Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a simple proposal. It is modest. The Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community asked for the Voice. It is in their Uluru Statement from the Heart, and they overwhelmingly support it today, as do many people in Wentworth. Wentworth people know that this is a question for the Australian people, not for politicians.

So many in my community are doing what they do best when they want change—they are organising. We already have over 250 people signed up to volunteer to engage our community on this referendum, people who recognise this generous invitation and realise it's up to all of us to make this happen, to help inform the community, to have respectable conversations and, ultimately, to deliver a successful referendum.

I would particularly like to thank Jonathan Potts, Margot and Rod Cunich, Susie Scott, Sigrid Kirk, Gene Ross, Mehera San Roque, Nicole Abadee, Ann Sloan, Robyn Edwards, Sally Snow, Michele Ferguson, Jack Frisch, Annette Guerry, Peter McEvoy, Kath Naish, Ellen Finlay, Lyndell Droga, Miranda Smith and others for being the vanguard on this.

I'll finish with an extract from a speech that Rachel Perkins, the celebrated film-maker, made recently at our Wentworth for the Voice launch. Rachel told us: 'This referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. If we win, this will have been an extraordinary moment of unity. It will not only lift Indigenous people but will be recognition of non-Indigenous Australians, who can say: "We have stood by First People. We have acknowledged their rightful place in this country."'

It is time to say yes. I support this bill.

Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The electorate of Boothby, which I am honoured to represent here today, is on Kaurna Yerta, the unceded lands of the Kaurna people. I pay my respects to Kaurna people, on whose lands I live, and also to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri, on whose lands we meet today, and to all First Nations people present.

Later this year, all Australians will be presented with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to move forward reconciliation with our Australian First Nations people. It's an opportunity to recognise First Nations people in the Constitution and to do it in the way that they have asked us to, a way that will enable the Australian government to hear directly from First Nations people when we are making laws that affect them.

First Nations people called for a voice to parliament through the Uluru dialogues, an extensive nationwide consultation process that took place formally over 2015 to 2017 and drew on the voices of First Nations people over decades of activism, and finally the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The referendum will be the opportunity for the Australian people to say: 'Yes, we're hear you. We understand and we back you.'

I've spoken before in this place about my background working in public health. A core principle of public health is that we are all experts in our own lives. Lived experience should be valued, listened to and respected, and this is the fundamental principle behind the Voice—nothing about me without me. The Voice will enable, in a permanent way, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to provide input into how taxpayer dollars are best utilised to have the outcomes that will make a difference for their communities and their individuals. We know this is necessary because the gap between Indigenous Australian and non-Indigenous Australians in terms of life expectancy, health, educational outcomes, child mortality—so many areas—is not narrowing nearly fast enough.

For decades we have tried and we have failed to reduce the gap in outcomes when it comes to life expectancy, chronic disease, educational attainment, incarceration, and literacy and numeracy, so it is time to try something different. It is time to empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to tell parliament and the executive government what it is that they need.

The idea of the Voice to Parliament is being put to the Australian people, and so it is right and appropriate that various and sometimes conflicting arguments are articulated, discussed and debated. However, I'm saddened by some of the misinformation that is being put up as argument by those opposite. I'd like to take some time to address some of the most common critics of arguments against the Voice.

I've heard those opposite claim that they do not support the proposal because they want to see practical change on the ground for First Nations communities, as if it is a binary choice that these two things don't co-exist together or can't co-exist together. I'd point out to those opposite: you had nine years to make a difference, and the Closing the Gap targets would say you did not achieve that. Only four targets are on track and some targets are going backwards. That's a lot of effort, a lot of time and a lot of taxpayer money that was put towards some very valid goals, but it was done without input from First Nations communities and from First Nations individuals about what they wanted and about what would work with them. Of course it didn't work. Perhaps if you'd first consulted with First Nations people as to what actions should have been taken you would not have waited so much time and taxpayer money on efforts that didn't help and on efforts that in some instances made things significantly worse.

