with tell me about him. All right.

Rachel Perkins

And can I ask that, given I’m a director and I don’t know whether they’re listening up to me. Do you think they could turn that light down a little bit lower? Just I feel like I’m being interrogated slightly. I don’t think that heard me and just walked off. But um, yeah, so well, I’ll go back before that. My my grandmother’s mother Nellie Errerreke. She is northern islander woman, was a northern islander woman and she was there before the pastoralists, and before Stuart came up the track and opened the Northern Territory to colonization. So, she saw great change in her life. In the series that we’ve made, she was it describes how she was a survivor of a massacre. So her and her sister was spared and for, you know, not great reasons. But they lived and she then escaped, and sought of protection of miner, an Irish miner, who’d come up from New South Wales. So, they had a couple of children together. He went back to New South Wales to die of poisoning from the mines. And she took her children into the bush, one of her children was Hetti Perkins, my father’s mother. So Hetti worked at the around the mine at Arltunga in the east of the Arrernte nation and was, you know, there right on the change. She became a stock woman. She could do anything, a highly capable woman. She had 13 children. She was, yeah, tough, tough, capable, independent person. My father was one of her children, Charlie, he was. She she got a job in the 1920s working at the just set up, this was the protection era just come in. And they had this idea to protect children of mixed race, as they call it. So they set up this place called the Bungalow, and she got a job there looking after some of the children. And so my father was born in a native institution, when, when this institution moved into Alice Springs and inband bois, he was born there. And then he, Father Smith, a priest, came to that native institution and asked if they could take a couple of boys down to Adelaide, to you know, get a better education than what they could get there. And I always think about my grandmother, being a mother myself and thinking when someone’s coming to you and saying, “you should do this for your child, because it’ll be better for them”. And you can see the heartbreak of a mother, but you know, going, okay, I’ll put my child first thinking that that’s going to be a good thing. So, with her permission, he took a couple of boys down to Adelaide. At Saint Francis house, which was a place that a lot of Aboriginal male leaders came from. God I can just keep going. Where do you want me to stop? He met my mother, Eileen in Adelaide at a soccer function. You know, he, the Father Smith left eventually, the boys had a very rough time in that home. Crucial eventually, and he got kicked out of there, played found soccer. Met my mother, fell in love. They decided to get married very quickly, my mother comes from fourth generation, German Prussian farmers. They got married, Dad played soccer in England, came back then he thought about going to university. They decided to move to Sydney to go to university in Sydney. Through the great man who established, Ted Noffs. Oh, yes. Ted Noffs mentored Dad at university.

Kerry O’Brien

And he had a connection. I think wasn’t the starting point for the Freedom Ride his centre in the Cross?

Rachel Perkins

He was involved with it, so it was in response. Anyway, he went to university. Sydney University is one of the first, not the first, but one of the first Indigenous people through scholarship, decided to take political science and history to train himself. He wanted to change the world and the experiences that he had his people around him went to university, the Freedom Rides came out of that period, because students at University of Sydney were protesting against South Africa,

Kerry O’Brien

apartheid, apartheid. No, might have been a bit of a

Rachel Perkins

US sorry, situation, the US and people said, “What are you doing about the situation here?” they’ve gotten a bus and you went on the Freedom Ride. Then became sort of catapulted in the national press and became a became an indigenous leader of note.

Kerry O’Brien

I mean, that’s a that’s an enormous amount of history wrapped up in three generations. Yeah, enormous amount of history. And, and a lot of the, so, you know, you could argue until the cows come home, about whether it was a good thing. That he had, quote, the opportunity to go to Adelaide and improve his education, and what may have sprung directly from that, that might not otherwise have been. But you just never know. Well, and that’s replicated and so many other stories, isn’t it?

Rachel Perkins

Well, you, you do know, because he used to talk about it, you know, and he used to talk about that the fact that he got a base education. And they told him, you’re only ever going to be a fitter and turner or come to nothing, you know. And they kicked him out when he was, what 16. With no money, nothing, kicked him out in the streets of Adelaide. He had a suitcase with a couple of clothes in. He didn’t know where to go, he went in, went into and stayed in a terrible place with, you know, really dangerous, he had nowhere to go. It was

Kerry O’Brien

also very much a part of it. He personally wasn’t an active participant in it. But he was very much a part of that whole mindset of assimilation that drove so much, so much of, of colonial policy towards Indigenous Australians. Yes. Including the stolen generation. All the stuff about how you take you take those, those children that have white blood running in their veins, you remove them from the scene, you try to raise them white, and you wait for the rest to die out.

Rachel Perkins

Yes. Well, in fact, his removal predated assimilation in some ways. Because that was more of like a 1960s policy. Well. But yes, it’s part of the sort of, I think the intention was, you know, well, these kids have got a bit of white blood in them. So you know, therefore, we can make something of them or, you know, we don’t want them being influenced by their tribal relations. Yeah. And obviously, also in there, there’s some good, good, very, very good intentioned, amazing people who really tried to do what they could. So, it’s a complex history. And, but Dad was one of the lucky ones, he could go home and visit his mother every year at Christmas. And some of the other boys that were with him, who became his lifelong friends didn’t have that opportunity. But they did bond. And we grew up with those boys in the boys home, they became our uncles. They formed their own family and we grew, we, you know, they were they were our uncles throughout our lives. A few of them are still with us.

Kerry O’Brien

Very obviously are very much your own person. But, but what was his influence on you? What is what what do you take, from having had Charlie Perkins as your farther?

Rachel Perkins

crazy workaholic? I don’t know. Maybe that’s for someone else to work out. I mean, he, I think some of the things he said to me in life were very important pieces of sort of advice that I’ve taken through life. Which is to to that, you know, he’s to say the world is your oyster and don’t so I’ve never accepted any limitations on me whatsoever. And that’s probably got me in a bit of trouble, but it’s, it’s made me think I can do anything and be anything and, and I think, I suppose being in the presence of someone who is changing the world, like literally changing the world around you, you think, well ‘I can do that too!’ Whereas, perhaps people think, you know, they haven’t touched that possibility. or seen that or felt that they have the right to do it, they might not feel so emboldened. But I’ve always felt that we can push things. And he’s always been, he was always like a rules, he just be like, you know, doors are for kicking down, bureaucracies are for changing.

Kerry O’Brien

Well, I interviewed him a few times. I mean, he was, he was an activist, going through university, and he was an activist for the whole of his life. He was an activist, as a senior public servant. He was an activist when he ran the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Yes! And he, nobody was lifting any doubt what Charlie thought.

Rachel Perkins

No. And he, you know, he always felt very much that, you know, you keep the fire in the belly, and you protest, and you’re with your people. And that’s, you know, that’s where your place is. You know, you’re not, his career was not about achieving personal greatness in the bureaucratic system, it was about change and getting a better deal.

