Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Nationals are a party solely dedicated to rural, remote and regional Australia. We are a party that learns from history, and our history has shown us that our bureaucratic efforts haven't closed the gap for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander First Nations peoples. Our vulnerable communities have real issues—issues that our Canberra public servants don't live through and have no real understanding of. There need to be frontline, evidence based and place based services to empower our First Nations peoples and their elders while respecting their culture.

When we head to the polls, Australians are going to be asked whether we will support a constitutionally enshrined Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice to parliament. Australians have the right, when being asked to vote in a referendum, to have the detail and to know what the consequences are for voting 'yes' or voting 'no'. Prime Minister Albanese has deliberately geared his 'yes' campaign around emotions and virtue-signalling and not the facts. The coalition has asked 15 questions on this Canberra voice, and, to this date, not one of these questions has been answered. Are we not entitled to know exactly what the Voice means to all Australians? Instead, it seems our Prime Minister wants to shame us into voting 'yes' and to make us feel we are racist if we vote 'no'. This is just not the Australian way.

Crucially, a core component that underpins our free democratic society in Australia is that all Australians are equal. In my previous role as Mayor of Whitsunday Regional Council, I had the privilege of conducting many Australian citizenship ceremonies, and part of this role was to explain to the new citizens what the values of being Australian are all about. Australian citizenship is a common bond which unites all Australians whether they're Australia's traditional peoples, first generation migrants or the descendants of early settlers. Our rich heritage stems from the contributions made by all the people who live in our country. After all, we are the melting pot of the world. But enshrining the Canberra voice into our Constitution will do nothing but divide us. Any constitutionally enshrined body based solely on a person's race does not align with our values or principles—and nor should it. Amongst our elected federal representatives, there are 11 Indigenous members, who represent all of their constituents, not just some of them. I, too, was elected to represent all of my constituents, no matter their race, religion or gender, and that is what I will continue to do.

The Australian people want unity. And unity is what they deserve. A government that deliberately creates a racial divide and is deliberately not transparent is not a government that deserves to lead our nation.

For these reasons, I will be voting 'no' to the Canberra voice to parliament. And it's fine for the Australian people to vote 'no'. It's not racist to vote 'no'. And I believe: if you don't know, then vote 'no'.

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Many millennia ago, a child played on a vast land as the warm sun kissed their skin. Eucalyptus danced on the breeze as a lorikeet sang its melodic song. The ochre earth embraced the child's bare feet as they explored the sacred grounds. In the distance, the rhythmic chant of elders resonated, carrying ancient stories and wisdom that mingled with the scent of burning wood. In this place, a child's senses intertwined with the land, sacredly connecting them to their ancestors, their culture and the timeless spirit of Aboriginal Australia.

Today, I'd like to acknowledge that this debate occurs on the lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people. And I pay my respects to the custodians of this land, who have played, laughed and loved upon these lands for millennia.

Historians and scientists remind us of the importance of understanding the past. And what a rich past First Nations Australians have had. You should not underestimate the importance of the tight connections of the Aboriginal people to our earth. The Yolngu people knew about the links between the tides and the phases of the moon before Galileo.

I know that keto diets are all the rage—low carbohydrates and high protein. Interestingly, traditional Aboriginal diets are the same: berries, bush nuts, roos and shellfish. They're low-GI, too.

Maggie Dent, our beloved parenting expert, stresses the importance of outdoor play for children's holistic development. Outdoor play provides opportunities for exploration, physical activity and connection with earth. First Nations Australians have known this for thousands of years.

One of the risk factors for postnatal depression is a limited social network. There's a reason we say that it takes a village to raise a child. This is why the kinship system extends to aunts, uncles and cousins and is a key part of Aboriginal culture. This support network sustains and nurtures.

The rich tapestry of Aboriginal culture is something that should be a source of pride for all Australians. Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in our Constitution will help Australia become a more mature country.

I'd be naive to think that Australia's First Nations history is all rosy. Intergenerational trauma is real. Imagine being ripped away from a land that nurtures both your body and your spirit. For me that would be like being kicked out of my weatherboard home in Kambalda whilst simultaneously my local Catholic church is knocked down—yes, sacrilegious.

Forced assimilation policies included the eradication of language and culture. My parents did not teach me their mother tongue. I can cook curry, but I've missed out on a whole chapter of my cultural history. When I went to India earlier this year I felt lost not knowing Hindi.

Of course, there's the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families. Felicity and Lincoln are my world. If someone took them away from me, I would be heartbroken and a shell of myself. Nothing could fix this. Who would know how my son and daughter would grow up? They would not know how deeply I care about them. Of course, the trauma would repeat itself.

Let's talk about closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. In March this year a whopping 11 metrics were not on track and only four were on track. In a country that is as developed as ours some of these results are shameful. Increasing the birth weight of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander babies is not on track. Only 47 per cent of First Nations Australians have completed a certificate III or above. This is not on track. Employment outcomes are not on track, but they are improving. Appropriate housing is also not on track. Suicide rates are worsening for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We are going backwards and people are dying.

Part of the Uluru statement says:

Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.

Many of these metrics are shocking. Waiting for a royal commission or a Four Corners episode to expose one of these metrics is not efficient. We have a simple systematic solution and it's called a voice to parliament. As a scientist I know that the definition of 'insanity' is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Voting yes is very easy. It costs voters very little, but there is so much to gain for First Nations Australians.

I recognise that statistically Australians know more queer people than they do First Nations Australians, so they don't necessarily have the experience of having an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander mate. But the principle of a fair go is something that resonates strongly with all Australians. I was so proud when Australians voted yes in the marriage equality plebiscite, including in my electorate of Swan.

I was recently speaking with a dear older gay friend. She explained to me that after the 'yes' vote for marriage equality something inside her fundamentally shifted. She felt a greater sense of belonging in our community. She had a good upbringing and was an amazing teacher. Do you know what? She had a loving childhood and adulthood. Now I imagine the positivity that will come from a 'yes' outcome on the Voice and how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders will feel—they will walk a bit higher, feel a greater sense of belonging and walk in both worlds.

During crises like bushfires, average Australians step up and help each other. There is an outpouring of donations, people call up and volunteer and they have a lot of love to give. We step up because we want our community to succeed. Right now we have a crisis in Australia: Australia is systematically failing our First Nations people. Australia: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders would like to know that you have their back and that you want them to achieve their fullest potential. This is an opportunity to write history by voting yes. The Australia that I know is deeply generous. My parents experienced this generosity from day one when they arrived in Kalgoorlie. I'm confident that Australia will continue to show its generous spirit and its belief in a fair go for all. For 200 years First Nations people have been asking to be the masters of their own destiny. In 1967 they were counted, and today they seek to be heard. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reconcile the past with the present to build a better future.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We'll be supporting the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill because the opposition believes and has resolved that the Australian people should get their say on the question of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. For that reason, it will pass through this chamber swiftly with the support of the chamber. However, I'm vehemently opposed to this proposal being put forward by the government. Let's be frank, the Voice, if you were to distil it into categories, is four things: it's risky, it's unknown, it's divisive and it's permanent—it can never be removed.

I might just touch briefly on each of those components. It's risky. We know from the most recent discussions and hearings in relation to the Voice that legal opinion is split. I suppose that's not a huge surprise, to have legal opinions split on any question, quite frankly. As a former lawyer, that's the nature of the beast in the law. But, even for those eminent people who are huge advocates of the Voice, they themselves had to concede that, in the end, the arbiter of the Voice—what it means, the fact that a new chapter will be inserted into our Constitution, the way it interacts with the parliament and executive government—will ultimately be the High Court. It won't be determined in here. It won't be determined through the democratic will of the people. It will be determined by judges in the High Court. That's inherently risky.

In essence, what we've got is a proposal from the Prime Minister that says to the Australian people, 'Vote for this on Saturday and then we'll start working on the detail on Monday, after you've already voted for it and it's already in our Constitution.' If you were going to buy a new car or a second-hand car, you'd go to the dealer and they'd say, 'Buy it now and pay for it now, and then we'll let you test drive it on Monday.' That's essentially what the Prime Minister is suggesting. This is the first time that a proposal of this magnitude is being put forward without there being a full constitutional process where people will come together and argue the merits of these and other things, just like the Howard government did in relation to the republic debate in the 90s. It was a very big process. Here we've got a Prime Minister and a government determined to provide as little detail as possible. That adds to the risk. If I were to be a defender of the government and the Prime Minister, I'd defend them by saying, 'Inevitably, every single proposal to alter the Constitution, of its very nature, is risky.' There is some inherent risk involved. But here you've got the government pouring fuel on the fire, adding to the risk by saying: 'Well, we'll work out the details later. Give us the blank cheque now. Buy the car now, and then you can test-drive it on Monday.' Well, that is hugely risky. It's unknown.

Clearly, for those of us like me, who feel that we are fortunate to have some of the best democratic and constitutional arrangements in the world, our Constitution shouldn't be trifled with. The Prime Minister often refers to the Constitution as the nation's birth certificate. It's really the nation's rule book. It's a rule book more than a birth certificate, and it's a rule book that cannot be changed back easily once it is changed, if it were to be changed. I think the fact that, on this body, the basic questions either cannot or won't be answered by the government adds to that sense that this is unknown. What is the likely impact to democracy in Australia, our political system and the way in which government operates in those circumstances?

It's divisive. It's funny how people with similar experiences can draw such different conclusions on questions like this. I've listened to a few speeches in the chamber. I have a Lebanese background: my father came from Lebanon. So I grew up in a family, like millions and millions of Australian families, where we were a bit different, I grew up in Ringwood, in my electorate of Deakin. There weren't huge numbers of people from Lebanon there. So I grew up in a family that was not of the predominant ethnic background in the area. The thing that my father always emphasised to me—and, to be frank, it was emphasised to every one of my generation—was that we don't ever judge anyone by their heritage or ethnicity. Equally—and this was always of great comfort to me—it didn't matter if your family went back to the First Fleet or whether your family went back 60,000 years or whether your family arrived a couple of years ago and were at last night's citizenship ceremony; the minute you were an Australian citizen, you were, in every single way, equal. There was no grading. There were no different rights or different rules for one or the other. Once you were on the team, you were part of the team, irrespective of your background.

So, to be frank, it horrifies me that people with a similar background to mine—many on the other side of the chamber—form a completely different conclusion: that in fact now we're going to reinsert a concept where we judge people, or there are different rights conferred on people, depending on the blood flowing through their veins or on their heritage or ethnicity. I'm staggered. We all know the famous and laudable language of judging people by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin. Yet perversely, in 2023, we now have a proposal to completely move away from what I think has been a cornerstone of this country: that we have equality of citizenship and equality in every single way. That means, as I said, that it doesn't matter whether you were at the citizenship ceremony last night or whether you can trace your family back to the First Fleet; you get one vote. We all get one vote. We all get to have a say. We all get the opportunity to run for parliament if we want. We all get to express ourselves in a democratic way, equally, without any view to ethnicity. I think that's extremely important in a multicultural society. There are a million Indian Australians. There are around a million Chinese Australians. Why should they be treated any differently to somebody who traces their family, as I said, many, many generations back or, indeed, thousands of years?

It's been noted on this side of the House many times that there are 11 Indigenous members of this parliament, and they are not elected to just represent Indigenous Australians in their electorates, states or territories; they're elected to represent everybody. As the member for Deakin, I'm elected to represent everybody in my electorate irrespective of their ethnicity. In fact, other than a curiosity, maybe, in conversation, asking someone their ethnicity, as their member of parliament, before you go to help them is not something you would do; it's not something I think anyone here would do. We're elected to represent everybody irrespective of their heritage. We're elected to represent everybody irrespective of their political views, and the better members of parliament in this place will represent those people who are vehemently opposed to them politically as much as they will represent those who are strong supporters.

The idea that we're going to import some of the worst aspects of US culture here, where we're going to create or emphasise a race based society, is, I think, sad. I'd like to think most of us are pretty blind—and I truly believe most Australians are—in that most of us do not look at ethnicity or heritage when we interact with people, when we are working with somebody, when we are representing people as a member of parliament. Yet here we've got an extraordinary proposal from the government—absolutely extraordinary—that, for two people living in the same town, living on the same street, living next door to each other, in the same socio-economic circumstances, with the same challenges with access to health or the same challenges with crime or access to jobs, potentially one of those two will be conferred different democratic rights on no other reason than the blood flowing through their veins—their heritage, their ethnicity. To be frank, if, when I was first elected 10 years ago, somebody said we would be seriously debating the idea that we were going to separate ourselves on race and have different groups of citizenship in this country, I wouldn't have believed it. But, alas, here we are.