We are all in favour of practical and urgent action on the ground, but we are in favour of ensuring that these practical actions work and that they're done in partnership with First Nations people and with their inputs into decision-making. When I talk to my community in Boothby about what this means, the sorts of things that I hear back from them are the terrible things that have been done in our name that have cost taxpayer money but, more importantly, have cost Aboriginal lives, opportunities and communities. I'm thinking about things like the removal of children. In Boothby we have Colebrook Home, which was a place that existed from the 1940s through to the 1980s, where Aboriginal children from across South Australia, including Lowitja O'Donoghue, were taken from their families and communities and brought up in Blackwood. The house is no longer there; now it is Colebrook Blackwood Reconciliation Park, thanks to the efforts of the local Blackwood Reconciliation Group, who recognised the damage that was done on this site and the pain that this particular site has. If you happen to be in Boothby, Deputy Speaker Goodenough, I would love to take you up there to have a look at the statues, the remembrance and the information that is there that talks to the damage that was done to Aboriginal people on that site.

We've heard that this process has been rushed, as if the last referendum committee was the only thing that had been done—and leaving aside, of course, generations and decades of Aboriginal activism asking for their own voice and asking for recognition. Coming back a little more recently: in 2010 the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians was established following bipartisan commitment to recognition in the 2007 election. The expert panel reported back in 2012. In 2015 the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, about steps towards a successful referendum on Indigenous constitutional recognition, was set up.

The Uluru statement itself emerged from a series of regional dialogues held across Australia. It began when the government established the Referendum Council to oversee a First Nations-led deliberative process. Through late 2016 and the first half of 2017, more than 1,200 Indigenous leaders across Australia took part in 13 First Nations regional dialogues. This process culminated in the First Nations National Constitutional Convention held at Uluru in May 2017. It is from this process that the Uluru Statement from the Heart came to be. This was then examined by committees under the previous government. In 2018 the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition handed down its final report and recommended a co-design process to develop models and options for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. That co-design process started in 2019, and the report was released in 2021. The outcome of these committees recommended that a voice enshrined in the Constitution is the only way forward. A 270-page document detailed what a model might look like.

For those opposite to throw out all of this hard work done by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders across so much time and to say: 'You have to start again. Not good enough. Thanks for all your work. We're going to ignore it,' is unbelievably insulting. An enormous amount of time, work, goodwill and consideration has gone into this proposal, and to call it rushed is a nonsense. Those opposite also claim that there is an unacceptable legal risk in making this proposed change to the Constitution. Bret Walker SC, who appears in the High Court more than pretty much any other barrister in Australia, disagrees. He said that the idea that the voice would be:

… somehow jamming the courts from here to kingdom come as a result of this enactment, is really too silly for words.

The Voice is very clearly an advisory body. It would provide the voice of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people into decision-making for government, so that we, the government, when we're making laws and policies that affect the lives and communities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, can make informed decisions. Surely more information is a good thing. There is nothing in the wording that requires that the advice be sought, nor that it be followed or adhered to. Hence, it would be difficult to make an argument in court that these things should have or had to have happened. The Solicitor-General's advice makes clear that the Voice as proposed here is not merely compatible with Australia's existing system of representative and responsible government but an enhancement of that system.

Further, I have heard those opposite say that this would be divisive—that we would be introducing race into the Constitution. As if it isn't already there! Section 25 of the Constitution already allows for states to disenfranchise races. Section 51 of the Constitution, the part that was amended in the 1967 referendum, allows the federal government to make laws based on race. The only laws that we make based on race are those that are specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and for that reason it seems entirely appropriate that they have the opportunity to provide us with information so that we can make appropriate decisions. That is what the Voice is about.

The Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum completed its inquiry on 12 May 2023. It made a single recommendation: that this bill be passed without amendment. That is exactly what this parliament should do. It's time. It's past time.

Once this bill is passed, Australians will be asked a simple question. They will be asked to approve an amendment to the Constitution with the following words:

A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

Do you approve this proposed alteration?

I encourage all Australians to find out the information that they need. A leaflet will come out that will give them the information for both the 'yes' vote and the 'no' vote. That is where you need to read your information. Please do not follow the misinformation and the scare tactics that we have seen. I have to say, if the 'no' vote is so strong, I wonder why they have to resort to scare tactics.