Kerry O’Brien

But I have to make an assumption that, that by the time you grew into an adult life, you would have had a pretty reasonable sense of your history and some sense of, of the colonial history. I don’t know, to what extent he would have shed light on on your indigenous heritage, but but on the colonial history and the post-colonial history, surely. [um, well] Because it can’t have been a complete accident, that when you went into film and television as a chosen career, that your focus for so much of the time has been on indigenous history, shedding the light on stories that have otherwise not been told.

Rachel Perkins

Yes. Well, I mean, like, probably a lot of people here. You know, going to school, we didn’t learn anything about indigenous history, Australia. You know, did nothing, zero. I mean, one video, I watched, and I learned about some archaeology and gifted teacher at the end of month. So I knew that, like people like me, were had no, there wasn’t that we were, film was a way of putting back the missing history and experience of Indigenous Australia. So, I understood the power of that. And we had an amazing mentor, I’m sort of jumping ahead, but in Frieda Glen, who set up the training opportunity that I got, when I was 18, when I went to Alice Springs for that position, she was very clear about you know, your job. And we were trying for three years under her, and she was, that’s this is like Warwick Thornton’s mother. And she was like, fierce and terrifying. She’d say “your job is to, you know, tell the stories of your people, that’s what you’re here for”, you know, be ‘it’s not about you’, it’s, this is what we’re doing. And she was very good in that way. And, yeah, scared the shit out of us. And we just do what she said, and we’re still doing it now 30 years later. So, but I think that in terms of, I think

Kerry O’Brien

In terms in terms of, of indigenous themes and stories, in the television and film industry, in the period, up to that point. I mean, I came into television in the late 60s, moved through the 70s, and 80s, and so on as a journalist, but there was very little, Four Corners would break an occasional story by going to somewhere not particularly amazing in the bush, and tell an appalling story, of appalling racism and and treatment of indigenous people. But, but in terms of film, and, and other television, there was just not much happening.

Rachel Perkins

No, very little happening. And I think it was really, [it was a part of the great silence, wasn’t it?], Absolutely, and it wasn’t really until the mid 80s, that really, the first films started being made by Aboriginal people. So Essie Coffey. You know, Tracy Moffitt, those Lester Bostock, his brother, so those sorts of people. So yeah, that’s like, a very big gap. But you know, so

Kerry O’Brien

how hard was it for you to actually walk down that road, get your stuff accepted? get to make the films that you wanted to make?

Rachel Perkins

It wasn’t that hard. Because a lot of indigenous leaders had fought for us to have those opportunities early on, so we walked through doors that they’d opened. But I think the challenges that we faced, I mean, you know, there wasn’t a huge amount of opportunities, but there was some and I was lucky to be around at the right place at the right time. Or as my Dad said, one of the big good pieces of advice when I was thinking about applying for a traineeship, he said, “You know, it’s not about it’s not about getting the thing. It’s about what you do with it.” You know, what are you going to do with it? So that was a good piece of advice. But yeah, I think what we’ve always struggled with is the low expectations. So, you know, people have just wanted us to just do like a weekly, you know, magazine 30-minute programme, you know, shunted off in time slot that no one ever watches and not given a good budget to do anything. So they never had much ambition for us. But it wasn’t,

Kerry O’Brien

it was not unusual, even at the ABC, in my culture of of journalism, that you might be told one way or another that you’re suggesting one Aboriginal story too many. So there was a kind of [yes], if not conscious, subconscious sense of saying censoring process going on about, about how many of those stories one could tell without losing your audience?

Rachel Perkins

Yeah. And look, I think it’s been a bit of a struggle to gain the power of our own representation. You know, that’s been a struggle that we still continue to try and hold the line where indigenous people get to tell our stories, as they become more popular. But I think that, you know, there was a perception, I think that indigenous content didn’t rate, and, and for some of those reasons. That it was very depressing. As always, social issues were always presented as problems, you know, and I think indigenous filmmaking is broken that mould. That’s why, you know, I was quite embarrassed about that big, long bio that someone’s written that wasn’t my bio. But in things like Mystery Road, when it won Most Popular Television Series or Total Control and rated really well. It was like, you know, we actually there is a market for this stuff. When we’re in control of it, we can do really well.

Kerry O’Brien

Wow, there’s a message there, isn’t it ‘when we’re in control of it?’ [Yes] So First Australians terrific, groundbreaking documentary series confronting but beautifully told the dramas that you’ve been central to like Mabo, Redfern Now, Mystery Road, Total Control all been high impact, then we come to The Australian Wars, in which you were the narrator. To me, as an observer, it lifted the story of our colonial history, or that part of our colonial history, to a whole other level of searing pungency. Even with a measure of detachment, you must have found that very confronting to make?

Rachel Perkins

Yes, I didn’t want to make it. And I think I’m pretty clear about that in the series. So you know, because I’d made The First Australian so I’d been through a lot of the archive, and I’d read a lot of the historians work and, and so I just, I was just like, ah, I’d have to, you know, I’m not sure about doing that again. But it’s just such a necessary story, you know, and, and also just doing justice to the story, that’s a real you know, you want to do like, it’s such an important story for our country. It’s such an important story for our people. You know, like, you really feel like ohhh gotta get this right, you know, and the, and the weight of that trying to rise to that expectation of our mob. So, yeah, and it was meant to take two years, I took five years in the end to make it.

Kerry O’Brien

It can be an extraordinary process, going through an archive, depending on what it is, but, but if it’s if it’s around tragedy, if it’s around the dark side of humanity, and you’re reading about lives. You’re reading about people lives on paper, or names on paper, that don’t necessarily mean anything until you but you are forced to think about them. And as you build the story around these real people, I mean, there’s a kind of responsibility that comes with that.

Rachel Perkins

Yes, yes. Absolutely. Definitely. And I feel completely responsible to telling the story of my people, you know, that’s, as I said that’s what we are trained to do. So, I feel that weight and it’s the great privilege of my life to do that, you know, it’s a burden, but it’s the greatest privilege. So yeah, I’m glad we got we made it in the end and came out. Okay. And

Kerry O’Brien

I’m not going to dwell on this for long. But I think it’s important in the context of what we’re about to get on to it because it’s so much a part of what has to be righted. Two things. I think it was particularly confronting when you got to your own country in Central Australia, but for those who haven’t seen the series, I’d like you to recount briefly the segment that was set in the Kimberley and explain why that was particularly important to highlight.

Rachel Perkins

in the Kimberley or in my area.

Kerry O’Brien 24:58

I think this in the Kimberley, where, where such an effort was made to cover it up. The burning of evidence over many days. Yes, yes. In other words, yeah, this was this was not casual. This, this was not, this was not sort of random passing stuff these, these were so many of these stories, serious efforts were made to cover up this people knew people knew what they were doing. [yes] They might have, they might have tried to exonerate themselves by by reducing indigenous people to subhuman or to be inferior or something, somehow. Yeah, but nonetheless, they knew what they were doing.

