Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Riverina for saying that he hopes the debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 is respectful, and I acknowledge that his tone is just that: quite respectful. But I have to say that this week in the chamber we heard a speech from the Leader of the Opposition that was not so respectful. It was vile. It was actually offensive, and it pains me to reference it here. It was simply a playbook of every lie, every dog-whistle and every scare campaign tactic that they have in their arsenal. It belittled this hallowed chamber. While those opposite denigrate the generosity of spirit that embodies the Uluru statement as mere hubris and stand there and laugh at the possibility of a unified and positive future for this country, those of us on this side of the House have chosen to walk with First Nations people on a journey to reconciliation, and what a journey it has been.

It's my privilege to represent the electorate of Cooper. It is home to a diverse community, including many First Nations people and First Nations organisations. At least a dozen Aboriginal organisations have their services domiciled in the electorate of Cooper. It is named after William Cooper, a Yorta Yorta man who led an absolutely remarkable life He was an Aboriginal activist who petitioned the King back in the 1930s for Aboriginal representation in parliament—for an Aboriginal voice. This petition was presented to the federal parliament in 1937. If we cast our minds back to then, before most of us were alive, in 1937 there were no Indigenous members of parliament—no women members of parliament, for that matter. There were certainly no Aboriginal votes placing any member of parliament in this House. William Cooper was a trailblazer. In fact, now, a century later, First Nations people are still calling for the same thing he asked for: to be heard.

It's difficult to identify a pre-referendum process since Federation that can hold a candle to the process that has led to this point, including the hard work by William Cooper. We are here at this point now to propose the enshrining of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Constitution. No referendum has been preceded by more debate, more engagement and more discussion by parliamentarians, legal experts and community members than this one. Almost six years ago, Indigenous Australians from right across the country gathered at Uluru to deliver a statement after years of discussion, years of sorting out representation and years of distilling an important message. Over 250 delegates supported the statement, and 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were involved in dialogues that led up to that incredible moment—the moment the Uluru Statement from the Heart was drawn and sung into life.

It is a beautiful proposal and quite simple. It asks us to recognise First Nations people in the Constitution and to consult with them on issues that affect them. It's only 440 words long, and you'd think the Leader of the Opposition could find a few moments in his busy schedule to actually digest its significance, because what he and everyone on that side of the House fail to acknowledge, at every single turn, is that it is a generous offer that has been made to us by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. No political party came up with his proposition. It didn't come from conversations in Canberra. It came from them, First Nations people themselves. They ask us to walk with them to a better future, a future with listening at its heart.

The referendum is about two things. It will be about recognition and listening: recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of Australia, and listening to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples when it comes to laws and policies that affect them, because listening to communities does lead to better laws and policies and better outcomes. It does make a practical difference on the ground in areas like health, education and housing, and that is what the Voice will deliver.

Yet, despite this, the Leader of the Opposition stood in his chamber and stoked what they have always stoked: division and fear. I was disgusted to hear him call the Voice a symptom of madness. How can anyone dare to stand with a man who has so debased such a beautiful offer of reconciliation? The Leader of the Opposition and his co-conspirators continuously peddle a lie: that the Voice is a Canberra Voice. Let me reiterate the point put beautifully by Aunty Pat Anderson, who told the joint select committee what the Uluru dialogue delegates had called for:

What they asked for was a voice to Canberra, not a Canberra voice. What we heard in the dialogues was that … people don't want to be politicians. … They don't belong to political parties. They don't want to be going to Canberra to be politicians. They want to serve their community. They want to live in their communities and serve their mobs and their families. They're extraordinary men and women. They've lived their whole lives in their communities helping their own mobs. They don't want to be in Canberra as a Canberra voice.

The opposition seem to be a little confused about where the Voice will come from, despite countless testimonies and direct input from grassroot communities who proposed it. They're not listening, which is why we need a voice. Let there be no confusion about this. The people in this building who continuously peddle misinformation about the Voice are not sitting on this side of the chamber. I can't imagine what is going through their heads or why on earth they would make outlandish claims like the member for Dickson's claim that the Voice will grind our system to a halt, when people like Bret Walker SC, who appears in the High Court more often than any other barrister in Australia, said that the idea of the Voice 'somehow jamming the courts from here to kingdom come as a result of this enactment is too silly for words'. The Solicitor-General's opinion makes it clear. He says the proposed section 'is not just compatible with the system of representative and responsible government prescribed by the Constitution but an enhancement of that system'.

Some First Nations people have asked legitimate questions about the Voice and the referendum, questions that do not dog whistle or throw racist barbs. Rather, these are questions about the future and wellbeing of their communities. Will the Voice cede sovereignty? Will it be tokenistic? Shouldn't we work towards treaty rather than constitutional recognition? Will it represent grassroots voices? Will it take resources away from existing First Nations programs? Will it override state initiatives? These are legitimate questions, more relevant and important than the horrid dog whistling from those opposite. To answer these questions, First Nations communities in my electorate met with the excellent Senator Malarndirri McCarthy. She explained beautifully that sovereignty will not be ceded by anyone, that she herself would not support the Voice if it did. She told firsthand how she saw the Voice making a huge difference for the community and the people she represented. She explained that the Uluru statement will be supported in full, that the Voice will work in conjunction with state processes, that existing programs will not suffer from resource depletion and, importantly, that representation will be what First Nations people wish it to be. It will be determined by them and them alone.

This year, Australians will be given the opportunity to vote in a referendum on a very simple question. Many people will never have voted in a referendum, or, like the many wonderful year 12 students I've spoken to in my electorate, it might be the first time they're exercising their right to vote. This referendum will be history making. It asks us as a country: do we stay the same, knowing that we face a reality where there is an unacceptably stark gap for First Nations people? Or do we take up the invitation to unite our country? To that I say: more of the same is not good enough. The offer that the Uluru Statement from the Heart put forward was a generous one and one I am proud to accept.

See this speech in context