I encourage all Australians to vote yes. You have nothing to lose. We have everything to gain. More importantly, our First Nations communities, our First Nations individuals, have absolutely everything to gain, because it is beyond time that we address the issues that affect them, issues in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, childhood education, employment, housing, health—all of the things that we as Australians hold dear to our hearts as part of our quality of life. We need those things to also be here for our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and individuals so we can walk together on the road to building a better future for us all.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Later this year, we will be asked to vote in a referendum to make a significant, binding and permanent change to our Constitution. Everyone voting has the same say. No-one's view is more important than anyone else's. Celebrities and politicians just get one vote, like everybody else. It is important that our discussions are conducted in good faith and with mutual respect.

This referendum is not a decision for companies or unions or sporting codes or any other group. These groups have no standing under our Constitution, but, as Australians, you do. Such groups can represent whatever views they like. They're entitled to do that. It's a free country, and we celebrate that. However, while keenly interested in the NRL's opinion on hip-drop tackles and the six-again rule, I don't think I'll be referring to them for constitutional advice in making my decisions on this matter.

So I offer these few thoughts and observations as one Australian to another—one who has the privilege to make such contributions as a member of this place—recognising that my views may not fully accord with others in this place or elsewhere, but to make clear my views and the reasons for them, especially to my constituents of Cook. The government is seeking to establish a new, permanent constitutional body called the Voice, through which exclusive consultation rights will be granted to Indigenous Australians, not afforded to any other group of Australians. While not sharing the same powers, the new body will be established alongside other significant constitutional bodies—namely, our parliament, our executive government and our courts. Once established, the Voice cannot be removed by the parliament, as proved necessary when the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission became dysfunctional and was rightly and successfully abolished by this parliament. As a constitutional body, the Voice will also have constitutional powers that have not been tested before and can never be constrained. This is a big deal. It constitutes a major change to our Constitution, with far-reaching implications, many of which are not yet known and, importantly, will not be known at the time Australians are asked to vote.

The government's proposal for a constitutional Voice is fundamentally different to the many successful remedial initiatives in the past that have sought to affirm recognition, rightly, of Indigenous Australians and address the many injustices and inequalities faced by Indigenous Australians. In 1967, the Holt Liberal government initiated an important and successful referendum to change our Constitution to honour the principles of Indigenous recognition and national unity. The Holt referendum gave long-overdue recognition to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as citizens of our nation and ensured they were counted in our official census. Up until this time, they had been treated as lesser Australians under the Constitution. This was wrong, and it needed to be corrected. The successful referendum remediated a deficiency in our Constitution that was causing unequal treatment of fellow Australians. It was an important and necessary change that enjoyed widespread community and bipartisan support. The 1967 Holt Liberal Government referendum brought Australians together.

In 1992, the High Court handed down its famous Mabo decision on native title. This corrected the long-held historical application in Australia of the principle of terra nullius, which had denied native title rights to Indigenous Australians. In 1993, the Keating Labor government passed the Native Title Act to create a framework for the management of native title. This act was then amended by the Howard Liberal government in 1998 to address issues arising from the Wik decision of the High Court on these matters. These actions of the High Court and the parliament were remedial. They addressed defects in our understanding and the application of our laws and rectified the denial of rights to Indigenous people. It demonstrated the effectiveness of our existing Constitution at work.

In 2008, the Rudd Labor government initiated the national apology to Indigenous Australians and established the Closing the Gap program. I was pleased to stand in support of the apology in our national parliament as one of my very first acts as the member for Cook in this place. The apology recognised the injustices experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and subsequently committed tens of billions of dollars in programs, on a bipartisan basis, to address Indigenous disadvantage. I was pleased to serve in and, as Prime Minister, lead a government that honoured and built upon this work.

In March of 2020, as Prime Minister, I entered into the first ever Partnership Agreement on Closing the Gap. For the first time, all Australian governments, federal, state and local, entered into a genuine partnership with the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations to work together to deliver essential services to Indigenous Australians on the ground to close the gap, with all of us taking responsibility. This was backed up by our implementation plan, which committed an additional $1 billion for specific new measures in Indigenous health, education, justice and employment. We also took practical action on reconciliation, committing $316.5 million to build the new Ngurra Cultural Precinct in the Parliamentary Triangle here in Canberra, which will include a national resting place to care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ancestral remains. This will rectify a longstanding omission and represent an important addition and contribution to the physical and cultural institutions of our national capital.

We also delivered $378.6 million for the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme for survivors in the Northern Territory and the ACT, including the Jervis Bay territory. We also progressed our plans for a legislated voice to parliament, commissioning Professors Marcia Langton and Tom Calma to prepare a detailed report on the establishment of local, state and national voices.