Rachel Perkins

Yes. So yes, those times were defined, and you see that you can read the newspapers and the letters in the mini public documents that they have here in the archives in Queensland, the way in which people viewed indigenous people and, you know, and the brutality of those times, you know, we often look back and, and judge people and for their racism or their views, and yes, that that was a time when those views existed, but it doesn’t mean that we excuse what happened. So, by that time, I mean, after the Mile Creek Massacre in 1838, I think it was, you know, there was, I think 11 people were hung [7] 7 were hung for the death of 28 Aboriginal people in New South Wales. So, you know, the killing did go underground, to some extent from then on, but by the time it got up to the north of Australia, you know, it was very refined process of killing Aboriginal people and getting rid of the remains. So, you know, chopping people up in smaller pieces, then burning their bodies on fires for days, so that the bones would disintegrate into small pieces. So, you have to, to, to get these small pieces of bones, you have to burn them very high temperatures, for a number of days, so people would get significant fuel loads and burn, burn mass bodies and piles dismembered. And then after that, they would come back often and put more fuel on, and then they would be left with the ashes of the bone. So sometimes that would be removed. So, archaeologists have documented this very well. And that was the process, you know.

Kerry O’Brien

Yes, one might think that because this nation has lived mostly in ignorance, as we’ve said, of this history, that they can’t have been much evidence to go on. But one Queensland archivist, has told me that there’s been a mountain of evidence on this dark side of our history sitting in the archives around the country gathering dust, because people didn’t know where to look or how to look for it, or had no interest in looking for it. How do you think your series sits alongside the attempts by the likes of Keith Winshuttle and others, to discredit the emerging history of the 80s and 90s? Through the so-called History Wars, about the scale of massacres and bloodshed, much of it state sponsored? Yeah, that’s gone. Isn’t that that that attempt?

Rachel Perkins

Yes. So, I’ve talked to pretty much every historian in Australia who’s working in this field. And I am forever and the country owes them a great debt for the work that they do mostly unpaid, sometimes decades, over decades to, to comb through the archives to find this material. And when I’ve spoken to them about the so-called History Wars, they have an interesting response. And they say, well, yes, Keith Winshuttle was good in one way because he tuned us into, you know, making sure that all of our footnotes were correct, because, you know, sometimes there’s some loose threads and so they pull those threads and say the whole thing, therefore is, you know, rotten when it’s not the case that might just be a footnote is incorrect, but anyway. But what they did say about it is that it was great because it inspired a huge amount of writing from historians who then slowly dissected him piece by piece and totally demolished him. [certainly went quiet, suddenly gone very quiet.] But he is now there is not a single reputable historian in Australia, who does not agree with the evidence that’s been put forward. I mean, you cannot, you cannot argue against it, it’s so overwhelming. There’s but you know what, what is disgrace, I think is that in Australia, we have spent so little of our, you know, we’re a very wealthy country, we’ve spent so little of our capital on the time that it would take to invest in bringing these records forward. So, Queensland is doing very well, others not so good. It’s doing better. But yeah, I mean, there’s, there’s, there’s 10,000 books written on the Civil War in America. When I was talking to that documentarian, the famous American documentarian, [oh God]. Who? [Ken Burns] He said, there’s 10,000 books written on this In Australia, I could feel maybe the top shelf of my very small bookshelf, with books that’s written on this, and it covers a much bigger history. So it’s, you know, I think which

Kerry O’Brien

which, which actually underscores one strong reason for the truth telling, is such a crucial part of the of the whole of what’s come out of Uluru. So the process of indigenous consultations around the country leading up to the Uluru convention, on constitutional recognition, we’re already entrained before you produce the, before the Australian Wars series came out, but what was your involvement in that consultative process? And how representative was it of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders around the nation?

Rachel Perkins

Well, my involvement was just sort of started very, not randomly, but I’ve realised that I’ve never felt like a, you know, a person who’s at the front of the sort of political campaigns of our people, I’ve always felt like, I’m a good follower, actually. Because, you know, leaders need followers, right? And I’m a good support person, but I thought on this constitutional recognition thing, I thought, okay, well, here’s where I should probably engage in this. You know, I don’t really understand the Constitution. I don’t really know what it all means. But I think there’s been people are asking us to get involved. So, I should step up. And so I tried to I just volunteered for a long time, I made some, you know, films for with Megan Davis to show it the 12 Dialogues that happened around the country. So, you know, films about the history of our aspirations for engagement and democratic process and films on civics. And that was shown and I’ve gone along to meetings. And as it took form, I just participated as a helper really. And then I went to the Alice Springs, or it’s, you know, in Arrernte country out at Ross River, I went to that dialogue. And I thought, actually, rather than just being a filmmaker on the sides, I might actually put my name up, and I got elected to go to Uluru dialogue. And so, I participated in that process. And I’m very proud to be a signatory of the Uluru Dialogue of the Statement. I should say, so, how thorough was it? Well, I sat in rooms watching Megan Davis and Pat Anderson, you know, work very hard with a bunch of indigenous team, working with local organisations coming up with the lists at local organisations, coming up over the list of traditional owners, representatives of Aboriginal community organisations, and other key leaders. I saw those lists being compiled. I saw how much work they put into it. I saw the thoroughness of it. I mean, the people who say it wasn’t, you know, of course, it’s not gonna you can’t get 800,000 indigenous people and engage with every one of them. It has to be a proportion, right? But it was done on a very sound formula. And there was 1200 indigenous people across the whole Dialogue that’s much bigger than the Referendum, is bigger than the Constitution. [much bigger than the deliberations of the constitution], yeah, the deliberation, the Constitution around the Republic, it was a much bigger proportion. So, it was a deliberative process. It took days, you know, people met over days and each of the regions and then their findings, then went up to the national meeting. I mean, it was very thoroughly done. And I challenge anyone who critiques it to actually do what they did. It was a

Kerry O’Brien

See to me, you should say that. You see Jacinta Price, the Coalition Senator, indigenous senator was on Q&A on Monday night. And one of her comments was that the 250 delegates at Uluru, were unelected signatories. Who did they represent she asked?

Rachel Perkins

Well exactly I mean, isn’t that why we want to voice so we can have a, so we can have a fully elected voice from the grassroots. So, it’s interesting to critique, the sort of thing that we put together to try and have a voice and say that’s not representative, it’s not a good voice. But now you can’t have a voice. Like, does that sound like like a weird Monty Python sketch to you like it does to me? So yes, it was in Alice Springs, which is where she and I are from. I’m Arrernte, she’s Warlpiri. The Central Land Council worked with Pat and Megan to put together the list of traditional owners and their representatives and other leaders and stakeholders from Aboriginal community organisations. So, the Central Land Council, let’s just be very clear, the Central Land Council is a democratically elected, representative body, from the regions all across Central Australia. Grassroots, they elect people to go up to an executive. They’ve got a, I think it’s, uh, when they had their meetings, there’s like 90 people from across the central Australia that go up to executive. It’s a democratically, grassroots elected body of Aboriginal people. Now, they were the organisation that defined how the Dialogue, the regional Dialogue would go in central Australia, my community. So, to say that that’s somehow not democratic, [or representative] or representative is just not true.