The other thing that is worth mentioning in relation to these issues is the permanency of them. The government want a blank cheque. They want to, in a sense, appeal to the big-heartedness of Australians, to say, 'If you do this thing, vote for this Voice, which we're not going to tell you much about, we'll work out those details later, but it will provide all these practical benefits to Indigenous Australians.' I'm sure that even members of the government wouldn't be too bold in promising that that would occur; I think that would be a huge stretch, and would be making a promise that would be very difficult to keep. But that's really the intention of their campaign. In fact, I saw the first ad from the 'yes' campaign, which didn't really mention the Voice at all; it just mentioned recognition. It studiously avoided talking about the Voice. I suspect they did that because, for most Australians, there is now a rising level of resentment that they're not being trusted with the detail. I think Australians are quite rightly saying: 'Well, look, I'm happy to examine this with an open mind, but give me the detail.' Answer some of the questions. What is this thing going to look like? How many thousands of public servants are going to be employed? Will this body be entitled to proffer a view on defence policy, on our treaty arrangements or on economic policy? The plain reading of what is being proposed by the government is that this is a body that would have an unfettered ability to provide its opinion on anything.

Again, the 'yes' campaign ads talk about 'matters that affect Indigenous Australians'. Well, I hate to break it to the government, but I'm a non-Indigenous Australian, and every single part of government policy impacts me in some way, shape or form, and I can imagine it's exactly the same for an Indigenous Australian. An Indigenous community would be as interested in defence policy as anyone else. So you can't say—and the government is certainly not saying—that the Voice will be confined in its scope.

The government are saying two things simultaneously. On the one hand, they are saying this is a momentous change that is going to bring in a massive benefit to Indigenous communities suffering disadvantage, and at the same time the Prime Minister runs around and says: 'This is a very modest change. Nothing to see here—very modest—nothing to be worried about.' They cannot see the inherent inconsistency of those two positions. Either it's a momentous change or it's a modest change; it cannot be both simultaneously.

I will be opposing the Voice. I think it would be a retrograde step for our country to have classes of citizenship. Why would you want to alter the best democracy in the world?

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Early Childhood Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The referendum that Australians will have a say on later this year is an opportunity. It's an opportunity to address the injustices of the past and an opportunity to create change to deliver a better future for this country. Before I contribute to this debate, I want to pay my respects to the traditional owners of the lands on which this parliament meets, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, and I also want to pay my respects to the traditional owners of the lands covered by the electorate of Cowan, the Whadjuk people of the Noongar nation.

Let's take a moment to reflect on that word 'respect'. It's a simple word—the subject of a lot of famous songs—but much more complex in practice. When we acknowledge country and pay our respects to the traditional owners, it shouldn't just be lip service. It shouldn't just be something automatic that we do because we have to. It should be a real recognition, a substantive recognition, a heartfelt recognition, an authentic recognition of their unique relationship with the lands and the waterways that has lasted for 65,000 years and has endured violence, cruelty and dispossession. It should be a moment to show that we acknowledge this connection and we respect this connection, in every meaning of the word.

Respect is central to the proposed referendum to enshrine an Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Constitution. It's about respectfully recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of Australia—something that was denied them and continues to be denied them—with 65,000 years of history and a continuous connection to this land. It's about respectfully listening to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people when it comes to the laws and the policies that we enact in this place that affect them.

Those laws and policies don't affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the same way that they affect me. I take the point that the previous speaker made that when a law or policy is made it affects him as well. Sure, laws and policies affect us all, but they affect us differently. A law or policy affects me differently than it does a First Nations person living in Carnarvon in Western Australia. That is the point to be made. When we do make laws and policies, we need to understand how they impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people differently. The only way that we can do that is to listen to them—to really listen and to really respect them.

I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge and to address that there is a whole lot of misinformation and fearmongering that has, sadly, found its way into this conversation and this debate about the constitutional alteration, on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. There is a lot that has been falsely said about there not being enough information on the Voice, as the previous member waxed lyrical about. That is simply not true. I'd like to put it down to wilful ignorance on the previous member's part, because the fact is that there is a plethora of information available—and in multiple languages, might I add. The Uluru Statement from the Heart itself has been translated into more than 60 languages. Information on the Voice is available online, in multiple languages. And let me say this: if you can google a recipe for a chicken curry, you can google the Voice and you can find the answers to all of those questions that we keep getting told there are no answers to. All the information is out there. Not having enough information should not be an excuse. And, quite frankly, it is the position of those who say 'no' to continue to say that there is not enough information, in order to have an excuse to oppose the Voice. It's there. It's free. It's available. It's accessible.

The claims by those opposite that there is no information, and that this is something new, ignore the fact that the Voice itself has been the subject of discussion for at least a decade—that First Nations people, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, have been calling for a voice for a decade. It precedes this government. It precedes the previous government. It is not a Labor thing. It is not a Liberal thing. It is not a Nationals thing. It is something that our First Nations brothers and sisters, who have cared for this land for 65,000 years, have asked for. And, quite frankly, the very least we can do is to honour that request, if we truly respect the traditional owners of the land.

I'd also like to address some of the most, quite frankly, racist commentary that I've heard about the Voice. I want to specifically address the inappropriate likening of the Voice to apartheid in South Africa, which I have seen in discussions about the Voice. I say to people who liken the voice to apartheid: how dare you! How dare you hijack the atrocities of apartheid for politicking. Let me explain this simple fact yet key difference. Apartheid meant that black and coloured people in South Africa had shorter life expectancy, lower levels of education and higher incarceration rates. If this sounds familiar, it's because they're the same conditions that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are facing today.

The previous speaker said: 'The minute you were an Aussie citizen, you were in every way equal.' I would say to that member that, for at least two centuries, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have not been equal in this country. That is a sad state of affairs, and we have an opportunity to rectify that.

I'll add to that. It's a sad state of affairs, but it's not for lack of trying. We've tried. We have Closing the Gap. We've tried different things, but they have not worked, and the reason that they have not worked is that they have been imposed on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country have not been included in the development of the policies and programs that either were specifically designed for them or had an inadvertent adverse impact on them. The Voice is a key, vital and important step to addressing the Closing the Gap measures, those measures that we have failed on for too long. It's time for us to mean it when we say we respect our traditional owners, it's time for us to mean it when we say we want to listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and it's time for us to mean it when we say we want to close the gap.

We know that outcomes are better when we work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to address their issues, and the Voice will make a real and practical difference on the ground in areas like health, education and housing. We know this because we have evidence to this effect. I used to be a researcher. In many ways I'm still a researcher, because I still love reading academic papers. All the research tells us that, when you co-design things, consult people, talk to people and allow them to have an input into the policies, practices and laws that are going to affect them, you get better outcomes. It's a fact. It's an irrefutable fact backed by evidence and research across a number of areas, whether it be in consultation about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or whether it be when we're talking about different communities. Each and every one of us here knows that, because each and every one of us is here to represent our communities, and you don't do that without talking to your community. I don't get to come in here and represent the people of Cowan without talking to the people of Cowan, asking the people of Cowan what the issues are for them, making myself accessible to the people of Cowan and listening to, respecting and recognising the people of Cowan. It is a first principle that drives pretty much each and every one of us in this place. We don't come in here thinking that we're going to be able to represent our communities without talking to them, listening to them and consulting them. How can we deny this to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people when that is what they've been asking for for at least a decade?

I stand here in this place proudly representing my electorate of Cowan. I am supremely honoured to be here as the member for Cowan, because I have the privilege of seeing the very best of my community, and I am continually in awe of them and grateful for their generosity and their compassion and their warmness. I know that, when referendum day comes, they will vote for respect, and as a community we will prove that the Uluru statement, expressed from the heart, was received in the hearts of millions of Australians. I believe that we're ready to change the Constitution. I believe that Australia is ready to change for the better. I believe that history is calling. We have a choice: whether to write a future for this country where all people walk together and where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people no longer have higher mortality rates, higher incarceration rates, lower education rates and lower school completion rates; or—the other choice—whether we relegate the voice of our First Nations people to the margins of history, as it has been for 200 years.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill. As the Member for Indi, I want to first acknowledge the traditional owners of the lands across my vast electorate—lands of the Bpangerang, Dhudhuroa, Waywurru, Jaitmatang, Taungurung and Yorta Yorta peoples. I honour the resilience, the wisdom, the dignity, the scientific knowledge, the stories and art of the world's longest surviving culture, and I pay my respects.

I thank the member for Cowan for making it so profoundly clear what I mean when I say I pay my respects to their elders, past and present, and I give gratitude for the treasures of culture that have slowly been revealed to me through the generosity of Aboriginal people I have come to know. They are people like Aunty Valda and the Murray family who gifted to me a message stick when I ran for the seat of Indi in 2019. I carry that message stick with me as I travel across my vast electorate. They gave it to me to keep me safe. I travel with it here to Canberra, and I feel it does keep me safe.

This bill is one step towards accepting the generous invitation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which says:

We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.

We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.

This is an invitation I accept. And I will walk with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples that have called for the establishment of a voice, and I will walk with them to encourage people all over the nation to, like me, vote for yes. I do that with great humility but with enormous hope.

This bill proposes the words that would alter the Constitution. It has four key elements: (1) to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of Australia; (2) to establish an advisory body known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; (3) to provide that that voice may make representations to the parliament and the executive on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; (4) to give parliament the power to pass legislation with respect to matters relating to the Voice.

This bill's proposal has a simple intention: to empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to have a say in the policy and legislation that affects them. I wholeheartedly support this intention, and I am proud to take my place in this historic moment to embrace an Australia that reflects who we are as a modern nation—truly reflects who we are as a modern nation, one looking forward.

For a long time, before I came to this place, I felt that our country had failed our First Peoples. My awareness of this has only deepened over time. Where I live, in Wangaratta, the signs of the Bpangerang people abound. Ring trees, canoe trees and birthing trees signal that these lands are abundant in food and water and spirit. On nearby Mount Pilot we have ancient, sacred rock art. These custodians have protected our environment for tens of thousands of years. Yet, in this same area that we now know is abundant with cultural treasures, there were massacres of First Nations people—evidenced through the names given to localities hidden in plain sight, massacres where the colonial governments looked the other way. We had government policies of moving Aboriginal people onto missions and reserves, removing children from their families, and these policies have had devastating repercussions through our local communities for generations.

Since I came to this place, I have felt it was my responsibility to use my time here—my very privileged time here—to advocate for positive change, in partnership with First Nations Australians. In the last parliament, I worked with former minister Ken Wyatt as a member of his parliamentary working group. I hosted Professor Marcia Langton in Wodonga in 2021 as part of the consultation on the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process, which resulted in many submissions from the people of Indi.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should have a say about a law, policy or program that impacts them. Who could possibly dispute that? They have a right to participate in decisions that affect them and a right to have some power over their own destiny. A Voice will give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people this long-overdue opportunity to participate in the decisions that directly affect them, and it will require the rest of us to listen. The Voice will embed consultation in policymaking. This isn't a new concept. It's best practice. When you consult, the difference in outcomes is profound.

For example, when I worked for the Department of Rural Health at the University of Melbourne, I had the great privilege of working with First Nations people from the Rumbalara Aboriginal Co-operative in Shepparton. This organisation was founded by the extraordinary First Nations leaders from the Cummeragunja walk-off, which occurred in February 1939. It was the first Indigenous mass protest in Australia, and the elders who led the walk-off continued to fight for the rights of the Yorta Yorta community and led the way to the creation of the Rumbalara Aboriginal Co-operative. Their community-led services in health, welfare, disability, elder care, sport and education are highly successful and taught me what is really so obvious: when Aboriginal people have agency to determine their future and to respond to their needs in a culturally safe way, you see success, you see impact, you see empowerment and you see change. My former midwifery colleagues have shared with me the stories and evidence from highly successful Birthing on Country programs led by First Nations midwives and Aboriginal health workers. We saw during COVID the extraordinary success of ACCHOs and local leadership in keeping communities safe.

I am a practical person, I want to see programs that work, and I am confident that a Voice will see programs such as these that I have described as the rule, not the exception. What we're doing now is not working. Nationally, we are failing our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. For too long First Nations people have experienced racism, exclusion and disadvantage. They face barriers in the most fundamental areas: housing, education, employment, justice and health. Successive Closing the gap reports show patchy improvement at best. Government initiatives over decades have done little more than entrench that disadvantage. Poorly designed yet expensive policies which miss the mark or sometimes actually make things up far worse are not good for First Nations people and they are not good for our country.

It's important to be clear: positive impact cannot happen overnight. But I am confident the Voice will bring about positive change on the ground. I support the Voice because it is a considered proposal backed by cultural authority. It's not a new idea. It's not a rushed idea. This idea gained support from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across the country after the detailed grassroots dialogues in 2017 that crystallised in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Over 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives issued the statement calling for this constitutional reform.