In January 2021 as Prime Minister I initiated a simple but important change to our national anthem that recognised an important truth about our country. No longer would we sing about being young and free. Rather, as Australians we would now sing that we are one and free. This meant we understood and celebrated Australia as an ancient land that was home to the oldest living culture on our planet. Importantly, it also acknowledged that as Australians we were one and all equal under our Constitution.

All of these remedial actions were designed to address Indigenous disadvantage and amplify the voice of Indigenous Australians within our democracy while observing the important constitutional principle that no one group should ever have any greater rights than any other in our country. The government's proposed changes to our Constitution will change this, permanently creating different rights for one group of Australians over others based solely on race. That is the opposite of what has previously occurred, especially in relation to the 1967 referendum where our Constitution was changed to give Indigenous Australians the same rights as all other Australians. What is proposed here is not the same thing.

The impact of the Voice on the operations of executive government and the parliament are also not known, presenting significant and unknown risks that cannot be easily remedied, if at all. It is ill-defined, creating significant constitutional risk. Ultimately the High Court will be left to decipher the unknown and decide what this all means, long after Australians have cast their vote with no further say. This will inevitably lead to confusion and uncertainty over everything from our national defence to the operations of Centrelink, which all fall within the ambit of the Voice. There are no limits. Once our Constitution is permanently changed, the scope and role of the Voice will appropriately be open to interpretation by the High Court, who will then also be able to overrule both our elected parliament and our elected executive government in the future in relation to the role and conduct of the Voice.

The Leader of the Opposition has noted that the government has refused to define these issues or follow the past practice of convening a constitutional convention to ensure that they are better understood and that any unintentional consequences can be remedied before Australians are asked to vote. The government also refuses to consider any changes to its proposal that would genuinely minimise these risks. This not only reflects a failure of process but imposes the government model on the Australian people rather than listening, responding and uniting all Australians.

Finally, there are two additional important points to note about the government's proposal. Firstly, it is not necessary to enshrine the Voice in the Constitution to deliver constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians that enjoys broad support. It is wrong to conflate the issues of the Voice with constitutional recognition and treat them as inseparable. They are entirely separable.

Furthermore, seeking to achieve constitutional recognition by the government's method creates numerous and needless risks. Constitutional recognition enjoys bipartisan support and can be achieved through minor amendments to our Constitution that do not compromise the efficient conduct of government and the parliament or needlessly divide Australians.

As Prime Minister I was supportive of constitutional recognition and wished to achieve this in a way that would bring Australians together. The Labor Party made it clear from the outset that it was the Voice or nothing, leaving no room for compromise. I chose not to divide the country over the issue, especially as it would have had no material impact on the welfare of Indigenous peoples, which was my principal concern and that of all Australians.

Secondly, there is no impediment to establishing a body such as the Voice under national legislation through our parliament. We do not need to change the Constitution to achieve this and therefore can avoid realising the risks that come with such a significant and permanent change to our Constitution. Such a process would enable any such body to be properly defined and road-tested through the parliament. This was my government's policy.

Our priority was to first see such bodies created at a local and regional level, to help provide direct input from local Indigenous communities into local and regional programs to close the gap and improve the lives of Indigenous people on the ground, where it mattered most. Once established, such local and regional bodies would also make the creation of a nationally legislated voice more possible and would be more truly representative of local Indigenous communities. Ours was not a top-down approach from Canberra.

This referendum is not a vote about whether Australians wish to support and do everything they can to recognise and improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. We all agree on this, and we can all say yes to this, but that is not the question the government is proposing. It is true that governments of all political persuasions have failed Indigenous Australians over multiple generations. However, it is also true that much progress has been made based on a shared and deep commitment that transcends political boundaries. In my time in this parliament, there have been strong, positive bipartisan steps taken to try and solve extremely complex and often intractable problems. Indigenous Australians need the programs we invest in to be more effective, and we all remain committed to this goal.

Permanently changing the Constitution in the way the government proposes will, sadly, not change the desperate circumstances being experienced in so many Indigenous communities across Australia. I understand that that is the hope of the proposal, and hope is a good thing, but hope disappointed will be crushing to the soul, and such disappointment can be reasonably foreseen upon proceeding with the government's proposal. In my experience, we will make better progress on improving the lives of Indigenous Australians by focusing on what we can agree to get done on the ground, rather than gambling with our Constitution.

