Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I wish to start not with my own words but with those of Torres Strait Islander man Thomas Mayo, a father, wharfie and author. I will quote from the preamble to Thomas's book, Finding the Heart of the Nation: The Journey of the Uluru Statement towards Voice, Treaty and Truth:

If Australia were a child, she would be traumatised by a past that she is told to forget. She has witnessed her custodians being murdered and raped, scattered to the margins of society. She suffers for what she has seen. She cannot forget. Her heart beat is fading.

Thomas, who I met three years ago when he visited my electorate, wrote his seminal book in 2019. It charts the long and inspiring journey that resulted in the historic moment in 26 May 2017 in Uluru, when First Nations people from across the width and breadth of these great southern lands gathered to sign the Statement from the Heart. As Thomas says:

Those custodians came together, reached into their own hearts, and gifted us with a roadmap to find the heart of the nation …

We are being asked today to accept the gift that has been offered, to walk alongside First Nations people, to recognise them as the original inhabitants of these lands and to enshrine forever that they should have a voice. First Nations peoples have inhabited these great southern lands more than 65,000 years. Passage of this bill will allow the holding of a referendum to amend the Australian Constitution to recognise them. The Constitution is our nation's birth certificate. It's the foundational document of our democracy. Truth-telling demands that the presence of First Nations people be acknowledged in it.

In the referendum that will follow the passage of this bill, Australians will be asked to vote yes or no to whether a First Nations voice to the parliament and executive government should be enshrined in the Constitution. If the result is yes, then it will be the parliament, this body elected by Australians to represent them, that will decide what shape the Voice takes. It will be the decision of future parliaments to reshape the Voice, if they see fit. If the yes vote is carried, what is parliament or any future parliament will not be able to do is deny a voice, because the right to a voice will be enshrined.

It is important to note that parliament and the executive government are not obligated to heed the advice of voice; it ensures only that it be heard. Decision-making authority will not change. So why make these changes? Because First Nations people tell us that these changes will make a real difference to their lives and their futures. Because they will help heal wounds and bring us together. Because they have been asked for. Because they are the modest requests of a First Nations people whose lands were stolen from them more than two centuries ago.

Opponents have said they want more detail, but no referendum has been preceded by more debate, more engagement by parliamentarians, legal experts and community members than this one—expert panels, parliamentary committees, constitutional dialogues, conventions, referendum councils, codesign panels, draft text, working groups and, just recently, the parliamentary inquiry. Our First Nations People have made a few humble requests. They want recognition and they want to be consulted on matters that affect them—not a Canberra voice but a voice from communities to Canberra. This proposal is not something new. Similar models have been implemented successfully in other countries, including New Zealand and Canada. The concept of an Indigenous voice to parliament is not radical; it is a necessary step towards a better future, and it's a step we can take together.

Celebrated historian Henry Reynolds, who lives in my electorate, wrote an article for the Australian newspaper earlier this month, and Henry, as always, provides some sage advice. He notes:

… there is still a significant block of voters who have not made up their mind. The historical record of referendum campaigns should caution anyone against assuming the result is a foregone conclusion. But much of the commentary concentrates on the consequences that will unfold in the event of a Yes victory. Little thought seems to be given to how Australia would be affected by a rejection of the voice to parliament. The No campaigners appear to assume that they are proponents of continuity, of the status quo. But that will certainly not be the case. Defeat will have wide and serious ramifications.

He goes on to say:

If the referendum goes down it will be one of the most consequential events in the fraught history of relations between the First Nations and the wider community.

Professor Reynolds goes on:

The scars left from this contemptuous rejection will take a long time to heal. But for the Indigenous leaders of this generation who have sought reconciliation, defeat would be profoundly dispiriting. Having pursued the voice because it would provide their communities "with an active and participatory role in the democratic life of the state", where would they turn?

I commend the bill to the House. I look forward to the referendum, and I look forward to voting yes.

See this speech in context