Politicians didn't come up with the Voice. This is not what the Leader of the Opposition so disingenuously refers to as a so-called Canberra voice. This is not the government's or the Prime Minister's idea. Some in this place like to use tricky language to pretend that this proposition is elitist. This is wrong. This is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, a simple proposition. The Voice will incorporate local and regional voices, as was intended in the lead-up to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, including in the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process. This will ensure that the interests of diverse communities are represented where it counts.

I've reached out and spoken to First Nations people about the Voice to gauge their perspectives and inform how I support the proposal, and I heard two main things. First, this was a fight that Australians from all walks of life need to carry forward. It does not rest alone on the shoulders of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Second, we must pursue this reform with the dignity and respect with which it was offered. I am not interested in merely voting for symbolic change, because that is not what is being asked of us. The Uluru dialogues reflected opinion polls, which have shown time and time again that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people do not support minimalist or symbolic constitutional recognition. It is not enough to amend the Constitution to simply recognise that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are the first peoples of Australia. A preamble is not enough. A statement of recognition alone is not enough. Over the course of two decades, it has become clear that any constitutional change must provide meaningful, substantive change for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. A voice to parliament and government is simple but it is meaningful. To seek to spread misinformation and to deliberately sow seeds of doubt is both dangerous and disappointing. I implore those participating in this debate: do not seek to divide through your language or through your actions. Do not seek to engender fear.

This bill does not set out the details of the Voice. Purely, it states that an advisory body known as the Voice will be established. This is deliberate and important. Former High Court justices Kenneth Hayne and Robert French, and constitutional law expert Anne Twomey agree with this flexible approach because, again, this is not a new concept. Our Constitution provides a framework for the lawmaking powers of parliament and the organisation of the branches of government—a framework only. This is how our Constitution was first drafted, to give the democratically elected parliament the power to make decisions on the detail. The model for the Voice is no different. It is the right process for Australians to be asked to vote now on the principle, the goal, the aspiration of a voice to parliament and for parliament to make decisions on the detail.

If the referendum succeeds, and I believe it will, I will welcome more discussions about what this detail should look like. I also support the current wording of the bill that says the Voice may make representations to the parliament and the executives. I have listened to and read about the concerns about this wording, and I have again listened to constitutional legal experts. I have met with the expert working group and listened carefully to their recommendations and rationale. I do not have reservations about the wording of the current bill. I encourage those that do to listen to the legal experts.

I have had many conversations with constituents across Indi about the Voice. Without exception, they are respectful, thoughtful and considered conversations. We start with an open mind, we listen, we ask questions, we search for common ground and shared values and we walk away having connected with each other, even if we might not completely agree. Voting for constitutional change is an important moment, and it's natural that people want to understand what they are supporting. My constituents might tell me that they still have questions about the detail or that they're worried a voice will create no practical change to improve lives. These are valid concerns, and it's our job as parliamentarians to share reliable information to make sure that every Australian is making a truly informed decision. Whether we agree with the Voice or not, we can all agree on that part. I'm so heartened by the conversations I have with people in Indi. I truly believe that, if Australians can approach the referendum with good intentions and an open mind, we will be better off as a nation. I encourage those people that still have questions about the Voice to have a conversation with other people, to listen and to understand.

The Victorian Women's Trust and their Together, Yes campaign are a fantastic forum to have a discussion. Join in the conversation. In my electorate, towns like Euroa and Violet Town have dedicated groups of people who are more than willing to have a chat. Reach out to them if you have questions. Gunditjmara woman Judy Ahmat, who has supported me, taught me and led me since I decided to run for Indi in 2019, says that the national apology was a turning point for many Indigenous people in our path towards reconciliation. This referendum is another turning point towards a better way of doing things, of listening, of walking together.

On referendum day, the votes of all members in this place will hold the same value as those of every other Australian. With the Uluru Statement from the Heart, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have invited all of Australia to walk with them, to achieve a voice. I embrace that offer, and I call on all Australians to do the same. Do not lose this moment.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Liberal Party will be supporting the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill because we recognise the government has a mandate to put this constitutional change to the Australian people. We disagree with the change, but we respect that it is a question that the Australian people deserve to have their say on. However, I have asked to be made an authorised dissenter in order to vote against the bill. By voting against the constitutional alteration bill, I will have the opportunity to contribute on behalf of the Liberal Party and on behalf of my community to the 'no' case that will be put forward in the official referendum pamphlet.

I am opposed to the Voice proposal because I see it as a retrograde step that would work against real reconciliation and the achievement of practical results for Indigenous Australians. I am a constitutional conservative, and I'm instinctively sceptical of any changes to our founding document. The Constitution has enabled Australia to be one of the most successful and long-standing democracies in the world and should only be interfered with in the most extreme circumstances. By amending our Constitution to establish this entity, Australia would be opening the door to the possibility of significant High Court interference in our laws and our policy-making. It is important to note that, if the government believes that a voice is such a good idea, it could be created without constitutional amendment. It would be a far more sensible approach to road test the concept and establish a model that works rather than writing it straight into the Constitution.

The framers of our Constitution had the immense benefit of being able to see how the constitutional elements worked in practice within the Westminster and Washington systems. They knew the elements to take and to leave to achieve a beautifully balanced system for our Australian context. But the framers of our Constitution had this benefit, and those proposing this addition to the Constitution do not. In fact, the examples of national representative Indigenous bodies in our history leave a lot to be desired. We have seen so many failed attempts to achieve similar entities, including the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee, in the 1970s; the National Aboriginal Conference, in the late seventies and early eights; the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, which was around from 1989 to 2005; the National Indigenous Council; the National Congress of Australia's First People; and the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council.

The difference for this voice model is that it will be permanent. There will be no reforming or refining or reshaping. It will be permanently affixed to our Constitution without any real idea of how it will work or whether it will be effective. The Uluru statement called for a voice enshrined in the Constitution, but it also proposed a Makarrata commission be established to supervise a process of agreement-making and truth-telling. In essence, the Voice is not the end of the journey but the start of a new era of activism. It is only the first step for activists seeking to establish a treaty or move on to the payment of reparations for historical injustices.

I believe that most Australians are tired of the shifting goalposts of Indigenous policy. Rather than having governments focus on achieving the next big symbolic gesture, my constituents want governments to focus on achieving results and closing the gap of disadvantage. Imagine if all the effort currently being put in by our government, our corporate leaders, our sporting codes and our media outlets to promote the Voice was directed into dealing with one Closing the Gap target. Imagine the impact that could be had if this national effort was homed like a laser beam onto reducing Indigenous suicide rates or improving employment and education outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

I see moves like this as a distraction from the real work required to improve the lot of our Indigenous citizens. Empty symbolism isn't harmless. It distracts the attentions of government, the media and the public away from the real issues that affect vulnerable Australians, and it delivers a false sense of achievement which undermines efforts that get real results. A real example of this is the cashless debit card, a coalition government policy. This policy came from the communities that it sought to support. It was an idea from community leaders that could make a real difference to the health of their communities. Labor's decision to axe the CDC without any consultation with the thousands of Australians who relied on it is having devastating consequences. Community leaders have spoken out about the devastating impact that this is having on their communities, saying the CDC's removal is to blame. Is there anyone in this building who doesn't believe that a policy proposal like the cashless debit card, which came out of local wishes to fulfil a local need, would not be strongly opposed by a future voice to parliament?

Indigenous leaders in my community are telling me that they don't support the Voice as it is currently proposed. They have zero faith that activists in Canberra could look after their interests when they've had such a record of failure from those who purport to lead and represent their people closer to home. They see this model as a cop-out that will give governments more excuses to ignore the local voices that seek commonsense reform and transparency to improve their quality of life.

Beyond these concerns from locals, experts are also raising serious questions about this proposal. The report of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum makes it very clear that the government's proposal contains significant constitutional risks which could affect our system of government. Eminent lawyers and former judges cannot agree on what that risk is, but we know that if the proposal is adopted it will be left to the High Court to decide. Two former justices of the High Court have given evidence to the committee that, if the High Court found that the duty to consider and the duty to consult exist, government would become unworkable. Robert French AC, a retired Chief Justice of Australia and someone who obviously knows a lot about the High Court, gave evidence to the committee investigating this bill that if a duty to consult the Voice was 'found in proposed section 129, "this would make government unworkable"'. Kenneth Hayne AC, a retired Justice of the High Court and a member of the government's Constitutional Expert Group, gave evidence that 'a duty to consult the Voice would "disrupt the ordinary and efficient working of government" to such an extent that it would "bring government to a halt"'.

The truth is that no-one knows what the High Court would do. It is uncertain. That is the very nature of the High Court. It isn't as predictable as the lower courts, and anyone who wants to claim that they know for certain what the High Court will do is kidding themselves. But it is safe to say that there is a risk here. When you've got two former High Court judges saying there's a risk, there's a risk. The government needs to explain specifically why that clause is worth the risk. Australians should not be asked to sign up to this risk without a proper explanation.

The big problem with this risk is that it would be permanent. It can't be taken back once this becomes part of our Constitution. The laws we pass in this chamber cannot out-legislate the Constitution. But there is a better way. The coalition supports constitutional recognition and the development of local and regional voices, legislated by the parliament, which would make a difference on the ground. This is a way to get the advice we need while avoiding the risk and uncertainty of a big constitutional change.

Beyond that, I think we're missing something big here in this discussion of constitutional changes. I want to see section 25 of the Constitution repealed. The Constitution's provisions as to races disqualified from voting are a relic of a past time, when it was envisaged that states might have contemplated disenfranchising voters of different ethnic groups. This section is jarring when you read it in the modern context, and, while it was well meaning at the time, it is clearly a remnant of a bygone period. It is a section that could easily be removed as part of this referendum and would have near-unanimous support, yet this constitutional change has remained in the too-hard basket. In this headlong pursuit of a political outcome on this referendum, the government seems to have put the cart before the horse. Section 25 could have been considered, amongst many other considerations, in a proper constitutional convention. This could have been the opportunity to delve into the complex areas of constitutional law that I've outlined today and come to a consensus position that would have had a much higher chance of success. Unfortunately, Australians have been denied the benefit of a constitutional convention and are still being denied information on critical details of this proposal.

The government is committed to designing the Voice after the referendum and asking Australians to vote on this sight unseen. The lack of detail from the government on the proposal leaves me extremely uneasy. We still do not know: Who will be eligible to serve on the body? What the are the prerequisites for nomination? What definition of Aboriginality will determine who can serve on the body? How will members be elected, chosen or appointed? How many people will make up the body? How much will it cost taxpayers? Who will oversee the body and ensure it is accountable? All these questions and many others remain unanswered. The Prime Minister says that the detail is in the Langton-Calma inquiry report, but he hasn't actually adopted that report. There are different options available in that report, but the Prime Minister hasn't said to the people which parts of that report would be adopted and which ones would be implemented.

Also, the failure of the government to release all the Solicitor-General's advice highlights the lack of transparency that the Labor government has regarding their Canberra voice proposal. If the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General are going to be true to their word and be fair, open and transparent to the Australian people, they should immediately release all of the Solicitor-General's advice about the Voice.

But, beyond the finer details, I'm opposed to the Voice concept in principle. I am extremely reluctant to add something to our Constitution which entrenches race as a concept. In 500 years time, I hope that our Constitution will continue to preside as our supreme law in this country. By that stage, regarding Indigenous or non-Indigenous Australians as separate communities would be as ridiculous as regarding modern-day Englishmen as Normans, Saxons, Angles or Jutes. We need to think long term about creating a united and successful country, not letting our past get in the way of our future.

The government has put us on a journey of national division with this referendum. Rather than seeking a compromise that would secure recognition, they have sought to deliberately pursue a path that will divide public opinion. If this referendum is successful, it will be nowhere near the near-unanimous verdict in the 1967 referendum. If the JSC process is anything to go by, it will be a vitriolic debate that pits Australians against each other rather than bringing us together. It may pass, but at what cost and for what benefit?

The Liberal Party members' dissenting report on this bill makes three recommendations:

Recommendation 1

1.124 The proposal for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice should not be adopted in its current form.

Recommendation 2

1.125 Noting the Coalition will not stand in the way of Australians having their say on the proposal, the Government should amend the drafting of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 to address the significant risks identified through the Committee process.

Recommendation 3

1.126 The People should never again be asked to vote on constitutional amendments that do not have the benefit of detailed public debate, in the form constitutional conventions or similar.

The government's refusal to compromise on these fronts significantly compromises the chances of success in this referendum.

As outlined, while the Liberal Party supports the referendum being put to the Australian people, I'll be voting against the bill, as an authorised dissenter, in order to contribute to the formal 'no' case that will be distributed to Australian households. I ask Australians to review that material carefully, and I ask Australians to vote against this risky and permanent proposal.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to start off by acknowledging that we are on the land of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, where this parliament is. I'd also take this opportunity to recognise that in my own electorate of Adelaide we are on the land of the Kaurna people and to pay my respects to those past, present and into the future. I'd also like to recognise one of the Kaurna elders in Adelaide, Uncle Lewis O'Brien, who never ceases to try and educate people on Kaurna history, Kaurna traditions and Kaurna everything—from mathematics to hunting to science—that they have passed down from generation to generation for over 60,000 years.