For these reasons, I consider that the government's proposal to permanently change the Constitution, while positively motivated, is poorly constructed. It presents serious and unnecessary risks both known and unknown to the operations of the executive government and our parliament, upon which all Australians depend. Such deficiencies cannot be overcome or mitigated by the good intentions and sentiment of their creation. It also fundamentally breaks one of our nation's most important principles: that as Australians we are all equal and none of us are any more Australian than any other. As Australians, we are one and free. I believe we need to keep it that way and therefore cannot support the government's proposal at this referendum. That said, I remain committed to the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians and to all Australians being treated equally under our Constitution, and I look forward to the day when such a proposal is brought forward in a way that unites rather than divides our country. That proposal will have my enthusiastic support.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are critical moments in political careers in which one gets the opportunity to be part of something bigger, to take a stand and work towards a brighter future. The Voice to Parliament represents such a chance for all of us in this place and in Australia, a once-in-a-generation opportunity. I want to pay tribute to the leadership of our Prime Minister for advancing the cause of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It would have been easy to put this in the too-hard basket, just like the member for Cook did for many years. It would have been politically understandable for him to take a back seat, yet he has shown a remarkable degree of courage. As he so eloquently puts it, if not now, when?

I want to pay tribute to our Minister for Indigenous Australians, my friend the member for Barton, Linda Burney. Our mob are not easy taskmasters. They demand a lot from their representatives. The Minister for Indigenous Australians has charted this government a path that has put Indigenous affairs at the centre of government policy, and she has done it with grace and strength. Thank you. I think of Senator Jana Stewart; my colleague the member for Robertson, Gordon Reid; and other First Nations people, but I in particular think about Senator Dodson and Senator Malarndirri McCarthy.

We all know we're not elected, paid and given privileged positions to make easy decisions. We're expected to confront real issues with character and conviction. I want to acknowledge those opposite who have shown character and conviction. To all my Labor colleagues: you have all shown that this side of parliament has what it takes to bring our nation together, to heal deep wounds and to take courageous steps forward. I know it's not easy to stand up to do better. I know that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will acknowledge and appreciate the sense of integrity you all bring to your jobs. I also want to recognise the work of the former Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt. I have huge respect for our former Indigenous Australians minister. Regardless of our political colours I always enjoyed working with Ken. He is a person who cares deeply for our people. To have him join the yes campaign is a big moment, and I recognise his continual advocacy to try and make things better for First Nations people across the country. This is not a political campaign in the normal sense, nor should it be; this is an extension of a long history of advocacy from First Nations leaders stretching back to at least the early years of the century before the one we are in now.

I want to spend a few moments reflecting on the struggle of how we have come to this moment—a struggle I hope the Australian people will appreciate for all its hard-fought nature and dogged perseverance. For over 60,000 years our First Nations people have inhabited this land. First Nations people cared for country, undertook trade, formed complex social structures and developed unique spiritual and cultural practices. We are the first inhabitants of this great continent and have been intricately connected to its land and waters for countless generations.

In 1770 Captain Cook navigated the east coast of Australia. He and his crew observed Aboriginal people occupying parts of the coastline during the course of their journey. Cook had instructions on behalf of the King which told him:

You are also—

and this is really important—

with the Consent of the Natives to take Possession of Convenient Situations in the Country in the Name of the King of Great Britain: Or: if you find the Country uninhabited take Possession for his Majesty by setting up Proper Marks and Inscriptions, as first discoverers and possessors.

Australia was never uninhabited, and the British did not have the consent of the natives to set up colonies here. Notwithstanding that, towards the end of his trip up the east coast Cook climbed a hill on a small island a few miles north-west of the coast of Cape York. He performed a simple ceremony in which he claimed the whole of eastern Australia for the Crown. There was no plan at the time to set up a future settlement; the main point of this exercise was to make a claim as against other European nations—in particular the French.

