Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Hansard source

When this issue goes before the people of Australia later this year, everyone will have the opportunity to individually have their say by way of a vote, and that is a good thing. I do urge and encourage people to cast their vote based on their own views, formed by their own research into this issue. Many correspondents, from my electorate and, indeed, from elsewhere, have written to me with a view on the Voice, and I do thank them for their correspondence—I do.

Whilst people will have strong opinions one way or another regarding the Voice, and others may have yet to even make up their mind, I've consistently said in public: I hope the referendum and ensuing debate does not cause division within our nation. I fear that it has already done so, in some circumstances. I do fear, and know, that some have used this to drive a wedge into Australia's psyche, into Australia's conscience, and that is a shame. People are entitled to be in favour of—or, indeed, opposed to—the Voice. That is the great aspect about living in a free democracy. But it would be best if debate on this matter did not continue to divide or even worsen the divide within the nation. Divergent views are fine, but let's keep the debate respectful and at all times tolerant. I remain deeply concerned about what the Voice will do to our country and the way in which we are governed—I do.

The Nationals came out, late last year, with a party view on the Voice. There were some who were very pleased at the fact that we did just that, and there were some who were concerned about why we did that. I'll tell you why we did that. It is because, had we not, and had we not had the discussion, I could imagine that, over the Christmas period, where the focus should be on other matters and people should be worrying about family reunions and the like, we would've been picked off by the media one by one, and it would've caused a huge debate and uproar about where we stand individually and where we stand collectively on this matter. We took the valued and principled position that we would say what we thought as a party.

The Nationals recognise the immense challenges impacting many Indigenous communities, including domestic and family violence, health care, substance abuse, child safety, education, housing and unemployment. One of the things that the Nationals were very concerned about was the withdrawal of the cashless welfare debit card. We know what a difference it made to the communities we serve. We know what a difference it made because we are on the ground, talking to people—talking to families. We're talking particularly to women in those families, who saw the impact of alcohol and substance abuse lessen, reduce; who saw the difference it made in their ability to send their kids to school with what they needed as far as uniforms, school educational resources, and, indeed, even food in their stomachs—in many cases, for the first time in a long time. And yet this government decided to take that opportunity away.

Australia's had an Indigenous representative bureaucracy before. It was called ATSIC, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. It was notorious for its inefficiency, its wastefulness and its dysfunction—it was.

Already there have been many Indigenous voices. In the 47th Parliament, there are 227 elected representatives in the Senate and here in the House of Representatives. Amongst those elected by the people are 11 Indigenous members, and that is a good thing. That is representative. There's also a Minister for Indigenous Australians, who's overseeing a billion-dollar federal department. Additionally, we have the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council; we have land councils; we have more than 3½ thousand Aboriginal corporations; and we have the national Coalition Of Peaks, representing about 80 top Aboriginal organisations, groups which already have an influence, have an impact, give advice and offer support to our decision-making here in this place in Canberra.

As Nationals, we believe that adding another layer of bureaucracy in Canberra won't genuinely close the gap for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. The Nationals want to address the serious issues affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, by delivering frontline evidence based and place based solutions which will help lift Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people out of poverty. We want local decisions, not Canberra-led bureaucracy telling Aboriginal people what's good for them and what's not good for them. We want to stimulate economic participation, generate jobs, improve access to education, enhance the provision of health services and eliminate domestic and family violence.

When I talk about jobs, I talk about such projects as Inland Rail. 302 Indigenous people worked on the Narromine to Parkes first stage of 13 tranches of the Inland Rail, and 197 of those were local Indigenous workers. For many, perhaps even most, it was not only an opportunity they would obviously not have otherwise had but also their first job. I know that Snowy Hydro 2.0, for many of those Aboriginal people who worked on that particular project, and still are, was the first job they'd ever had. They were so proud when I went to the Wagga Beach and talked to a number of them who had been trained and were ready to don the high-vis and whatever else and make their way up to Cooma, Tumut, Talbingo and elsewhere to start on that project. But for Inland Rail this was particularly important, because it was nation building. So many of those people who talked to me, Aboriginal people who were taking up job opportunities—as I say, nearly 200 of them as local residents of both the Riverina and Central West—said to me that they were so excited and that this was going to make such a difference to their families.

That's why I am really alarmed by the fact that—I'm not making a political statement here; I'm just making a factual statement—so many of these infrastructure projects are now on hold because of the 90-day review put in place by the minister. That's 90 days of uncertainty for those Aboriginal people. I fear that the Inland Rail is going to stop where it is, stop in its tracks—pardon the pun. Everybody in here should be really wanting that project to go ahead not just because it's a great project but because of the fact that it's going to provide such great enhancements and opportunities for Aboriginal people.