In Australia, we pride ourselves on our democratic system of government, on our equal opportunities, on equal rights for everyone, and it's clear Australia is represented by the people for the people. Like all Australians, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should have a significant say in the development of law and policy that affects them. I see this vote as a particular once-in-a-generation opportunity to make Australia a better place. We have an opportunity to listen to grassroots solutions directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We also have an opportunity to deliver constitutional recognition through the Voice.

This necessary alteration will make a huge difference to the lives of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, whilst having no difference to the lives of those who oppose it or vote no. The constitutional recognition of the Voice will lead to more informed and responsive public policy and it would lead to better outcomes. But it means so, so much more. This proposal should have been part of our Australian Constitution in the first place. This is our chance to grasp an opportunity, to move forward and to help heal the wounds. It will give us the opportunity to move towards being a more healed country.

We know this will not fix everything. We know that, and we know that there's a lot of work that we still have to do. That doesn't mean that this work stops. It continues—in closing the gap, in doing everything that we can in this place, from both sides of parliament. This is our chance to be unified on a topic that shouldn't involve any division, arguments or sides, because it's about taking Australia forward into the future.

We are a very different Australia today from the one when the Constitution originally was written. Australia has moved on since those days. The younger generations, especially, want to see all of us here working together to ensure that we respectfully reconcile the past wrongs and look to a brighter future. This is the best chance that we have to address the injustices, which we cannot ignore, and to create change that will deliver true unity.

I hope that all members of parliament will find it in their hearts to see the importance of supporting this positive step forward, a step to recognise Australia's First Nations People, to recognise that these people were here for 60,000 years before any white person came to Australia, to actively work towards creating a more equitable Australia and to listen to the voices of our constituents. In my electorate, they want to see a future of recognition and respect for all Australians, especially Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

We must all remember that the Voice isn't the government's idea. It was a request from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, and we have the power to help make this monumental change in this place. Every one of us here today should want to contribute, in any way we can, to make sure that meaningful action is followed through. I hear in my electorate people who want to see a government that listens and understands, and we must understand the significance that the constitutional amendment will have on our children and grandchildren and for generations of Australians to come.

This is a very significant and important piece of legislation, and the referendum later on in the year will have a positive impact on Australia for years to come. We don't want the next generations to grow up in a world where not recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is accepted. We want our leaders to show how powerful and unified Australia can be, and this is our opportunity to do that, all of us together—the opposition, the government and all community groups. I know I want to be part of an Australia that recognises its wrongs, involves all, listens to all and acts together so we can build a better future for all Australians.

The detriment of not supporting a First Nations voice is another stab to an already bleeding wound for our Indigenous brothers and sisters. Without appropriate and impactful reconciliation there will always be division. We have a chance to ensure past mistakes will not be able to be repeated. Every one of us has that choice, a choice to be part of a long-sought-after, supported, historic change. I implore every member and every Australian to think wisely when deciding what kind of Australia they want to live in. Is it an Australia that moves forwards? Or is it an Australia that will move backwards if we don't work together to push for a First Nations voice? For those who do oppose it, I ask: If not now, when? And if not yes, why not? We are all here in parliament to be a representatives of the Australian people and to help build a positive, unified way forward.

As I said earlier, recognition in the Constitution should have been done many, many years ago. Recognition is about righting a wrong. It is about a recognition of people who have been here for 60,000 years, but it is not just about the 60,000 years but the culture and languages that have been passed down from generation to generation. There is no other culture in the world like it. We have seen empires come and go, yet the First Nations people have been here for 60,000 years.

Before I finish, I will talk a little about the history of the Kaurna people in the Adelaide Plains, where my seat of Adelaide is located. The Kaurna are the original people of Adelaide and the Adelaide Plains. The area is now occupied by the city and the parklands. It was called by the Kaurna 'Tarntanya', or Red-kangaroo Place. This was the heart of Kaurna country. Before 1836 it was an open grassy plain with patches of trees and shrubs, the results of hundreds and hundreds of generations of skilful land management. Kaurna country encompassed the plains which stretch north and south from Tarntanya and the wooded foothills of the range which borders them to the east. 'Karrawirra Pari', or Red-gum Forest River, is the Kaurna name for the watercourse now called the River Torrens, which runs through my electorate. It was an important resource area and a favourite camping place for the Kaurna people, providing their hunting, water, fish and other foods. The Kaurna were usually called by the colonists 'Cowandilla', which was another First Nations word for 'running water', or 'Adelaide tribe'. The term 'Kaurna' is now generally accepted around the Adelaide Plains as the name for the first inhabitants of that area. They spoke a complex language which reflected their sophistication, culture and deep knowledge of the environment. Kaurna society was ordered by a system of structures. They continued their traditional way of life. Official reports, if you look at the documents, noted their declining numbers. The Kaurna were being decimated by the processes of colonisation, new diseases and alcohol. Underpinning everything else which was very, very detrimental to them was the loss of land and livelihood. This took a very heavy toll on them.

The story of the Kaurna people is not much different from First Nations peoples all around Australia. So I ask this place respectfully—members on all sides—to find it in their hearts to vote for the bill. I know I will be supporting the 'yes' vote when the referendum comes. It's really important that we have a respectful debate and ensure that we right a wrong and recognise that this land was inhabited 60,000 years before the colonists came here.

This is one of the most important bills that I have seen in this place. It will make a real change in terms of the recognition of our First Nations people.

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I love this country—a country expansive, desolate, beautiful and yet, at times, brutal. A land of extremes unlike any other place on earth. A land where you can have a cyclone and a bushfire on the same day and not be surprised by it. Over thousands of years, Australia's Indigenous people have made their peace with this land, and it's become part of their soul. Lives infused by the land, the seasons and the stories of their ancestors.

The 2021 Senior Australian of the Year, Dr Miriam-Rose Ungunmerr Baumann, calls the contemplation of this land 'deep listening', 'dadirri'—the ability to stop, contemplate and listen. To listen to the deep waters of our country, to the present as well as times past; to listen and to hear the beckoning of change. This is such a moment for our country and for the home we share, Indigenous and immigrant, drawn from every creed and from every corner of the world.

Today we are seeking to put before the Australian people a change to our shared national document, the Constitution—the document that belongs to all 25 million of us. First and foremost, I recognise that the Constitution is this nation's rule book. A sparse document so frugal with language that its words can fit in your pocket. It is the invisible pillar that holds together the great national endeavour that we have the privilege of contributing to.

Australia is one of the oldest continuous democracies in the world, and this is in part due to the work done by the framers of our Constitution in the 1890s. But it's more than a rule book. The Constitution was also the answer to the deeper challenge that tested the minds of people in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart and Perth in the 1890s. It was the challenge of how to become one people. One people. To no longer define ourselves by the state we originated from, but to be a part of a nation where others would also have a say. The question of that time was: could we build a federation based on trust where every Australian, no matter where they lived, would have a seat at the table? Through patience, listening, compromise, negotiation and finding common ground, the Constitution answered that question. And it can answer that question again in 2023.

Next week marks 125 years since the June referendum of 1898, the first time Australians went to the polls to vote on becoming one people. And in a lovely coincidence, next week this House will have the opportunity to vote on the next step on that journey, to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution.

For a century the question of constitutional recognition has been before us. It stood before us on the day the first Parliament House in Canberra was open, when two Aboriginal men—Jimmy Clements and John Noble—turned up uninvited. Think about that: the opening of the first Parliament House and not one Indigenous Australian invited—and yet they turned up. And despite the half-empty grandstands, the authorities tried to move them along.

And the quest to participate in this democracy continued when the late great William Cooper, the son of Yorta Yorta people, petitioned the king 90 years ago to have seats reserved in this chamber for Aboriginal Australians. Australia can always delight, and I'm sure William Cooper would have been amazed that 11 Indigenous Australians currently sit in our national parliament. Not as the result of a quota, but on their merits; leaders in their own right and embodying the rich plurality of the Australian people. They represent all of their constituents of all races, religions and backgrounds. They are faithful representatives of their parties. They are parliamentarians who happen to be Aboriginal, not representatives of the Aboriginal people of Australia.

Still, the recognition in the Constitution that they talked about for decades has been elusive. It's a tribute to the wonder and faith of Indigenous Australians that even in times of disappointment they've never given up on this democracy. Step by laboured step they've sought progress: the 1967 referendum; the bark petitions; the breakthroughs of Neville Bonner and Ken Wyatt, of Nova Peris and Linda Burney—they all speak to it. And through it all—the frustrations, the failures as well as the progress—the times and the seasons hadn't aligned for constitutional recognition. As Miriam-Rose might say, the time for ripening and gathering had not come. When it did, it was not what anyone expected, least of all me. For that, I marvel at life's mysteries and the extraordinary people that life has brought across my path.

It was about a decade ago that I sat down with a small group of constitutional conservatives and Indigenous leaders and worked on a proposal for constitutional recognition. The flowery words and symbolism-only approach taken for so long was neither attractive to Indigenous leaders or these conservative thinkers, so we started again. We talked and we listened. The idea we developed was different. It was organic, practical, consistent with our constitutional heritage, and a uniquely Australian idea built for Australian conditions. It was called the Voice. It was a way of giving recognition to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who have loved this continent since time began. Consistent with our Constitution, a rulebook which creates the institutions of government, the Voice was practical too. It was about creating new structures to improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

In the years that followed those early gatherings at Greg Craven's study at Australian Catholic University, the question was taken back to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. On the way to Uluru and at Uluru, they were asked what they wanted from constitutional recognition. They said they wanted a means to make a difference to life expectancy, to education attainment, to job opportunities, to incarceration rates and to housing and safety too. They wanted a voice. Instead of rejecting the document that was silent about them for so long, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians embraced it. As put so eloquently in the Uluru Statement from the Heart:

We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.

Empowerment, decision-making, responsibility, accountability, giving back—these are conservative ideals.

The Voice is about Indigenous Australians seeking a greater stake in their own future, no different than any one of us in this chamber or in the communities we represent seek, because it's only through empowerment and responsibility that accompanies it that a difference can be made. That's why I'm an enthusiastic supporter of the Voice—because it's about embracing our shared national project. It's about Indigenous people in local and regional communities and nationally being consulted, getting involved in issues that affect them and making a difference on the issues that have stubbornly not changed for too long.

In a democracy it is right that every idea is tested and even contested, and that is particularly so with the Constitution. Free speech, freedom of expression, the involvement of citizens to make decisions—this is what we celebrate as citizens of the Commonwealth and as parliamentarians. The proposed constitutional alteration has required us all to reflect. In this debate I believe that, given we are dealing with amendment about our fellow citizens, we all have a responsibility to engage in this debate respectively and, I might add, gently. We can't let this debate become yet another place of cultural fraying. For about two decades our shared sense of belonging has been fraying. Our willingness to walk in another's shoes is something few of us contemplate these days. I believe we have a responsibility to do so in this debate. Those advocating for the 'yes' case, like me, have a responsibility to engage with the legitimate questions and doubts that many Australians have. Those advocating for the 'no' case have a responsibility to hear the aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who believe the Voice will make a difference. All of us have responsibility to show goodwill to each other.

In my own case, as I made a decision to move from the frontbench to go to the backbench to prosecute this case, I want to acknowledge the generous personal support I received from my parliamentary colleagues, from my leader, Peter Dutton, and my old boss, Tony Abbott, to so many in the Berowra local Liberal conference and so many of the men and women who sit on this side of the chamber, and indeed the kind words of those from the other side as well. I also want to acknowledge Warren Mundine. He is a passionate and committed leader of the 'no' case, but Warren doesn't miss a chance to send a kind or encouraging word to me. You don't read about any of that because it doesn't fit with the narrative about Peter, Tony, Warren, Jacinta, Kerrynne and our party, but that's my experience. People of goodwill can and do disagree. I believe we need more goodwill in our public debates here, in the media and online because the strength of our country depends on the goodwill between all of us in public life.

It is in the spirit of respectful debate that I want to put the main arguments tonight about why Australians should vote yes at this referendum. The first reason is that the current state of Indigenous affairs is not working. In most referendum debates the argument is put that if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and that's normally a valid and compelling argument. But the system is broken. As a country, despite small progress on some fronts, Indigenous Australians are not enjoying the same opportunities or outcomes as other Australians. The life expectancy of an Indigenous Australian is eight years below that of other Australians. One in two Indigenous Australians live in the most socially disadvantaged areas of the country. Infant mortality is 1.8 times higher for Indigenous Australians than other Australians. The unemployment rate for Indigenous Australians is estimated to be about 30 per cent; that's nine times higher than the rest of the population. The suicide rate for Indigenous Australians is almost 2½ times that of other Australians. One in five Indigenous households are living in accommodation that does not meet an acceptable standard. This and so much more continues to be a shared national failure.