Kerry O’Brien

But then to have that many people actually, essentially line up behind that Statement, after three days, with a consensus. I mean, a consensus in in our democracy can be very hard to reach at any number of levels with the most efficient politicians we might find. [Yeah] But

Rachel Perkins

I mean, I try and stay gracious in this debate. Because I think that’s respectful, and that’s what we should do. But can I say that, Jacinta, when she stood for parliament in the Northern Territory, had a massive swing against her and wasn’t elected in an electorate of substantially indigenous people. Right? So she’s in Parliament, through getting through a Senate ticket through a political process that does not represent Aboriginal people, that party appoints people to those positions, and they’re mostly white men. Right? So, to say that we shouldn’t have a Voice in that Parliament, right? The grassroots indigenous people shouldn’t have a Voice in that Parliament, when she’s been put there in the parliament by non-Indigenous, mostly white men, through the party system seems very unfair to me.

Kerry O’Brien

I think one of her comments was that it, was what it would be warm and a gesture of warm and fuzzy feelings that will have no practical consequences.

Rachel Perkins

Well, I respect Jacinta and I think that she’s trying to get a better deal for indigenous people, women and children particularly. That’s my family, she’s talking about, live in those circumstances, right? I know that she’s in there for good reasons. She wants things to be better. All, all of us want things to be better for indigenous people, right? But, you have to listen to the voices of indigenous people on the ground. You know, if you want things to change and improve, we’ve seen policies over years, we’ve talked about policies that my father was subjected to, that our people have lived through, you know, decades of bad policy.

Kerry O’Brien

made by white men, 1000s of kilometres away millions in Canberra with white bureaucrat, mostly white bureaucrats and, and imposing those policies.

Rachel Perkins

Yes. And I think the you know, when we have had advisory bodies, people now are saying all the advisory bodies are all rubbish or rubbish, or, you know, things are all everything that’s been done before is crap. Right? But actually, you look at the achievements that have been reached, you know, it’s not fair to say we just want to do away with all of that, nothing’s worked. We’ve seen things that have really worked like in Alice Springs, the Aboriginal Congress, which my family helped set up, other people were involved, you know, that services Aboriginal people’s health It needs across the whole central desert that’s being done by Aboriginal people on our own terms, and it’s successful. It’s very good, miserably,

Kerry O’Brien

miserably.

Rachel Perkins

Yeah, but we coming from a long way back. You know, we are coming from, you know, intergenerational poverty, having been pushed to the edges of our society being exploited. Our labour, our women. You know, it’s just the history that we’ve come through is so bad and indigenous people are been making a difference, you know. So, yeah, I try not to wild about it, but I will probably get wild about it.

Kerry O’Brien

I’m co-writing a book with Thomas Mayo, a colleague of yours really through the campaign, indigenous Australian activist, and, and there’s to be a handle on the Referendum and the chapter on the history of the Voice, of the concept of an advisory voice, a voice of on behalf of Indigenous Australia, of Indigenous Australians, making representations to government. I mean, it’s an extraordinary history. There have been any number of these, these advisory bodies. But the problem substantially has been that from government to government, each time a new government comes in with its quote, unquote, new broom and it’s different ideas. It will have a new advisory body that one goes a new light come in. And it might be it might be stronger, it might be an improvement, or it might be weaker. And when it got to, for instance, ATSIC, which was pilloried in all sorts of ways, when the Howard government came in, ATSICs days were numbered. That John Howard had voted against it going through, people talked about that being a black parliament, all of that sort of stuff. But there were also good things that ATSIC had achieved, the thing of point I want to make is, it’s true, is it not? That none of these, these advisory bodies had the chance to evolve? That’s right to grow, to mature, to improve, to knock off the rough edges, just like the Australian Parliament did, that’s which was a total bloody mess in its first decade. So is that right? Or is that right?

Rachel Perkins

I can only agree with you. Yes, I mean, that’s the thing we see in other countries, Aotearoa, New Zealand, Canada, these, you know, the, the they build, you know, strength and develop and evolve these indigenous voices, representative bodies, you know, the Sami people, they’ve given that opportunity. But, you know, because indigenous people is such a political football, you know, and of course, Mark Latham was, of course, the man who you agreed to abolish ATSIC. And it was reviewed, and it had all these improvements on the table, who’s the point they didn’t take the advice

Kerry O’Brien

of the chair of that of that review panel, was a former Liberal Attorney General, in New South Wales. He chaired a panel that found that ATSIC should not be abolished, that it should be reformed, that it had lost its contact with the grassroots that it should be much more grassroots oriented. And the Howard Government abolished it. So, so how would it be different simply because it’s enshrined in the Constitution? How would it be better?

Rachel Perkins

Okay, well, there’s a couple of things. I think, I think, just to step back from that for a minute, if I may. The constitutional recognition discussion has been around for a long time. It predates, you know, it was around at the time of Mabo. It was one of the recommendations that came in the social justice package report, another report that my father was involved in, consulted 17 regions, wrote an amazing report all these recommendations, change of government put on the shelf gathers dust, not taken up. So that’s constitutional recognition has been around for a while. But when it was introduced, again, when John Howard introduced the idea. We talked, we’ve been talking, you know, about constitutional recognition, what shape it would take. Because a lot of people believe I think there’s a lot of support for the fact that our constitution should recognise indigenous people in it, because the Constitution is really the birth certificate of our modern democracy, right? But our modern democracy has roots that go back 65,000 years, at least. So, we believe that the Constitution should involve a pay respect to that long deep heritage of black Australia. Right? So that’s the first thing. So constitutional recognition, needs to take into consideration the true identity of the country. How that constitutional recognition is articulated. The decision that we took, at Uluru was that that constitutional recognition to should take the form of a Voice, because we know that in 1999, when John Howard put up in his preamble, symbolic recognition of indigenous people, indigenous people didn’t support that because A, it didn’t change the paradigm, right? So we didn’t want to rerun that. We didn’t want to some symbolic words that then didn’t get us anywhere or change the sort of structure of the way democracy works for us. So that’s why at Uluru we chose a very practical constitutional recognition. And that is the Voice that would allow us to participate in the democratic process by giving advice to Parliament while still ensuring that the parliamentary supremacy stayed in place. So, it’s a modest proposal in that it does not undermine the parliamentary process, it adds to it by giving this dimension of the Voice of indigenous people from the ground root from the grassroots is the intention. So, it’s a practical, practical recognition. It has both symbolic which is important because it puts us in the Constitution, but it has a practical outcome, that we can then give advice when these laws and policies are made about us. And people have said, well, it’s just advice, right? As you’ve said, the Parliament can change it. They can, they can change the how the Voice works, but ultimately, they have to hear us. But what’s important in having it constitutionally enshrined is not only it’s, you can’t just get rid of it, like John Howard said, like getting rid of it, Mark Latham said we’re getting rid of it gone. There has to be a Voice, because it’s in the Constitution. But more importantly, if successful, and this is where we’re relying on all of you guys. If successful, it has the moral weight of the Australian people behind it. So, the Australian people have said, “You must listen to Aboriginal people, because they have something to say about the way the laws and policies should be made about them. They have experience. They have some expertise, they should be heard.” So, our fellow Australians saying that gives it moral weight [and political weight] and political weight. Yes.