We believe as Nationals that the bureaucracy should leave Canberra and visit communities around regional and rural town halls and campfires, instead of the bureaucracy coming to Canberra. Each community has vastly different needs. I know that because I've been to Tennant Creek, I've been to Katherine and I've been to Alice Springs. I've been to Mornington Island in the Gulf of Carpentaria, where the mayor, Kyle Yanner, just wants a swimming pool. He just wants an aquatics centre. The Voice isn't going to provide that. Infrastructure investments will.

I know that referenda are supposed to be about detail. I know that Australians generally don't like their founding document to be changed, and that's for a good reason. The Constitution gets interpreted by the High Court. I and the Nationals believe it's absolutely essential we take a sensible, considered, serious and orthodox approach to what is being proposed, by examining the available material in detail—not that there has been enough; not that there has been too much at all. On this matter it is evident the federal government is severely lacking in the detail that they have needed to provide.

But don't just take my word for it. I spoke recently and spent most of the afternoon at a football game with Hewitt Whyman, a wonderful fellow. He's an Aboriginal fellow who served our nation in Vietnam. He came back and trained soldiers at Kapooka, home of the soldier. Hewitt will be voting for the Voice. He told me that, at this stage, he was in favour of it but he didn't have the detail. He said, 'I appreciate it may well lead to benefits for us in the long run, but I'd really like to see more detail.' I understand where he's coming from. I respect his view.

Aunty Cheryl Penrith from Wagga Wagga, a local Wiradjuri elder—I always pay my respects to Wiradjuri people—said, 'We First Nations people are not the people who will ultimately decide this. Everyone gets a vote, including Michael,' she told the Daily Advertiser, the local newspaper, that being me. She added, 'This is something that will be seen on the world stage, and I think we need to have a think about what we want the country to look like.' I respect her view.

I know that Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is leading the campaign against the Voice, and she has lived experience. I very much value the views that she has put across publicly. I understand exactly from where she's coming. She's an outstanding Australian. And I take onboard all my local constituents, such as Kevin Smith from Forbes. He told me that he is totally against the Voice, that it will divide us by race, that we are all Australian no matter who we are. Len Oliver of Cowra said that, from his conversations with people, there appears to be almost no information or detail on the Voice. Everyone he'd spoken with about this matter did not want any change to the Constitution under any circumstances.

I also know that amongst the dialogue discussions and regional consultation that took place to devise the Uluru Statement from the Heart, my electorate was not represented in those. In fact, the closest was Dubbo, which is a long, long way from Wagga Wagga. That's a shame, because when we talk about local and regional influence it is a shame that one of the largest Wiradjuri electorates—an electorate which, at the census of 2021, had little over 12,000 Aboriginal people—was not represented in those dozen dialogue discussions and one regional consultation to take place. At the end of the day, everyone will have their chance to have their say via the ballot box. That's a good thing. Whatever the result, I hope that all Australians work together to build a better nation, one in which we can all thrive.

I want to take issue with some of the virtue-signalling organisations such as our sporting organisations, including the Australian Football League and the National Rugby League. Particularly in the northern reaches of my electorate, sometimes you see Aboriginal footballers and others in the northern Riverina league who can barely get to games because of the wide travelling they need to do, and they can't even afford a pair of footy boots. Yet we have the displays that we had in the Indigenous round. It was quite entertaining. I appreciate that, both the spectacle before the game and the close contests on the field. But when the AFL spends that amount of money, I would love to see them spend a little bit more on the outer reaches of their country communities who give so much to the great national sport that Australian Rules is. When it comes to rugby league, and I listened closely to the member for Parkes—he and his wife, Robyn, have bought jumpers for a couple of football clubs so that they can field teams. But they're disappointed too that the NRL doesn't always extend the reach, the support and the finances to some of those Aboriginal communities that absolutely love their rugby league.

Then, of course, you have the banks, that are closing branches and calling it 'property consolidation' and it is great because it lowers emissions. I cannot even fathom that, as to one of the reasons why bank closures seem to be a good thing. They're closing banks in areas where they're so sorely needed by Aboriginal people. That to me is just unforgivable and unfathomable. One figure I heard bandied about earlier today was 92 branches of major banks being closed in country areas in just the last nine months. That is terrible, and it's particularly terrible for Aboriginal people who use those banking services. It's simply not good enough.

Everybody's going to have their say. That is a good thing. I just hope that, whatever the result is, we can genuinely and earnestly and honestly and passionately work together to continue to close the gap. We're not doing well enough at the moment, and I'm not sure the Voice is going to—if it does get up—succeed in closing the gap. But there are challenges out there. The removal of the cashless welfare debit card did not help our Aboriginal people or communities and I'm not so sure the Voice will, if it ever gets up, either.

See this speech in context