I believe that the Voice creates the frameworks and structures to make a difference at the local, regional and national level. The Voice will be a place for ministers to road-test policy to ensure it has maximum effectiveness when it's translated to community. The Voice will be a vital ingredient in helping to close the gap.

The Voice has been called many things by its opponents: a third chamber of parliament; a fourth layer of government; a new House of Lords. I prefer to call it what it is: an advisory body of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, trying to better direct federal government funds to achieve better outcomes. The Voice is advisory. It won't be Moses handing down tablets from the mountain. The parliament will still be the democratic centre of our national life. The parliament will still be supreme in matters of law and policy. The Voice will advise—just like the security services, the Chief Medical Officer, the Chief Scientist, DFAT and other agencies advise. And it remains with the parliament and the executive to weigh that advice, to consider and reflect on it, and sometimes to reject it, because our duty is to consider the national perspective and the national interest. The same will apply to the local and regional voices. Advice will always be weighed. In fact, the words the amendment uses are 'make representations', a much more modest term than 'advice'. 'Advice' implies mandatory consideration, whereas 'representation' only implies receipt.

The Voice in its different forms will advise on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It will have no interest in where the Department of Finance purchases its paperclips or its recycled paper, as some have claimed. It will not run programs or dish out grants, and it won't have interest in submarines, as some 'no' advocates suggest, as if our subs are going to be painted with Indigenous designs like the fuselage of a Qantas plane. And if the Voice wants to lambast the RBA on interest rates, I say: join the queue.

Rather, what the Voice will do is to work on making our remote communities safer. It will work to rid communities of nicotine and alcohol and ice. It will work to get children to school and keep them there. It will work to address the terrible rates of infant mortality and renal failure in Indigenous communities. And it will work to create local jobs and industries, so that we can break a culture of welfare dependency. Frankly, it will have too much real work on its hands to worry about the boring culture wars of Twitter.

The Voice is not about two classes of Australians. It's actually about eliminating the differences in economic and social outcomes that separate Indigenous Australians from other Australians.

Some say that the Voice will give Indigenous Australians a place of privilege. Does anyone really believe that Indigenous Australians occupy a place of privilege? If they do, let them go to Laverton and Leonora; let them go to Ceduna; let them go to Palm Island; let them go to Aurukun; let them go to Alice Springs. There, and in hundreds of communities around Australia, Indigenous people are burnt out from generations of government policy failure. I honour those Indigenous people seeking to make a difference in their communities, as nurses and paramedics, police and community workers, teachers and public servants—working every day, simply for the hope of a better day. The idea of special privilege is nonsense, because in too many places it's simply about survival.

Tonight I know there are many Liberal and National voters wrestling with how to vote at the referendum. To them I say that the Voice is seeking to accomplish things in accordance with our values and history. We might not trumpet our virtues as others do, but we've always been on this journey. Robert Menzies gave Aboriginal people the right to vote in Commonwealth and Territory elections and established AIATSIS, that national treasure that seeks to preserve Indigenous language and culture. Harold Holt brought the 1967 referendum to a successful conclusion. John Gorton appointed the first Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Malcolm Fraser passed the first land rights act. John Howard made the first attempt at a referendum for constitutional recognition. And Scott Morrison secured the National Resting Place and built a historic partnership with the Coalition of Peaks.

In the months ahead, many will deploy the names of Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton and others, trying to make this referendum an extension of our day-to-day political debates. It's not. This is not the choice of politicians. This is the choice given to all of us, as citizens. At the referendum, the burden of responsibility rests on us all.

For me, I'm looking forward to supporting the 'yes' campaign. It will be a journey that I hope to share with Australians from all walks of life, particularly from my community. On referendum day, my wife, Joanna, and I will walk to the end of our street to the local school, where we'll help set up and work on a booth. On that day, we're going to bring biscuits, sandwiches, refreshments and drinks for the workers on both sides, because no matter what side you're on in this debate all of us are Australians who love our country and want the best for it. I believe in the Voice. I will campaign for it, and I will vote yes for it, because the time for constitutional recognition and a voice has come.

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On Monday morning I found myself here in this chamber, being the dutiful backbencher that I am. I happened to be in here when the Leader of the Opposition launched into his ugly attack on the Voice. Thankfully, since then I've also heard from many others who gave this matter the respect and dignity it deserves, just like the extraordinary contribution we've just witnessed here from the member for Berowra. I thank him for his considered position and dignity that he's giving to this debate. Yet those mean and nasty words of the Leader of the Opposition have stayed with me since I heard them on Monday. I guess what has kept them with me is that, at this point in time right now, he has seized this once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring our country together, our once-in-a-generation opportunity to listen to communities across the nation to continue on a path to reconciliation, and, instead of seizing that opportunity, he's used his 15 minutes here to engage in fearmongering and the politics of division. He's relied on the talking points of shock jock's and conspiracy theorists while perpetuating misinformation regarding the proposed constitutional alteration.

As I sat there on Monday unwillingly absorbing that disinformation, someone messaged me and challenged me to use my speech and my time in this place to call him out, and so I will. The Leader of the Opposition claims that:

If Australians vote for change, then our nation, our democracy and their lives will be fundamentally altered…

This is false. In response, I'll draw the Liberal Party's attention to the words of the second law officer of the Commonwealth, Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue. He said that the Voice will not impede or restrict the exercise of existing parliamentary powers. He further emphasised that the Voice is not only compatible with our system of representative and responsible government prescribed by the Constitution but that it enhances that very system.

The next piece of misinformation from the Leader of the Opposition is the shameful implication that this process has been rushed. He says:

Our Constitution is not something to be toyed with lightly, yet that's exactly what this Prime Minister is doing. Whenever we've made a change to the Constitution in the past, there's been a convention. … Instead, we have had a 4½ day committee, a kangaroo court …

Again, this is false. The falsehood, of course, is the dastardly implication that this referendum has been rushed, is ill thought out and is being rammed through this parliament. Firstly, there have been four referendums that have been put to the Australian people that were not based on any convention recommendations. Three of those four referendums were carried. Secondly, there actually was a constitutional convention for this one. He said there wasn't one. It wasn't that hard to find out. There's a quote on the parliament's website. It wasn't that hard to find. It says:

A constitutional convention bringing together over 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders met last month at the foot of Uluru in Central Australia on the lands of the Anangu people.

…   …   …

… the First Nations National Constitutional Convention met over four days from 23 to 26 May 2017 to discuss and agree on an approach to constitutional reform to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

That misinformation, again, is quite easily disproven.

Now let's talk about this implication that the process has been rushed. In 2018 a bipartisan joint select committee led by the member for Berowra and the Hon. Senator for the Northern Territory Patrick Dodson examined the proposal made public in 2017. The recommendations of the committee's report were accepted by the Morrison government, when the Leader of the Opposition was a senior cabinet minister. Then a senior advisory group established by former Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt brought together Indigenous representatives and the government for a co-design process. They delivered their final report in 2021. Then, of course, we had a commitment to hold this referendum as a key plank of an election platform for the Albanese government. To imply that this process has been rushed or is undercooked is not only patently false; it is farcical. The Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party are deliberately sweeping away years and years of consultation and work carried out by Indigenous elders, representatives and members of their own caucus to cast out this generous offer made by Indigenous Australians.

Then the member for Dickson expresses concern about the lack of detail regarding the Voice. We know that this line comes straight from the cookers' handbook. The conspiracy theorists and those who oppose the Voice continue to parrot this line each and every day. In his speech, the Leader of the Opposition said, 'The government wants you to vote for the Voice on a vibe.' This is false. I'll tell you what's not 'a vibe': 280 pages of detail in a report to the cabinet. This is the report that was delivered to the former government and presented to a cabinet that the Leader of the Opposition was a member of. This report resulted from an 18-month collaborative process, providing a comprehensive plan and implementable recommendations to incorporate the voices of First Nations people in the Australian government and parliament.

Not only is there a 280-page report that the Leader of the Opposition seems to have ignored; there has also been substantial information released by reputable third parties. The Indigenous Law Centre has published three issues papers addressing critical matters, related to constitutional amendments, the referendum question and the finalisation of the Voice design. And, of course, the draft amendment to the Constitution has been made public. After all this detail, to claim that there is no detail on how the Voice will work is abhorrent and absurd. Mark my words, Deputy Speaker: it is also deliberate. It is divisive and it is disingenuous.

Finally and probably most offensively, the Leader of the Opposition continually refers to the Voice as 'the Canberra Voice'. He shouts that he and the Liberals 'do not support enshrining in our Constitution a divisive, disrupting and democracy-altering Canberra based Voice'. This, again, is false. The Voice is a generous offer by Indigenous Australians. The Voice will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It will be empowering, community led, inclusive, respectful, culturally informed and gender balanced. The Voice will enhance our democracy and will bring our country together. It will bring us closer to treaty and truth and will enhance our country on our journey towards reconciliation.

I hope, in my minutes here today, those opposite truly understand what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do when he chooses to deliberately spread misinformation in his opposition to the Voice. He aims to instil fear, he aims to cast doubt and he aims to bring down this referendum, one that his party and his former government were committed to not so long ago.

In his closing statements, the Leader of the Opposition encourages all Australians to be guided by their heads, and on this point I concur with him. Australians should not vote on party lines on this matter, because if they do then this referendum will fail. I would encourage everyone to be guided by their heads, by their intellect and by their compassion. The Australia that I know and the Bennelong that I represent will make decisions based on reason and empathy, and I'm hopeful that they will vote in favour of this referendum. The referendum is a simple matter encompassing two crucial aspects: recognition and consultation. If Australians consider those two matters, then they too will vote yes in this 45th referendum, making it the ninth successful referendum in Australian history. As they did at the last federal election, I have faith that Bennelong and the nation will reject the politics of fear and reject the politics of division and misinformation. I have faith in Australia to unite in support of this referendum and vote yes.

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I begin this speech, I'd like to first acknowledge the traditional owners of these lands, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, whose connection to this land we know as Canberra has spanned tens of thousands of years and continues today. I'd also like to acknowledge the Jagera and Turrbal people, the rightful owners of the lands across my home city of Meanjin Brisbane.

First Nations people across this continent are part of the oldest continuing culture in the world. The resilience, courage and strength of First Nations people who have continuously fought for better outcomes in the face of unrelenting racism and discrimination is incredible. The Greens are committed to progressing all elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart—truth, treaty and voice. A successful referendum could be the start of a decade of change for First Nations people as we move towards truth-telling, treaty-making and self-determination. As we approach the Voice referendum, we are pleased to have secured the commitment from the government that First Nations sovereignty will not be ceded and that truth and treaty will be pursued. The Greens and I are also strongly in favour of ensuring that a voice is truly representative of First Nations people by ensuring membership of the Voice is selected by First Nations people rather than being handpicked by the government of the day or by another convoluted selection process that shuts out First Nations voices not already connected to the political system.

Establishing the Voice in simultaneous progression of truth-telling and treaty will give this country a shot at moving forwards towards First Nations justice, because it is well past time for this country to hear the truth—that the violence and state sanctioned genocide started with colonisation and continues today. First Nations communities are still experiencing high rates of imprisonment, deaths in custody and removal of their children from families. Significant underinvestment in First Nations health care, education and housing continues to leave First Nations people significantly more likely to experience housing stress, overcrowding, homelessness, poverty and health issues. It's a truly terrible and unacceptable thing that First Nations people are so often homeless on their own country as a result of the systematic failures of government. The destruction of land, water and sacred sites is devastating communities' connection to country and culture, and unchecked climate change will likely impact First Nations people first and hardest.

These problems are not some distant history; these are here and now, pervasive and getting worse. Successive governments at all levels already know the solutions to many of these issues but continue to ignore them. The rate of First Nations child removal is at an all-time high. A new generation of First Nations children are being taken from their families, yet the self-determined solutions of the Bringing them home report are still ignored by governments.

Our legal system fails First Nations people on a daily basis, with life-and-death consequences. First Nations people make up just three per cent of the population but more than 32 per cent of the daily prisoner population. There have been more than 500 First Nations deaths in custody since the 1991 royal commission into the issue, yet for decades government have refused to implement many of the commission's recommendations. First Nations children continue to be criminalised and institutionalised at record levels, yet Labor and Liberal governments across the country refuse to raise the age of criminal responsibility to at least 14 despite every expert and First Nations organisation in the sector begging them to do so. It shouldn't take a constitutionally established voice for Labor and Liberal governments to realise prison is no place for any child.

First Nations sacred sites remain unprotected, with tens of thousands of years of cultural heritage able to be wiped away in an instant in the name of iron ore extraction or setting up a new gas plant. When will the government listen to communities demanding protection for these cultural assets? Or will they continue to let the mining industry ride roughshod over tens of thousands of years of history?