Kerry O’Brien

Because two things, it seems to me one, that, that, that in that context, that the that the success or the power of the voice, is going to be reliant on the quality of its advice, the quality and the relevance of its advice. And presumably, the stronger and well based, and well informed that advice is, the harder it is for a government or a parliament to knock it back. And and I mean, if you’re going to for a second, just take the cynical approach, okay. I’m not I’m not, ‘I’m a politician. And I’m not particularly impressed with all this. I don’t, I don’t need to engage with this. I’ll pretend to listen. So I’ll pretend to listen. I’ll pretend to consider your advice, and then I’ll dismiss it’. So how, how how does that get counted? How do you how? How does the weight of the Voice gets sustained from government to government down the generations?

Rachel Perkins

Well, how does it get sustained? We hope that there will always be indigenous politicians in Parliament, as well. The voice does not usurp them. It complements them. And we hope that those black parliamentarians will hold their parties to account in terms of listening to the Voice, but I’m not entirely sure what your… I

Kerry O’Brien

Well, suppose. I mean, I’m answering your own question as I ask it. But I suppose that that that in the end, the most effective way of, of of the Voice remaining strong is to have good outcomes. If you if you if you see well-formed policy advice, coming from the grassroots of indigenous communities, to the Parliament being accepted, then being put in place. And working. [Yes.] And we see the gaps closing and all of those areas. Yes. of dysfunction and and inequality. That’s the that’s the answer, really, isn’t it?

Rachel Perkins

Yes. But I don’t think it’s a golden wand. Like I think if we are successful at a referendum, people will immediately turn around and say, “See, it hasn’t changed anything.” You know, they’ll give like five minutes hasn’t changed anything. So, we’ll have to put up with that.

Kerry O’Brien

So 235 years of intergenerational trauma can be solved overnight.

Rachel Perkins

Yeah. But you know, I mean, there always has been sound advice. I’ve read a lot of those reports. And, you know, if you’ve read the Bringing Them Home Report, which is gut wrenching. There’s extensive good recommendations in there. The report that my Dad worked on with a number of other indigenous people, Rights, Recognition and Reform is an excellent report. I mean, it’s not the quality of advice that’s been lacking. It’s the ability to seriously engage with that advice.

Kerry O’Brien

Right. So that’s the key. Obviously, the vast bulk of the focus out of Uluru in the lead up to the Referendum is around the Voice, but the Voice it’s part of a trilogy really, isn’t it? [Voice, Treaty, Truth] Yes. And when, when Lydia Thorpe basically said, “Look, this is delaying this is going to delay the treaty, this is going to get in the way of the treaty.” This is a this is a step-by-step process, is it not? And bearing in mind that the treaties not going to, the pathway to treaty is not a three-week process either? It’s a it’s a 10 year, 20 year? Ongoing? [Yes. I mean], that each each of those parts is as important as the other, isn’t it? [Yes.]

Rachel Perkins

And they are sequenced in that way, for a very clear reason. I think that, you know, I think we have to acknowledge that when the British claimed the east coast of Australia, they never, they didn’t make any arrangements for acknowledging the people who they knew were here. In other territories, they entered into treaty arrangements, but and treaties exist in Canada and New Zealand, Aotearoa, New Zealand, the States. It’s very normal part of their democratic process. So, it’s not surprising that indigenous people have for a very long time, had aspiration for treaty. And in Victoria, you see that that’s quite advanced, which is a very positive outcome. And but before they got into negotiations of a treaty, they set up the assembly, first, a democratic process of electing representatives that could then negotiate the treaty. So, I suppose in some ways, we see the the Voice as providing a framework for those future negotiations, and then holding the holding the Government to account if the treaty is negotiated. Then holding the government to account in meeting those treaty obligations. So, I think they’re also we have to understand that they’re very different mechanisms. So, a change in the Constitution is a choice of the Australian people, whereas the treaty is negotiated between government. And you know, it’s other another nation. So, they’re quite different mechanisms. So, when people say, well, when we have one, if we have one, that we can’t have the other. Well actually, they’re quite different forms. So, they’re not mutually exclusive, and they can complement each other.

Kerry O’Brien

Have you thought about, Carolyn mentioned in the introduction, but have you thought about why the 67 referendum at a time of great ignorance about indigenous history, about the injustice and so on, and where where the racism was plain to see if you looked. Certainly if you’re on the receiving end of it. But they recorded a resounding Yes vote. The biggest Yes vote since Federation, a Yes majority in every state, and in every voting division around the country bar one. [Yes] A Yes majority in every voting electorate division around the country bar one. And here we are 55 years later, more educated, better informed, and yet it seems a much bigger hill to climb.

Rachel Perkins

Well, it’s a different, it’s a different question. So back then, it was about as many of you know, it was about changing the Constitution so that the Commonwealth could make laws about Aboriginal people as it did could with every other so called race, and we know, race is actually a fallacy. We’re all part of the human race, we’ve not actually different. So, so that I think struck a chord with Australians generally. And they’re, you know, their sort of decency and even though, you know, we were living in apartheid situation, much of Australia at that time still, but then it struck a chord about equality. And I think, you know, the Freedom Rides that, you know, what, two years before people really realised that our country, you know, had a problem. I think with segregation and the general position of indigenous people. This time, it’s a different it’s a different question. It’s recognising the first nation status of or the, you know, the fact that Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander people have been here so long. I think most Australians get that and are becoming proud of that actually. You know, and then I suppose it’s them understanding, you know how a Voice might work. And it’s not helped, can I say, by the enormous scare mongering that’s going on?

Kerry O’Brien

Well, I mean, we are we are a more public, well, I was not that old back then there was a young adult still, though I suppose I we were not as polarized. We were just not as polarised as society, as we are now. And as we are increasingly becoming. And we seem to have fallen into a sort of false dichotomy about, of left and right of progressive and conservative around an issue about which I see no ideology.

Rachel Perkins

Well, there are a lot of conservatives that support this actually, like when you look at the demographics, there’s a big proportion of Liberal Party voters that support this.

