Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

If not us, who? If not now, when? That was the simple challenge I put to the Goldstein community during the election campaign. It applied to revamping climate policy, it applied to revaluing women and girls, it applied to restoring trust in leadership, and it applies to the once-in-a-generation opportunity that is now before us. That's because the Voice is a simple proposition—a simple and generous invitation—but, if we do not accept it now, then when? As Abraham Lincoln so eloquently put it at a time when the United States faced one of its greatest challenges: we must now be touched by 'the better angels of our nature'.

The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 sounds pretty darn dull, but actually it's superexciting. It's about the truth—acknowledging the truth that First Nations people were the original custodians of this continent. It begins a process that will allow us to recognise First Nations people in our Constitution and then give First Nations people a say in the formulation of the policies and laws that affect them. It's as simple as that.

As the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister said in the second reading speech on the bill:

Referendums are an integral part of our democracy; however, the last referendum was held over 22 years ago.

Since that time, the … referendum act … has not kept pace with changes to the … Electoral Act …

The bill makes amendments to replicate current electoral machinery provisions into the referendum context to ensure the voting process and experience is similar to that of a federal election.

The bill also ensures that integrity and transparency measures that currently apply to federal elections will apply to referendums.

These changes are important, but in my view they should be coupled with truth in political advertising laws under the member for Warringah's 'Stop the Lies' bill. Already in the initial stages of this debate we've seen information manipulated and deliberate omission of information during the political discourse. If disinformation is translated into political advertising and set loose via social media algorithms that favour false and negative information, it will spread like wildfire. Democratic processes should be free, fair and trusted, and that means stopping the lies that we see repeatedly during electoral periods. This is even more important in the context of a once-in-a-generation referendum that rests on the framework of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and its three pillars: Voice. Treaty. Truth.

In short, from where I stand, the referendum is about three principles: respect, recognition, results—practicable, tangible results to close the gap for First Nations communities. This is a gap that, by listening to and hearing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, I do believe we can begin to bridge through firsthand advice to parliament from First Nations people through the Voice. And I would say here that the Voice, when it's passed at the referendum, must make sure that those First Nations people who've had little connection with the process to date do indeed have a voice, a seat at the table. It should be built from the ground up, rather than from the top down, as the most prominent advocates have noted. That has been one of the biggest problems in the policies and programs for First Nations peoples to date.

I would make this point here, as we work to modernise this legislation to make it fit for purpose: the Voice is not flippant or kneejerk. This referendum is the culmination of 20 years of patient effort by our First Nations citizens—20 years. Indeed I was struck when reading an article about various efforts to give Indigenous Australians representation that the first Indigenous advisory body, the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee, was announced by the Whitlam government in the year of my birth, 1972. Much as I hate to admit it, that's more than 50 years ago. Then there was the Fraser government's National Aboriginal Conference from 1977 and Hawke's ATSIC from 1990.

A key aim of this referendum is to enshrine the Voice in the Constitution so it's not subject to the ebbs and flows of party politics. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was first read out in 2017. That's six years ago that an invitation was issued. Our First Nations people have been patient in their advocacy, telling us that all the above models designed to improve their situation failed in part because they were designed from the top down, rather than the bottom up. That's why their direct Voice to parliamentarians like us is so important. The government says the referendum is a matter of principle—true, but it's about more than that. It's about practical results: how best to close the gap and spend time, money and effort in a practical way by listening and then taking practical actions. As a parliamentarian I say this firsthand advice will be invaluable.

It was a Liberal Prime Minister, Harold Holt, who initiated the landmark 1967 referendum of which we're all so proud. In principle the Holt Liberal-Country party government was asking voters whether to give the Commonwealth the power to make special laws for Indigenous Australians in states and whether to include all Indigenous Australians when counting the nation's population. The referendum question actually read:

DO YOU APPROVE the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled—

'An Act to alter the Constitution so as to omit certain words relating to the People of the Aboriginal Race in any State and so that Aboriginals are to be counted in reckoning the Population'—

not about what might follow the success of the referendum, not what laws might be enacted, not what policies might be adopted; simply the principle. Harold Holt didn't have to put up with the misinformation and disinformation that are already emerging around this referendum, and that's one of the reasons it was carried with a record majority of over 90 per cent, even though a second proposition in that referendum was defeated. Voters were able to make a distinction between what they wanted and what they did not, because decision makers and opinion leaders were united on the initial proposition but not the second. One little-mentioned and likely unintended effect of that referendum is that it took all reference to Indigenous Australians out of the Constitution—60,000 years of history and custodianship of this land, and not even mentioned. Here we have a once-in-a-generation chance for a next step.

Referendums are about principles. Parliaments are about laws. I have had discussions with some who oppose the Voice. I hear the concern about entrenching failed structures and about the need for female leaders to be a key part the Voice and indeed for a diversity of opinions and positions from Indigenous people who may not always be heard. We must be very careful when we reach the time for legislating to ensure these issues are considered and properly incorporated. The voices of those who are articulating valid concerns should be listened to as the process moves forward, but the principle stands.

In the marriage equality survey of 2017 the Goldstein community voted in favour with 76.3 per cent, well above the national average of 61.6 per cent. Based on the feedback I've received so far I believe the Goldstein community likely has a similar view on the Voice and this referendum. I campaigned on equality during the election campaign, and I know this resonated deeply with women in the Goldstein community and young people. The marriage equality ballot of 2017 saw an upsurge in enrolments from young people. They saw in that result that democracy works and their participation matters. It is one of the reasons, I believe, that young people flocked to the polls in record numbers last year. We need their confidence to ensure the enduring quality of our democracy, and for young people this referendum is another watershed.

For them, for the kids I talked to in and around Goldstein, what this referendum is seeking is a given. It not a contested space. As my 16-year-old son puts it: 'Mum, the voice is a huge opportunity for Australia to come together and begin a more formal road to reconciliation. It'll bring the nation closer than it ever has been before, improving the lives of Australia's First Nations people.' The kids are alright. He doesn't want to go down the wormhole of mis- and disinformation, distraction and distortion.

Infinite regress is a typical tactic of those who don't want to address the substance of an issue. It is simply to distort and confuse. It's one of the reasons why it's urgent that this parliament debate the member for Warringah's bill to stop the lies in political advertising, as she puts it in her proposed private member's bill. Also, now that the government has agreed to publish 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets, how will they be fact-checked? What measures are in place to prevent the material in the pamphlets being skewed and manipulated, especially online? It is critical that we see a fair process for what I honestly hope and believe will be a fair result. In the words of the legendary Archie Roach: it's time to write a new story, to accept an invitation from Indigenous Australians for respect, recognition, and results. If not us, who? If not now, when?

See this speech in context