Across the continent the impacts of climate change are destroying communities and country, and First Nations people are so often on the front lines of that struggle, fighting to protect their land from the wanton destruction of multinational mining corporations. Yet this government cosies up to the fossil fuel industries, approves coalmines and ignores climate science and cultural knowledge. These are not new problems, nor ones without self-determined solutions already known to the government.

Let's be really clear: a voice to parliament is not going to solve every problem in this country, and it must only be the start of a pathway towards genuine justice. A voice to parliament democratically selected by First Nations people in tandem with truth-telling and treaty can help bring the country along towards First Nations justice. That means politicians hearing the voices of First Nations people even when they don't want to hear what they have to say. I can think of so many brilliant First Nations leaders and organisers who are currently denied a voice on the national stage, locked out by a political and media establishment that don't like what they have to say. If the outcome of this referendum is those leaders getting a chance to speak truth to power and a chance to speak on the national stage, that will be a positive step forward.

I'm looking forward to ensuring as many people as possible in Griffith vote yes and that we continue to push for truth and treaty.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a privilege to be able to speak in support of this Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill, on the lands of Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, having come to this place representing Fremantle or Waylyup, the lands of the Whadjuk people of the Noongar nation.

To exist and thrive as a healthy democracy and go forward as a unified and resilient nation, Australia must have the capacity to make positive change. Every one of us in our personal and family lives will know the importance of learning from one's mistakes, of seeking to do better over time and of changing how we do things in order to respond to changing circumstances. Nations have the same challenge and they have the same opportunity.

Australia is not the country we were at Federation, let alone in the tens of thousands of years before that. We've adapted and matured. We've faced up to shortcomings and blind spots. We've tackled crises. And sometimes we've put up more sail if the wind's been at our back. In all of those circumstances, we've had the courage to change, drawing on the strength of our democratic processes and on the strength of our character.

In the 20th century we established the building blocks of fairness in things like Medicare, the social safety net and superannuation. We opened and transformed our economy. The top five export earners out of Australia today are completely different from the top five in the middle of last century. We became one of the most successful and multicultural nations on earth.

Now, in the 21st century, we're taking on the energy transformation required to reach net zero emissions by 2050 as we achieve our potential of becoming a renewable energy superpower. We're making important reforms at both ends of the life cycle, in early childhood education and aged care, and we have the opportunity to cross a landmark bridge on the path to reconciliation with First Nations Australians, on the path to deeper engagement with our oldest and most precious cultural heritage, on the path to voice, treaty and truth.

Every one of us knows someone who, for whatever reason, isn't able to take stock, change tack, and they get stuck in a rut or can't admit when they're wrong and aren't capable of self-reflection and change. Instead, they find more and more bizarre reasons to keep taking the same old ineffective approach to life. Australia cannot allow itself to get bogged down like that. We can't find ourselves in the position of being unable to learn, reflect and change, of being unable to become the better version of ourselves in order to pursue our best future. That is called the getting of wisdom. It's called evolution and renewal. It's called national maturity—and, as we seek always to be more inclusive and kinder to one another, it's called generosity of spirit.

Countries that lose that capacity will inevitably stagnate. They will fail to adapt to changing circumstances. They will fall prey to disunity and cynicism, circling down into the smallest of ambition and hollowness of national spirit. So we must as a community have the ability to resolve upon sensible well-founded and forward-looking change. That's what this bill is about. It will enable a referendum to be held, in the second half of 2023, that seeks to produce a change that is eminently sensible and a long time coming.

This bill is the second-last step on the road to fixing a serious glitch in the fabric of our constitutional democracy and to creating an effective means of hearing from First Nations Australians. Nothing is more dishonest than to suggest that the journey to this point has been rushed or that the proposition lacks details or that our purpose and objective is anything other than unifying. Indeed, we've reached this point through the most careful and thorough process in Australia's constitutional history.

The relatively recent way stations on this road include not just the Expert Panel on Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution back in 2012 but also the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition, relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in 2013, the Kirribilli statement in 2015, the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017—a process created and endorsed by the former coalition government—the Referendum Council in 2017, the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in 2018 and the Indigenous Voice co-design process from 2019 to 2021.

As Aunty Pat Anderson said of the Uluru dialogue process, in her testament to the joint select committee:

This process is unprecedented in our nation's history. It is the first time the constitutional convention has been convened with and for first peoples. The dialogues engaged 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates, an average of 100 delegates from each dialogue, out of a population of approximately 600,000 people nationally. This is the most proportionately significant consultation process that has ever been undertaken with first peoples.

God only knows why the coalition government, which created that process and committed to delivering its outcomes, then turned its back. This last weekend, at a community event on Whadjuk Noongar country in the Beeliar Wetlands in my electorate, Thomas Mayo, who was a participant and a signatory to that Uluru Statement from the Heart said, 'We didn't do all that hard work to reach that wonderful consensus to then go and take no for an answer.

There are two possible Sundays ahead of us—two starkly different or alternative Sundays in the coming spring following the Saturday referendum that this bill enables. On one of those Sundays, we wake up around Australia as citizens of a nation that has chosen to walk forward together, that has chosen to fill an aching gap in our history and our national identity and that has chosen to apply the gift of our democratic process to evolve and make positive change through reconciliation. On that Sunday, we will have achieved something at the same time simple and profound. First Nations Australians will finally be recognised in our Constitution, and First Nations Australians will have a guaranteed means of providing input and advice into matters that affect them. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples will be recognised and they will be heard. It is as simple as that, and yet, of course, it goes deep.

That Sunday in the spring is not far away from us now, but there is another possible Sunday: a Sunday of bewilderment and heartbreak; a Sunday in which we wake up as part of a nation that has somehow chosen to leave a great historical justice unremedied and a great historical opportunity ungrasped; a Sunday of disappointment, of disunity, of pain and, inevitably, of recriminations; a Sunday on which those who are most let down will likely experience that hurt, for the most part, in shock and silence, while the noise and even the blame, as ridiculous as that would be, will come from those who have practised cynicism and negativity.

We shouldn't accept that version of reality, and I cannot believe that Sunday will occur, because I cannot believe that Australia has lost the courage to take responsibility for things we've got wrong in the past or that we've lost confidence in our ability to make things fairer and better in the future. I can't believe that bleak Sunday will occur, because I'm convinced that the Australian community as a whole, while containing a diversity of views, will nevertheless resolve together to walk forward together. So I have faith in the bright version of that Sunday in spring, but I know that Sunday only occurs if a majority of Australians and a majority of states vote yes on the Saturday beforehand, and no-one takes that for granted. It is the outcome that we will be privileged to help make real. We have a responsibility to help make it real. It's the fair go answer to the generous offer contained in the Uluru Statement from the Heart stop.

So, if you're convinced that it makes sense, and that it has made sense for a long time, to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the oldest continuous culture on earth, in our foundation document and to ensure there will always be a mechanism that allows First Nations peoples to be heard on matters that affect their lives, please do more than vote yes. Please add your conviction to the collective effort that is building in order to achieve this change. Please let those around you know. Please consider getting involved in the campaign and encouraging your fellow citizens to be part of this decisive moment and this decisive change. If you're not entirely convinced, please at least look at the information and the evidence and listen to those like Pat Anderson, Noel Pearson, Pat Dodson, Linda Burney, Thomas Mayo, Michael Long and many, many others. Please take five minutes—just five minutes—to read the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and, in the end, please recognise the careful and thoughtful process that has brought us this point. Even if, for some reason, you think the change being proposed at the referendum might not be entirely necessary, please let yourself be swayed by the people who speak from such long experience of what it means to not be recognised and not be heard and of the terrible impacts of that national blindness and deafness that we have suffered along with for far too long.

This bill enables a referendum that allows us to make a modest and utterly sensible change that has the most thorough foundation of any constitutional process in our history. It will only lift up the quality of our decision-making. It will only lift up our common purpose and unity and shared wellbeing as Australians.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to 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.

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to 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.

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. This is the bill that provides the detail of the constitutional change all Australians will be voting on in a referendum later on in the year. The bill confirms that we will be asked if we want to permanently include a race based agency called the Voice that may make representation to parliament and executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Both sides of the debate agree that this is not an insignificant change and that either a 'yes' or a 'no' outcome will have an effect on our nation.

The passing of this bill signals the referendum campaign's start proper—as I suppose you could describe it—but it also signals the end of Prime Minister Albanese's highly selective process to formulate the constitutional change being proposed. It is a process that has involved handpicked academics and professional elites, ignoring the fact that every Australian owns an equal share of our Constitution and that any change should be shaped by all its citizens.

Referendums have typically involved all of us having a very inclusive conversation—a national conversation—about the changes proposed. This has involved constitutional conventions open to citizens, like the one that we had in order to examine whether we wanted to be a republic or not. Also, the Electoral Commission usually delivers to every household a pamphlet that explains the 'yes' and the 'no' cases so that when people go to the ballot box they do so informed.

Labor's approach to this referendum has been very different. There won't be any constitutional convention for all Australians, and there was an attempt to kill off the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet. Not only does Prime Minister Albanese's our-way-or-the-highway approach go against long-held agreement that a referendum of this nature must have bipartisan support, it has also contributed to an environment of nastiness, where we've seen insults and accusations flourish.

Given the tone of the debate so far, it needs to be said, unfortunately, that it is perfectly okay to vote 'no'. Voting 'no' at this referendum doesn't mean you're a racist or dispassionate about closing the gaps between disadvantaged Aboriginal Australians and mainstream Australia. Indeed, many Aboriginal Australians will be voting 'no'. This number of citizens appears to be growing rapidly, which then raises the very relevant question: what if a large proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people vote 'no' but the 'yes' vote is successful due to a non-Indigenous majority? Forcing a large number of Aboriginal Australians onto this new system against their will would resemble historic, paternalistic policies from the past that everyone agrees should never have happened and are a national shame.

I haven't come to my position lightly or due to the position of my political party to say 'no'. Coming to my position has been done with an open mind and an open heart and a genuine desire to see positive change. But there are multiple reasons why I can't support this proposal. Firstly, there is a difference between constitutional recognition and the structural change the government proposes. I'm open to acknowledging in our Constitution that before colonisation Australia was occupied by people who also migrated here but many thousands of years earlier. Aboriginal Australians hold an important and unique place in our nation's identity, and their identity should be recognised and celebrated fittingly. But this proposal goes far beyond constitutional recognition as the average Australian would define it. This proposal is designed to substantively change the Constitution and the structure of government. Those are words from the Uluru statement. As well as constitutional recognition, the statement speaks of self-determination and its being achieved through constitutional change. Of course, government programs directed specifically at any group of disadvantaged Australians should be informed by those who government is trying to help. But, like the very disadvantage an advisory body may be created to address, that advisory body should not be accepted as permanent, and therefore should not be enshrined in the Constitution.

My view of self-determination is that it happens very much at the level of self, not of government. When a person chooses the right path and takes positive actions to achieve the future they hope for, they practise self-determination. When we take responsibility for the good and the bad we do and learn from those choices, we all are practising self-determination. The Uluru statement speaks of high rates of incarceration within the Aboriginal population, and no doubt the Voice would be called upon to advise government on solutions to these terrible statistics. I believe the answer to lowering these rates doesn't lie within a 'yes' vote to enshrine within our Constitution a new bureaucracy; it is held within each individual. Real and lasting self-determination happens when an individual chooses not to commit the crime; not when government changes the law or lowers the bar or, even worse, when government ignores the crime and pretends it isn't happening. Real self-determination is the same for everyone regardless of race or any other attribute. Most often, when people make the right choices in life, they find they are free from government intervention. The Voice seeks a kind of self-determination that focuses more on the design of government policy and less on encouraging the individual to eliminate government dependence and intervention in their life.

Much of the concerns on the 'no' side of the debate revolve around the scope of the Voice, and particularly its role in providing advice to executive government and what is meant by 'matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people'. It's a simple fact that only the High Court will be able to resolve these questions raised because of the very broad and vague nature of this set of words. 'Executive government' is quite a technical term that includes more than just the Prime Minister and his mates in cabinet. 'Executive government' also includes the entire Commonwealth bureaucracy. That's every Commonwealth department and agency right up to the Governor-General. It raises the real prospect that every one of these may be required to consider if a program, policy or investigation being initiated is a matter relating to Indigenous Australians and if the Voice needs to be consulted before proceeding. If the Voice or other activists believe it should have been and wasn't, it will be off to the High Court on a very well-worn path. I know people who want to vote for constitutional recognition and an enshrined advisory body within the Constitution but will say no because of the concern about the vague and risky nature of this proposal and what it will due to our system of government if put in the hands of the High Court, who will ultimately determine its actual scope.