Kerry O’Brien

Yes voters. But it would seem that the party itself, the politicians in the Parliament, including some who declared their support for a Voice originally, who seem to be heading almost inexorably towards a point of diverging and over. Now, whether they have a free vote in the Parliament on that may be the case, but they will,

Rachel Perkins

yes, I hope they will. And I’ve spoken to some extremely impressive members of the Liberal Party, and who I regard and they agree with the recognition of constitutional, you know, the Constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. They have said to me, that it’s time they have some concerns around, they would like a slightly different process, you know, some would like it to be legislated first and then enshrined. Some would like it to be have a bill, at least that they could see. And then you know, so there, there are different positions on it. And, you know, I haven’t spoken to everybody in the Liberal Party, but you know, they are there, they’re in a difficult situation, because they’re trying to continue to have a party. You know, after election loss, and they’re trying to find unity. And, you know, Peter Dutton is keeping the party together and keeping that on track. So, they have other concerns, you know, not just Constitutional Recognition that they that they are trying to progress. But I do believe that they will have a conscience vote. I know that there are good people in the Liberal Party who see the decency of this request. I know that the people in the Liberal Party want a better situation for Aboriginal people, I genuinely believe that, and I know that to be true. And because they’ve told me and they are, I believe them. And I think they have to be convinced that this is a grassroots voice, that you truly hear the voices of indigenous people on the ground. They need to be convinced of that. And and I think we will find some of them supporting a free vote. And can I say that, you know, when the marriage equality plebiscite went through and it was 60, whatever percent it was, can I say that now in the community, it’s now nine out of 10 Australians support marriage equality. You know? So that was, you know, these things are hard to change. And then they happen, and all the sky doesn’t fall in. Oh, you know, no, people go actually, that’s good. It’s a good thing. It’s like with Native Title, right? When the Native Title debate was going on, people were to put it putting advertisements in newspapers is going to take your backyard. Exactly the same thing is going on right now. Right? There’s a scare campaign going on. And then one with a tonne of acts went through. And what it’s done is it’s brought people together. It’s actually bought indigenous business people together. It’s brought people together in partnership. And no one thought that that would happen. And that’s been the outcome.

Kerry O’Brien

Do you have a sense of how potent it might be for the Yes vote to have so many institutions and organisations around the country that have expressed support? For churches, major businesses, the trade union movement, community groups, various community groups, do you have a kind of sense of how strong

Rachel Perkins

Oh, yes, yeah. So we’ve got every we’ve got every major faith group in the country has signed a declaration supporting the Uluru Statement from the Heart. So Uniting Church, the Imams, the Australian Council Jewry, Catholic, Buddhist community, you know, Sikh community on it goes. All the leaders of all of those church groups have supported the Statement. That we have 60 of the multicultural organisations in Australia to date have signed up. 60, and that’s growing every day. It was like 45 two weeks ago. It’s now 60. We’re gonna see sporting clubs, where we’ve got religious, we’ve got multicultural Australians, you’re gonna see this, this groundswell that is happening across the country. And it is going to gain momentum in the coming months as we move towards a referendum, and it is truly going to be a people’s movement.

Kerry O’Brien

In every every state and territory, the leader [yes] premier has signed up for that, that might have had more impact until last Saturday when New South Wales was still a Liberal state. But nonetheless, I think a lot of Opposition’s too are in support of this. So, one wonders whether, if you are a supporter of it, then you can hope that that the the No campaign starts to run out of steam, as the questions that are answered, stand up, and they run out of fresh, fresh things to row fresh fears to raise if you like,

Rachel Perkins

well, the No campaign is very small, right? I don’t mean to diminish their impact or their views.

Kerry O’Brien

They get a lot of spread in the papers. Well, they get a lot of

Rachel Perkins

media ready in particular papers. But they are a very small group people like there’s no religious organisations signing up to the No campaign. Are they is the is the Uniting Church in Australia signing up for No? No, they’re not. They want Yes, because they work with Aboriginal people every day. Salvation Army, who works with indigenous people all the time, are right behind the Yes campaign. So, if the Salvation Army and the Uniting Church are for Yes, doesn’t that say something? Doesn’t that say something to the importance of this? And, you know, the goodness, and the decency of this proposal? So, when I think like I, I read the papers, I read what they say, obviously, I get upset. As you’ve seen, I’ve been a bit upset tonight. I shouldn’t have lost my temper. But you know, I get I get upset by that. But remember

Kerry O’Brien

your father’s temper, Rachel. So do I.

Rachel Perkins

Yeah, I mean, he would be like, don’t worry, I’m but I’m, I am the co-chair of Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition. And I take that very seriously. And I was have to be respectful. You know, maybe you know, when we’re having dinner tonight later, will be less respectful. But right now, that’s what I’m doing. So, I’m just making a quick joke. Sorry. So then like,

Kerry O’Brien

when the new when a new fear comes along, like, suddenly there’s a debate about about whether the Voice should have access to executive government and the cabinet. And I’m thinking well, that’s where policy processes start, of course, they should have been able to make representations to the executive. So

Rachel Perkins

people might not be aware of that. But there’s been this debate in the papers mostly fought out in the papers about whether the Voice should just give advice to Parliament. So just before a Bills put in Parliament, or as it goes into parliament, the Voice would give advice, or whether it should be able to give advice to what’s called the executive of government, which is cabinet and ministers basically, in the bureaucracy. And what we’re arguing is, well, why would you set up a Voice, and then say that you can’t give advice to, you know, the bureaucracy is Noel Pearson’s pointed out. I think today in The Australian, you know, that’s where all of these policy failures often happen, in the bureaucracy. So why would you set something up, and then limit it in that way. But everybody’s, of course, saying, “Oh, well, you know, you could stop, you know, buying submarines.” You know, it’s like, as if the Voice is gonna want to give advice about buying submarines. You know, like, we have already seen issues with submarines, not pressing, but we have things that relate specifically to us that we want to give advice to, and that’s probably not one of them. [Yes.]

Kerry O’Brien

But so accompanying that, of course, as soon as that was raised, then comes the suggestion that Oh, but but the Voice could could try to the High Court, too, if they don’t if they don’t like what’s happened, okay. So in the executive goes to the High Court. That’s right. The High, the High Court could clog up clog up the

Rachel Perkins

government. It’s a it’s a lawyer’s fest. You know, they’re all talking about I’m obviously not qualified to give a view on that. All I can do is rely on the best legal minds in the country. And the best legal minds in the country say that this is not an issue. Robert French,

Kerry O’Brien

former Chief Justice.

Rachel Perkins

Who came out yesterday. There was another one Kenneth, Kenneth Hayne, another former High Court. Another came out today was it? Yeah, an article in The Australian saying it’s not a problem. Brett Walker, who’s appeared in front of the High Court more than any other person. Who’s that other great constitutional expert? [Ann Toomey] Ann Toomey, who everybody reviews as a Constitutional leader. And of course, then there’s our own black constitutional experts, Megan Davis and others. So, I don’t know, I just I just believe the best legal minds in the country. I don’t know, silly me.

Kerry O’Brien

You know, one of the one of the points that Kenneth Hayne has made is, is that the courts are actually part of our democracy. And the courts are there under the separation of powers and the rule of law, the courts are there, in part, as a part of the check and balance on the power of the parliament. But

Rachel Perkins

as Ann Toomey points out, even if you do go to the High Court, all the High Court will assess is ‘has the Voice been listened to?’. And that is what they will assess. They don’t assess the decision, they just say, has the process taken place where the Voice has been heard? And if it hasn’t been heard, then it will have to be heard. That’s as Ann Toomey explained explain it to me, what they would engage on.

Kerry O’Brien

In other words, they can’t they can’t stall policy, the policy process, they can’t veto the policy process,

Rachel Perkins

they can’t change, actually a decision by the Parliament. They can only say ‘have you heard what they said about this policy?’ Anyway, but people will always scaremonger, right, they said we were going to take everybody’s backyards and Native Title, you know, they said that the whole of Western Australia was going to be somehow chopped off and Aboriginal people going to run off with it, you know? So then, of course, this stuff’s gonna come. You know, we just have to go, Okay, this, get the good advice, and spread the message of the facts and the truth and try and get to our fellow Australians. And not, you know, and try and try and hear, allow them to hear that and try and encourage them not to go to the easiest thing of I’m scared, or I believe that we’re going to be divided by race. You know, or that Aboriginal people are gonna get something more than anybody else is gonna get, you know,

Kerry O’Brien

so but we’re gonna finish. Okay, two-point question. Quick answers. [Okay, I know to go on] On the morning, on the morning after the Referendum, there’s there’s been a majority Yes vote across the nation, [fingers-crossed] and in four states. What will that mean for this country?

Rachel Perkins

Well, that’s a question that I’m not going to be able to answer quickly. So it’s Yeah,

Kerry O’Brien

Unfinished business? The hole at the centre of this,

Rachel Perkins

it will be a watershed moment. For me, I compare it to when I, with a lot of cynicism, I walked across Harbour Bridge in 2000. And I was like, this is just symbolism, still gonna mean anything. But you know, I’ll go, you know, I wasn’t a great believer in the reconciliation movement, because it didn’t have an outcome for me and our people. But I went and walked across the bridge. And I was amazed at the feeling all these people that I never knew, that I would never get to meet. Were there walking alongside Aboriginal people. And it was amazing. It was like 250,000 people who showed up, showed they cared, showed they embraced this part of their history and embraced us. It was it was amazing when I was on that march. Yes, yes, there was a lot of amazing people on that march, and it meant a great deal. So, I think emotionally and psychologically, it will be incredibly important for our country. And then practically, you know, finally the women from my community who a lot of people say they are speaking on behalf finally those women will be able to tell Parliament, what they really think about things like drug laws, funding for domestic violence services, a whole range of things, their culture, their language, things that they care, about indigenous heritage. Finally, we’ll be able to put our voice, unfiltered, through the party system, to the Parliament for them to consider and will know that the Australian people think that we should be able to have a say. That is a very important

Kerry O’Brien

second strand of the question long quick second strand of the question your wake up the morning after

Rachel Perkins 1:09:50

I didn’t think about that. No, no, I don’t think about that. Because what will

Kerry O’Brien

what will that say about us as a nation?

Rachel Perkins

I everyone, everyone knows Kerry what that will say. It’s just not even worth a rating because it’s, we know what that says. So that’s why, this year, I’m putting everything I’ve got into this Referendum and I asked you to do the same, because that possibility is so unthinkable. We just can’t let that happen.

Kerry O’Brien

Rachel Perkins thank you very much. Thank you.

Nick Auckland

Jingerri. Jingerri jimbelung. G’day friends. Rachel, it’s amazing to have you here on the stage at HOTA. My name is Nick Auckland, I’m the Acting CEO of HOTA, Home of the Arts and it’s my great pleasure to wrap up this evening. Kerry, very brave question to ask someone with 60,000 years of ancestry to tell us where they came from, and expect a short answer. But Rachel, even though you only spanned three generations, it showed what a wonderful knowledge you have of your history and put me to shame. Charlie gave you a world with no limitations and we’re benefiting from that. It’s obvious that you inherited his view of effecting change in the world and getting a better deal. Rachel just quickly you reflected on the on the power of telling your own stories, but that’s a battle that continues even though the tide has changed. And Kerry, you talked about responsibility of telling the stories of of Rachel’s people, and reframed it as a privilege, or be it a deeply confronting privilege. Rachel, you talked about the great debt the country owes to the historians who have been spending years and decades combing through archives to tell the truth about our history, and I’m certainly one of those people of a generation that had no education in regards to indigenous people of our country. My question to you, which you’re not gonna have time to answer now is, will we educate our next generation to this history? And I’m particularly interested in that as I have a 10-year-old daughter. Moving on to the Uluru Statement, you describe yourself as traditionally a good follower, but this is now the time to step up. And we’re glad that you have and we’re very glad that you’re a signatory to that Statement. And I’m really happy to hear firsthand about the rigour and the work that went behind the engagement and the generation of that Statement, because that’s certainly been a topic of discussion in in, in circles, both indigenous people that I meet with, and, and take cultural guidance from, but also from friends and family. You talked about the need to listen to the voices of the people on the ground if you want good policy and reference the Aboriginal Congress, and the way that was designed and run by Aboriginal people, and tends to the health needs of indigenous people and the great outcomes from listening to those people. Kerry noted, obviously, that flaws in our policies is that we never give our advisory bodies the opportunity to evolve, and asked how this will be different, and this is the crux of the matter. It’ll be different because it’s constitutional recognition and we can’t just turn it off. The proposal is a very practical constitutional amendment, it gives a voice to Parliament, but it won’t undermine the parliamentary powers. It’s additive. It increases Parliament’s voice, it increases the representation of Australians. Having it enshrined means we can’t get rid of it. It’s got the moral weight your words, the moral weight of the Australian people behind it. And that’s incredibly empowering. Kerry, wanted to know how it sustained through generations, but then answered his own question. Basically describing it a virtual virtuous circle where the on-ground advice is accepted and adopted, and we all recognise how good that is. And we we encourage it to continue. You both talked about the difference between this question and 67 question. And Kerry reflected on the polarisation of our society now, but it was interesting to hear that we all believe that that polarisation is politics-led rather than perhaps population-led. And Rachel, you noted that things are hard to change, but when that change happens, people see they’re a good thing and I’m sure that will be the case as we move forward with this question. You’ve helped to dispel some of the scaremongering around that reputation to Parliament and the executive office. And finally, you referenced the reconciliation march and what that meant, and your hopes that this time the same impact will be achieved. But most important is that people who need a voice will actually have a voice in that that voice will be unfiltered. And Rachel, finally I didn’t see you lose your temper. I don’t think anyone here did. So again, just a quick round of applause for Kerry and Rachel. Thanks. Next up, next up for a Better Future For All we see Kerry diving into the world of artificial intelligence and unpacking its impact on everything from interplanetary travel to cooking the perfect pasta. And sitting in the chair next to Kerry will be a leading global thinker on the subject, Professor Toby Walsh. Professor Walsh’s work not only explores the detailed technology of AI, but also raises a host of critical questions about its impact and its morality. Professor Walsh is a strong advocate for limits to ensure AI is used to improve our lives. He’s a recognised thought leader on the topic, having written three books for a general audience spoken to the UN, two heads of state and industry leaders around the world. And if that’s not enough to pique your interest, you should know that he is currently banned indefinitely from Russia because of its advocacy on AI. There are few topics more important to the way we live and trying to understand the scope and consequences of artificial intelligence, as it challenges our understanding of knowledge, learning, and human capability. Professor Toby Walsh would join Kerry here on the 27th of April. I hope that we see you all here then. That’s all for me. Thanks again to our partners at Griffith, to Caroline Evans, to our hosts Kerry O’Brien, our guest, Rachel Perkins and of course, thank you to our audience for attending and for streaming along online. nine Yabu Till we meet again. Thank you.