Another relevant concern about the Voice is that it breaches human rights principles by creating a class of citizenship with greater rights than others. Without limiting the Voice's advice to specific or special laws with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, it risks creating a system where laws that apply equally to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians are still within the scope of the Voice. This will create a system of governance that embraces racial preference where non-Aboriginal Australians won't have equal treatment by government in matters that are not specific to Aboriginal Australians alone. While we must do all we can to take practical action to close gaps between mainstream Australia and disadvantaged Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, for me, it doesn't extend to permanently enshrining a racial divide and inequality in the Constitution which I believe has the potential to do more harm through disunity than good.

All Australians currently have a voice to parliament via our representative democracy and their participation in it. Aboriginal representation in our democratic system is at an all-time high, a significant development that all Australians should be so proud of. That all Australians democratically elected these members and senators speaks to our nation's health and the progress of true reconciliation. It also speaks to the will of our nation to address Aboriginal disadvantage by using our precious and hard-fought-for democracy through equality. While there is much to do, all our voices, including the current representative bodies, Aboriginal members and senators, as well as the Minister for Indigenous Australians, are already contributing to better opportunities and outcomes for many disadvantaged Aboriginal Australians. Many of the gaps are closing, and we need to maintain the focus on practical measures.

That leads me to what I believe is the most substantial reason this proposal should not be supported, and that is its lack of substance. At no time has it been demonstrated how the Voice will make real improvements to the lives of disadvantaged Aboriginal Australians. How will it affect real change more than the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices that already exist and advise government?

As it stands today, the Constitution treats every Australian citizen equally. It is everyone's Constitution, and we are all brothers and sisters enjoying that equal citizenship. But we must also remember that this is the Constitution we will pass on to future generations of Australians. My conscience tells me I have to make decisions that will unite our children, not divide them, into the future. That is why I'm saying no to this legislation. I'll be saying no at the referendum, and I'll be voting no to the Voice.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 1937 a great Australian, William Cooper, an Indigenous activist and a resident of Melbourne's west, petitioned King George V on behalf of First Nations Australians. His reason for petitioning the King was simple: the Australian government was failing in its obligations to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and the voices of Indigenous Australians were not being heard by the parliament. As Cooper's petition put it:

… all petitions made on our behalf to Your Majesty's Governments have failed.

As such, Cooper's petition sought the King's intervention to 'grant us the power to propose a member of parliament to represent us in the federal parliament'. Eighty-six years on, we can clearly hear the echo of William Cooper's plea for representation in the call from the Uluru Statement from the Heart for a voice to parliament.

As the Uluru statement declares, in 1967 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders sought to be counted. In 2017, at Uluru, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders asked to be heard. And in 2023 Australians will have the chance to make this a reality. Like William Cooper's 1937 petition, the Uluru Statement from the Heart is not directed at the Australian government or the parliament; it aims to speak to a higher power. In 1937 that higher power was the King. In 2023 it is the Australian people.

Later this year, Australians will have the opportunity to respond to this request from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples at a national referendum—a referendum to recognise and to listen to First Nations Australians, to recognise 65,000 years of continuous culture and connection to this land and to listen to those First Nations people through a voice to parliament. It's a chance to listen to First Nations Australians about how best to close the gap in health, education and employment measures between Indigenous and Torres Strait Islanders and the broader Australian people. It is a chance to deliver practical improvements in policymaking because listening to communities leads to better policies and better outcomes. It is a chance to respond to the call from Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be heard that has been echoing since William Cooper's petition to the King 87 years ago.

Through this vote Australians will have an opportunity to show what sort of Australia we want our country to be, what sort of Australia we want our kids to grow up in, what sort of Australia we want to project to the world. The Albanese government recognises that 65,000 years of continuing culture and wisdom is an asset for our nation as we engage with the world around us. That's why we've been pioneering a First Nations foreign policy—a policy that, in the words of Foreign Minister Penny Wong, 'seeks to elevate the perspectives, practices and interests of First Nations Australians and how we engage with the world'. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were our country's first diplomats, and they were the first Australians to trade and engage economically with our region. The recently appointed Ambassador for First Nations People, Mr Justin Mohamed, follows in a long lineage of Indigenous Australian diplomacy. Their knowledge is a source of strength for Australia and a source of connection and influence for us around the world.

In my role as Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs, I've seen firsthand that there is enormous interest in both First Nations foreign policy and the process of Indigenous constitutional recognition that we are now pursuing across South America, Africa, South Asia and right across the globe. Indigenous communities I've met across the world recognise our efforts and the need to harness the knowledge of the world's oldest continuing culture in this engagement. Ambassador Mohamed is already working closely with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in a genuine partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As the foreign minister has said, Mr Mohamed is seeking to build collaboration across communities and the countries of our region and to grow First Nations trade and investment.

But as the foreign minister has also said, our foreign policy begins with who we are. It begins with our national identity. And our response to the Uluru Statement of the Heart and the upcoming referendum on the Voice to Parliament is an important step in Australia's journey as a nation. Through our history we've made terrible mistakes as a nation in the way that we've treated Indigenous Australians. We can't change our history, but we can change the way we grapple with the ongoing consequences of it in the present day.

There will be a time for truth-telling about our nation's history and for makarrata, for coming together after conflict, after the establishment of the Voice. But members of this place should reflect on the context in which we are debating this bill, a context highlighted by William Cooper's petition, a context of more than a century of elected representatives not just failing Indigenous Australians but failing to see them as people, let alone as fellow citizens. Failing to hear them.

When thinking about this debate, I've been thinking about my friend the minister for aged care and sport, the member for Lilley, and her first speech in this place, which enjoined us all to be good ancestors. The way we respond to the Uluru Statement from the Heart is one of those moments that we shape the nation for our descendants. Our descendants will judge us for what we do on the Voice in this place and in our communities during the referendum. In this regard, I've been thinking of my ancestor John Watts, one of the first squatters on the Darling Downs and later a member of the first Queensland parliament.

All people contain multitudes, and Watts had many positive personal characteristics. He seemed to treat his workers well; he was regarded as an honest magistrate; he was charitable. But none of these characteristics redeem his failures with regard to the dispossession of Indigenous Australians. As a squatter, and particularly as an MP, he just couldn't see Indigenous Australians as people with equal rights and dignity. He never listened to them, and the consequences were terrible—and I should warn listeners that the history I now recount is confronting.

In the first decade of the colonisation of the Darling Downs, John Watts was a partner in the Eton Vale sheep station with Arthur Hodgson. The land on which Eton Vale station was established was Aboriginal land. It was the land of the Giabal people, which stretched between Dalby, Millmerran, Allora and the eastern slopes of the Great Dividing Range. The colonisation of this land was resisted by the Giabal people as well as the people of adjoining lands, like the Yuggera, the Jarowair and Bigambul people. Indeed, barely three kilometres from where I grew up was the site of the Battle of One Tree Hill, where on 12 September 1843 Indigenous leader Multuggerah won a famous victory in this resistance. In short, the sheep station of my ancestor was taken from Indigenous people violently.

Writing about his experience in the 1850s, the subsequent decade, Tom Davis, the father of the famed bush writer Steele Rudd and a surveyor on Eton Vale sheep station, recalled:

No doubt many will regard it as strange that I was not molested by blacks during this time. It wasn't strange at all.

The blacks, even this far back, were quiet on the Darling Downs. Hodgson, the Leslies and others by many conflicts had taken the go out of them.

To this day the bones of many an aboriginal still lie bleaching on well-known parts of some Downs stations.

Charles Pemberton Hodgson, the younger brother of my ancestor's partner in the Eton Vale station, reflected:

The earliest inroads of the settlers were marked with blood, the forests were ruthlessly seized, and the native tenants hunted down like their native dogs.

Echoing this, John Watts, my ancestor, told the Queensland parliament in 1861:

In the early days of the colony, murder really was committed—a man would jump off his horse and shoot every black he came across.

Still, he insisted:

For my own part, although I had often been provoked myself by the blacks, and had seen men killed under me while protecting property, I am glad to be able to say that I never fired a shot at one in my life.

Even in the 1860s though, he insisted:

… the people of this colony must be considered to be, as they always have been, at open war with the Aborigines.

The lie of terra nullius was obvious.

In the decades following the arrival of my ancestor, disease, violence and forced resettlement literally decimated the local Indigenous population. This alone is a disturbing legacy to grapple with. Regrettably though, it was John Watts' legacy and his actions as a parliamentarian that caused even greater harm to Indigenous peoples of South-East Queensland. And it was here that the failure to recognise and to listen to Indigenous Australians was even more disastrous. Not long after the initial colonisation of the Darling Downs, the colonial parliaments established paramilitary forces to effect the violent dispossession of Indigenous Australians.

Historian Jonathan Richards described the operations of the Queensland Native Police in the following terms: 'When an attack of any form was made on settlers, the native police responded by tracking Aboriginal people to their camps. Once they had been located, the troopers surrounded the camp, firing their rifles into the sleeping people at dawn. The bodies were usually burnt to cover up the killings.'

Historians' estimates of the number of Indigenous Australians killed by the Queensland native police range widely, from 10 up to 60,000 people, but it was clear that there were many thousands of murders and rapes committed by this state-sanctioned organisation. Historian Henry Reynolds has called it 'the most violent organisation in Australian history'.

The Queensland native police operated under the direct control of the executive council—the Governor, the Colonial Secretary and other senior ministers. And my ancestor, John Watts, as a member of parliament and minister, was thoroughly aware of its activities. He was a member of the Queensland Parliament's inquiry into the actions of the Queensland native police in 1861. There were no Aboriginal or Strait Islander peoples invited to give evidence to this inquiry, neither native police troopers nor members of the broader community. Their voices were not heard in that parliament. No-one questioned the existence of a government-controlled paramilitary force engaged in large-scale extrajudicial killings. My ancestor joined with committee members in recommending that the native police continue its operations in Queensland, which it did for nearly 40 years afterwards. On the tabling of the report, Watts told the parliament that: 'The natives must be taught to feel the mastery of the whites. The natives, knowing no law, nor entertaining any fears but those of the carbine'—that's a gun—'there were no other means of ruling them,' and that, 'the means must be resorted to'. In supporting native police, he saw himself as choosing the lesser of two evils, telling the parliament from 'direct experience' that: 'leaving the settlers to defend themselves tended much more to the destruction of the blacks than the maintenance of a native force. Before this was established, the settlers had to arm themselves to the teeth, and such men, seeing their children killed before them, could not be expected to refrain from using them indiscriminately.'

This is the context of this debate. This is the history that the Uluru Statement from the Heart responds to—a history of violence and dispossession; a history of refusing to recognise or to listen to Aboriginal Indigenous Australians. It's a history that we continue to live with the consequences of, in the form of extraordinary disadvantage experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This is why the Prime Minister calls the Uluru statement 'a gracious hand extended to the nation'.

We've made terrible mistakes as a nation when it comes to our First Nations Australians. But our greatest strength as a nation is our ability, as a democracy and an open society, to recognise these mistakes and to change course—to do things differently today, so that our country is greater tomorrow than it was yesterday.

This debate is one of those opportunities. It's a moment that will shape the arc of our nation's history. It's a moment that will define the kind of country that we are in for generations to come. It's a moment that future generations will look back on as a moment when our parliament and our people chose a different future for our country. It's a moment in which our actions will be judged by our descendants.

I encourage those opposite to reflect on this—to see the bigger picture, beyond the short-term day-to-day of politics, the short-term dynamics of a party room or personal career prospects. Take this moment to be a good ancestor.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here in Australia we're about to have a referendum: not one just recognising Indigenous Australians as the first inhabitants of the continent—a proposition that almost everyone would support, and certainly I would—but a referendum which is proposing a new chapter in our Constitution to ensure one racial grouping has more access to and more influence on our government and parliament than any other group, and entrenching that power in the Constitution. The proposal is a fundamental change to our democracy. It directly undermines the premise that we are all equal and every vote has the same value.

Winston Churchill is well quoted, and he once said this: 'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.' Democracy has its foundation in the Judeo-Christian principles. I'm indebted here to Paul Kelly for pointing out:

Human universalism is the heart of liberalism. It comes from the Jewish and Christian traditions. Recall St Paul: There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male and female but you are all one in Christ Jesus.

On the basis that democracy was formed on these values, we are all equal in the eyes of the laws and institutions, and it must remain so.

The referendum proposal does not target need or disadvantage—far from it. It instead seeks to provide special advantage to a racial group determined by who their ancestors are, above all else, regardless of their circumstances. It inserts races and race in the Constitution in a completely new chapter. This is the principal reason why I'll be voting no when the referendum is staged.

In fact, while I'm sure it's not intending to be, the proposal itself is inherently racist, because it is saying that Indigenous Australians can expect to be marginalised forever, that those of Aboriginal descent should never expect to be able to compete in a modern Australia without ongoing, permanent assistance and that they will always need extra help. I reject that premise entirely, and this place, with no fewer than 11 directly elected representatives with acknowledged Indigenous ancestry here on their own merit, proves that not to be the case.