Youth crime is on the rise in Queensland. Recent media stories demonstrate the high cost of youth crimes for victims – financially, through serious or permanent injury, or leaving loved ones to try and pick up the pieces after senseless and tragic deaths. Victims and the wider community are understandably outraged and demand the government hold offenders accountable and protect the community by making these behaviours less likely in the future. The government has acted largely through a police-led taskforce, increased police patrols, increased penalties for specific offences and encouraging use of supervision and stricter sentences by the judiciary for repeat offenders. These aim to increase contact, oversight and controls on behaviour and may operate through deterrence or reduced opportunity offend.

This seems like a sensible solution given some of what we known about youth offending. One-in-five boys and one-in-ten girls in the community are caught by police for offending. Most youth only have one or two offences and are effectively dealt with by police diversion (caution/conference), including for some serious offences. However, there is a small group of troublesome persistent offenders, who typically begin offending early in life and continue at high rates. This group is only about 5% of the population, but they account for 44% of offences. Evidence shows that this type of offender is of particular concern in Queensland, where this group appears to be growing. When the costs of offences are attached to persistent offenders as they age and commit more offences, each of these individuals costs over $250,000 by early adulthood.

Penalties unlikely to deter persistent offenders

There are four reasons why increased penalties may not deter youth persistent offenders.

First, youth are particularly bad at assessing the outcomes of behaviour (typically overestimating benefits and underestimating costs) and are susceptible to strong peer influence and biological disturbances, which can increase risk-taking behaviour. As a person ages, they have increasing control over their behaviour and therefore should be held increasingly accountable. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why we have a separate youth justice system.

Second, as youth engage more frequently with the system, the actors and processes become more familiar and normative and therefore their deterrence value may fade over time. This fading effect has been noted with forms of crime prevention.

Third, if youth do consider behaviour outcomes, they may assess the impacts of detention in both positive and negative ways. That is, for some youth, they may be drawn to rather than deterred from offending by the threat of detention as it is accompanied by improved living conditions.

Fourth, enhanced penalties and deterrence are unlikely to reduce youth offending if the risk factors or root causes have not been addressed. There are many risk factors related to youth offending, which are cumulative, occur in multiple domains and can interact with and exacerbate each other – things like poverty/low income, poor parenting practices, family violence and abuse, criminal attitudes and peers, lack of suitable or unstable housing, substance abuse, poor life skills, mental illness, school non-attendance/drop-out, unemployment, excess of unstructured time and boredom.

Persistent offenders are likely to have a higher incidence of risk factors which may be more acute. An important point to consider is what age we, as a society, think it is reasonable to expect a young person to be able to change these aspects of their lives, particularly if they directly feed into their persistent offender pathways.

Increasing surveillance and penalties are likely to cast the net wider and deeper – more youths in the population will be identified as offenders, and more offenders will be placed on community-based supervision and detention – and for longer periods of time. This can be done at considerable cost – it costs taxpayers $89,425 per youth on community-based supervision per annum and $761,390 per youth in detention per annum. After completing their orders, 57% return for more supervision within 12 months.

Therefore, this is an expensive option that does not appear to work particularly well at preventing or deterring behaviour. Importantly, this will likely mean more First Nations youth will be drawn into the system, with life-opportunities further reduced given its criminogenic nature. The only positive for community safety is that youth are not able to offend in the community while they are detained. This is a very high price and alternatives are available.

“Increasing surveillance and penalties are likely to cast the net wider and deeper – more youths in the population will be identified as offenders, and more offenders will be placed on community-based supervision and detention – and for longer periods of time.”

Gang

An alternative approach focuses on collaborative partnerships

An alternative approach that is well-suited for holding offenders accountable for their behaviour and addressing its root causes is based on the Griffith Youth Forensic Service (GYFS) model. GYFS provides specialised treatment for adjudicated youth sexual offenders. This model can be applied quite well to treat serious violent youth offenders. It is informed by a wide theoretical and empirical base that integrates individual, ecological, and situational levels of explanation. The approach therefore promotes an understanding of each adolescent’s offending within the context of their development, natural ecosystem, and the immediate offence environment. The model is field-based so operates Queensland-wide including in remote communities, provides multisystemic assessment and treatment intervention to young people, and has a focus on collaborative partnerships including being well linked-in with community and government. The cost of this service to taxpayers was $22,265 per youth receiving treatment per annum (2017-2018 cost), which compares favourably to alternatives.

For communities experiencing higher-rates of offending or particularly types of youth offending, a placed-based problem-solving approach can be used to add an additional layer of community safety. This involves experts, community and government working to break down the problem behaviour/s and examine the main domains or areas where it is occurring, such as in the school or family. We then focus on what can be done to reduce or eliminate the problem, given the specific contextual factors and al that we know about all the different ways of preventing crime. For example, we may use situational crime prevention to inform our altering of the physical environment to design-out crime or use random ‘pulse patrols’ to engage the community and increase the risks for youth offenders. It is vital that these projects are conducted in communities with high offence rates to improve community safety. They must be driven by the right leadership and overarching frameworks and have ongoing government funding and support.

Adopting these two frameworks – specialised field-based treatment services for adjudicated serious violent offenders and place-based problem-solving approaches to address problem community-level issues – may help to prevent the behaviours from occurring in the first place – and prevent victims from having to continually bear the significant costs of offending. Criminal justice system approaches – which are largely reactive – are unlikely to prevent offending from occurring.

Author

Dr Troy Allard is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Griffith University and has 20 years’ experience working in the field of youth justice. His research interests focus on improving understanding about the causes of serious and persistent offending and ‘what works’ to efficiently reduce this offending. He has considerable experience evaluating new approaches and using complex administrative data to promote effective and efficient policies and practices. Troy is currently co-lead of the Queensland Cross-sector Research Collaboration (QCRC) and member of the Research Consultative Forum for the Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council. Previous roles include co-lead of Justice Modelling @ Griffith (2008-2010) and lead researcher on the Griffith Youth Forensic Service Neighbourhoods Project (2013-2015) that designed, implemented, and evaluated crime prevention activities in two communities to reduce youth sexual violence and abuse.