It is interesting that one of the Voice's champions today, Marcia Langton, wrote on his issue a decade ago:

This is why I hope a robust but intelligent debate on the issues I have raised will begin. And it begins with imagining that an Aboriginal man or woman is not some version of the 'noble savage', but a person who should have the opportunity to fulfill her potential. Removing the barriers to that aspiration means ending the colonial commitment to 'race' and the era of indigenous exceptionalism. It also requires imagining the Australian society in which we see each other as individuals—each unique and with a multitude of characteristics. Being Aboriginal in that circumstance would not be extraordinary or contentious or reason for hatefulness. Our status as the first peoples would be a simple acknowledgement of historical fact …

Marcia Langton, you elucidated that in a far more erudite manner than I could ever hope to do, and you were right. I'm not sure what, if anything, has changed since then, but you were absolutely right. Only by addressing disadvantage on a needs basis and removing race as a factor will we ever rid ourselves of racism.

Even if the proposal is wrong in principle—and it is—we need also to focus on how the Voice would work in practice. If Australia isn't troubled by the principles at play, it should be by the lack of clarity around the mechanisms. The reach and the powers of his body are far from clear, and it seems likely they would be determined by the High Court on a case-by-case basis. Mr Albanese tells us it is a moderate change and it will be subservient to parliament and simply good manners, but he declines to provide any detail on how the body would be appointed or would operate, saying that it will be for parliament to determine if the referendum should pass.

But here's the rub. Given the Labor Party has complete control of the lower house and, on this subject at least, effective control of the upper house, the Prime Minister should be able to tell us right now how the operating rules for the Voice will be drawn up. The government are unlikely to have to compromise at all should the referendum be successful, and they almost certainly will have considered how they will formulate the legislation in that event. If they have not, they are incompetent and a danger to the country. If they have—and we should assume they have—we can only reason that they think that Australia will be so alarmed by what they intend to do—what they intend to legislate—that in the end it will not vote 'yes'. This would make the government devious and dishonest. You can take your pick. There is no excuse for this complete snow job. Where is the transparency, Prime Minister? What are you hiding?

Additionally, the Prime Minister has loudly proclaimed that he is fully committed to delivering the Uluru Statement from the Heart in its three-step process of voice, treaty and truth. I can understand why the government may not have fully developed proposals for these next steps, but they must have thought it through. What kinds of things do they propose to have covered by the treaty? Will it grant extra powers, levels of consultation and restrictions in determining land use? Will the treaty challenge the sovereign rights of Australian governments, who act as the democratically elected representatives of the nation's owners, its people, in an equal manner?

In this space, New Zealand is often promoted as a positive example. They have had a treaty for more than 180 years and a model that we can follow. However, despite the treaty stretching back to the time of Queen Victoria, in 1975 they decided to establish the Waitangi Tribunal, which was to be an advisory body designed to interpret the Treaty of Waitangi for the modern world and to be predominantly focused on land access and rights. It was to be an advisory body only—make note of that. However, over the years, its powers and reach have been redefined by the High Court of New Zealand, to the point where they now control a portion of the health budget, allocated on the basis of race, not need; where the New Zealand government has recently preferenced Maoris as a racial group for the distribution of vaccines; and where, following pressure from the tribunal, they have been granted the right of consultation in international trade agreements. Certainly these agreements affect Maoris, just as they affect all other New Zealanders, but the argument that they impact singularly on Maoris is a stretch. How different are we and the Voice proposal, here in Australia, to that New Zealand experience?

We are being assured by the Prime Minister that the Voice will be able only to make representation on issues specifically affecting Indigenous peoples and that it will be subservient to the parliament, advisory only, and, as I said earlier, simply a matter of good manners. But will it? While there are a range of constitutional experts who assure us that will be the case, there are at least an equal number who say that it will not and the Voice will be justiciable, open to having its powers reinterpreted by the courts. Who to believe? This is no simple question for Australians. It is complex and opaque. We should be able to believe our Prime Minister, but his assurances that change is minimalist are undermined by those around him. For instance, Professor Megan Davis, the chair of his working group, said in February:

There is a misconception that it will have no power and it will have no influence. … it will have a lot of power because it's a constitutional voice that is mandated by the Australian people and that gives it a lot of power.

Former High Court Judge Ian Callinan says:

… I would foresee a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation arising out of a voice …

Professor Greg Craven, a member of the government's working group and personally in favour of recognition, says the proposal is 'far worse' than he had contemplated. We're even told that Mr Albanese's Attorney-General tried to convince the working group to remove the clauses around executive government.

One thing we do know is that the government no longer proposes the Voice be directly elected by Indigenous people. This is, after all, hardly surprising, given that there is not a legal definition in Australia of what it is to be Indigenous that you couldn't drive a truck through. Maybe the government is wise not to be opening that particular can of worms. But at this stage it's true the government is sharing precious little detail. At best, we know the government is planning to ask existing peak Indigenous bodies to appoint representatives. Mr Albanese refuses to formally adopt the Calma-Langton model. It's little wonder we are all confused.

The best most can surmise, using that model as a guide, is that there will be 23 or 24 appointed representatives, which is likely to dictate that in South Australia we would have possibly three representatives. A few weeks back, I spent four days on the APY Lands and visited every community, speaking to all and sundry. None raised the issue of the referendum on the Voice with me, so it became my job to try and find out what they were thinking. Four days and probably a hundred conversations later, I had not found a single supporter among either the local population or the non-Indigenous workers. I'm not saying they don't exist—I'm not that silly—but they didn't speak to me. Many knew nothing of the proposal. Of the locals that did, the first reaction was: 'How could they ever expect us to get one person to represent all of us here, in all of our different communities, with the different families within?' Indeed. But if there are only 23 representatives Australia wide, then they would be lucky if they got one that lived remotely, and it would certainly be a stretch to think they might come from the APY Lands.

It should be important for those with a little experience in this area to understand that Indigenous groupings in remote Australia are not naturally trusting of those outside their direct family groupings and that their representative bodies are often far from reaching mutual agreement and understanding. An issue I raised with Marcia Langton, Tom Calma and Ken Wyatt is that the most difficult part of establishing the Voice will be the establishment of the local and regional voices. It is also the most important step, and it should be done before any attempt to establish the national voice. It is, in fact, what the Calma and Langton report recommended. Despite a last-minute dip of the lid from the government to a local voice, saying that it will now be part of the overall architecture, they are pushing ahead with the national voice first and attempting to put the cart before the horse.

The second concern of the people on the APY Lands was that it will be run by people in the city, whom they do not know and do not trust. They're probably right, but, of course, the Prime Minister is choosing not to share that detail with us.

The next point I make is that the Voice is to be made up of representatives of the most powerful existing bodies. How does the government think that will come up with different answers to the ones the representative bodies are already providing to government? After all, they are the same people. The premise that somehow Indigenous people are not consulted by governments when it comes to policies that affect them could not be more wrong. The remnant proof of policy decisions that have given in to local wishes are littered across the length and breadth of our remote Indigenous communities.

People of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent make up 3.3 per cent of Australia's population, but that percentage mix is far higher in the regions, and obviously lower in the cities. In my own electorate of Grey, the last census tells me that 7.4 per cent of my constituents are Indigenous. It stands to reason, then, that those of us in this place who have the highest numbers, those of us who are the members representing the remote Indigenous communities and work with our Indigenous groupings on a day-to-day, week-by-week and ongoing basis, might have a little more insight into the challenges, aspirations, successes and failures of programs and of our Indigenous constituents' distrust of the mob in the city, both the Indigenous and the non-Indigenous. However, it is this grouping, those of us who know more about Indigenous people on a personal basis and deal with their issues every day, that almost to the person are opposed to the proposal. Certainly, from my own experience, I have had more Indigenous constituents tell me they will vote no than yes.

The referendum should be a unifying event. The Prime Minister says it will be. But I remind the House that in 1967 the referendum was supported by 90.7 per cent of the population, and the referendum loudly declared that all Australians were equal. Regardless of where you came from and who your ancestors were, it was a unifying moment for the nation. This referendum is likely to be greatly different. It is dividing the nation as we speak. The signs of acrimonious division are already with us, particularly for those who support the no case, and more so if they are Indigenous. The attacks on Jacinta Price, Warren Mundine and Mick Goode are absolutely disgraceful and a blight on our society. Surely we are mature enough to discuss this issue in a civil manner and appreciate that if someone has a different view to ours it does not make them or their view invalid.

Every vote in Australia will be of the same value on referendum day. That is the sign of a true democracy like Australia's. For others who may hear or read this speech, I say: be on the right side of history by refusing to vote for something that will divide our nation on racial grounds and runs the risk of hurting the people we're trying to help.

Gordon Reid (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. To those in this chamber and those listening at home and those who will inevitably watch this recording, I have something to say, and I'm going to be brutally honest. If you are honestly okay, satisfied and content with the rates of recidivism and satisfied and content with the high rates of incarceration of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters, then vote no. If you are honestly okay and satisfied and content with the poor health outcomes and higher levels of chronic disease—nephropathy, hypertension, diabetes—then vote no. And if you are honestly okay and satisfied and content with the educational outcomes of our First Nations children and young people—our youngest and our future—then vote no.

But if you want to see a country united and standing as one, then vote yes. If you want to see a body formed that, at the end of the day, is people having a say about the issues that affect them, then vote yes. If you want to see the recognition of 75,000 years of language, 75,000 years of culture and 75,000 years of love, then vote yes. If you want to make sure the voices of those who have been forgotten, who have been marginalised and who have been oppressed are present and loud, then vote yes.

A lot of you in this chamber know my nan, Aunty Robyn, an incredible Aboriginal elder and leader in my community. Nan is a part of my story, a part of our community's story and now a part of this parliament's story. Nan was one of seven children, and she spent her childhood in what was inhumanely branded 'the camps'. Nan grew up where severe abuse and poverty were the norm. The threat of not living or sleeping somewhere safe and secure was real. The threat of not eating was real. Nan's story is not an isolated one. It's in parts of our vast land that this continues to happen. In 2023, in one of the wealthiest, most advanced nations on the face of this earth, this continues to happen to First Nations people. That is shameful. If we'd been doing it right then we would be seeing drastic changes amongst our communities, but we're not. We need to do better, and we can do better.

We have a chance to do better together at the end of this year by voting yes. It all starts with this bill, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill. This bill is what is required to hold a referendum to amend our nation's birth certificate for the better. This bill is what is required to constitutionally recognise our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters and establish a voice. Once passed, the referendum will be held in the second half of this year.

We hear about two words frequently: recognising and listening. I want to focus on the listening aspect for a moment. It's a little off topic but highly relevant to this debate. In medicine it is often said that taking a patient history is the most important part of clinical practice—more important than the clinical examination and more important than pathology testings or scans. This is because, with the patient history and by listening to the patient, more often than not you can obtain a provisional diagnosis, begin treatment and ultimately save a life or prevent further deterioration—all from listening. That is the importance of listening, and that is the power of listening. It is this listening that leads to better laws and policies, and therefore better outcomes. It's not a radical idea. It's not radical to let the people whose lives will be affected by a law be involved in the discussion. That is not divisive. That is not a threat to our way of life. That is not a threat to our system of government. That is what a fair and equal society looks like. I think I've provided enough detail to the chamber as to why listening is important.

As a man of Wiradjuri heritage, a voice to parliament is essential. It will ensure that we as a united country address the injustices of the past and create meaningful structural change to deliver a better future. This is our best chance to come together as one, to rise together as one and to move into the future as one. As a nation, we need practical measures that will address the issues affecting First Nations communities, and that is what the Voice will do. It will give local people and local communities a say in areas that affect them.

Let's talk equality. I've listened in the media today and I've sat in this chamber listening to the opposition talk today about this being divisive and this being unequal. I challenge all of you who sit opposite to visit First Nations communities across the country and ask them how equal they have been made to feel. Based on my conversations with many, I know the answer. This is not putting one race above another. This is not putting First Nations people above other communities. This is about grasping the hand of a generous statement from the heart to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

I now want to talk on an issue that has been brought into this debate: 'We have 11 First Nations MPs and senators now. Why do we need a voice?' Essentially, 'Why do we need more?' We have 11 First Nations MPs and senators in the Australian parliament, and we all have different circumstances, different life experiences, different political party biases and different electorate responsibilities. I'll add that, while this parliament has 11, the next parliament may have none. The Voice will not be MPs or senators. It will not be politicians. It will be an independent advisory body comprising First Nations people from First Nations communities. It will in fact be not just one voice but the voice of many coming together as one, and it will be enshrined in our Constitution. It cannot be replaced or discarded by future governments.

Debate interrupted.