When the British came back to Australia in 1788 for the purposes of setting up a penal colony, it was different. This time Governor Phillip's instruction didn't mention getting the consent of the natives, and he was told to claim all territory westward to align right down the middle of what became South Australia and the Northern Territory. Unlike Cook in 1770, the British in 1788 didn't have a look and then leave; they stayed. What the British did in Australia was different from what they did in other parts of the world when establishing their colonies. The international law of the day and the recognised practice of the British themselves required engagement with Indigenous people occupying the land the British wanted to colonise. Terra nullius was the toxic pretence utilised to ignore their own rules and justify this massive land grab. The moral bankruptcy of the terra nullius pretext was demonstrated repeatedly throughout Australia over the next 150 years, as Aboriginal resistance was crushed with lethal force. That was something which wasn't supposed to be necessary with an uninhabited continent. The solution to this problem was to substantially outsource the dirty work required to clear people from the country.

I am from the Northern Territory, so I'm particularly interested in what happened in the north. In the early 1990s I was working in the Indigenous health sector. In Hidden histories by Deborah Bird Rose, a Native American anthropologist who dedicated much of her life working with the people of the Katherine west region, there are oral histories she recorded which confirmed massacres happened within living memory in and around the VRD region and beyond—some of the best cattle country in the Territory. The things Debbie Rose wrote about were not far away and long-ago things. They were raw and front of mind for the old men in the communities I worked with when setting up Katherine West Health Board.

Henry Reynolds, in his novel Truth-telling, wrote about the impact of colonisation. He certainly looked at the:

… generation of colonial leaders who shepherded their people into the new federal government on the first day of the new century the blood on their hands notwithstanding.

Because that is the truth of it: this Constitution, this birth certificate which we now seek to amend in such a modest way, was predicated on allowing the participating colonies to complete the project of cancelling out Aboriginal people, which they'd already embarked upon.

Giving our people a real voice now is the least that this country can do to make good the wrong that has existed at the heart of our founding document. William Cooper, and I heard his name mentioned before; Dexter Daniels; Vincent Lingiari; Eddie Mabo; Charlie Perkins; Pat Dodson; the late Mr Yunupingu; Faith Thomas; Truganini; Shirley Smith; Gladys Elphick; Eleanor Harding; Essie Coffey; Faith Bandler; Dr Lowitja McDonald O'Donoghue; and Joyce Clarke: all of them, at critical junctures in our history, fought tirelessly for justice. There have been some gains over the years, and many dispiriting losses. The Voice to Parliament must and should be viewed in the context of the efforts of these 20th century champions. They spoke truth to power, and the realisation of that truth is beginning to dawn on many Australians. At the end of the day, they are all saying the same thing: listen to us for who we are, the only ones who can properly speak for our country and our issues.

When I was putting down all these names, I realised Senator Dodson is probably the only one on that list of men who have fought over many years who is still with us. I so much hope that he will see this happen in his lifetime. I am thinking of you, Senator Dodson, and your lifetime of advocacy in fighting for our people. Senator McCarthy and I have often said to each other that we are here for a reason, and this is it. Pearl Gibbs—I often think about Pearl Gibbs, and I've read a lot about what she did—was the Aboriginal woman who planted the seed for the 1967 referendum.

The Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) Bill recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the first people of Australia. The Indigenous losers from the colonial enterprise do not get any restoration or reparation from the Voice in relation to what they lost. They just get an opportunity to be heard. What a small price for Australia to pay for us to be recognised in our region, and in the community of nations generally, as a country which is coming to terms with its past. The words of the new section are simple but powerful. They will allow for the establishment of an enduring institution which would make representations to parliament and the executive on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It will provide a mechanism for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to advocate and advise on policy that affects them.

I am Tiwi on my mother's side and Anmatyerr on my father's. As with other First Nation people, both the Tiwi and the Anmatyerr people have their own language and their traditional country. These things go back long before colonisation. I've been speaking to many people in the Lingiari community about the Voice. The Voice is a convenient word for saying 'let the right people talk'. If you ask community people, 'Do you support the Voice?' some of them might say: 'What do you mean? What's that word?' If you ask the same person, 'Should your people be allowed to talk to government about any government policies or laws that affect you and your country?' they will say: 'Are you stupid? Of course!' If you tell them the story of the Australian Constitution, that no Northern Territory countrymen—in fact, no First Nations people from anywhere in Australia—were consulted and that deliberate decisions were made to further marginalise them, they would be appalled.

People in my Lingiari communities want to achieve better outcomes when it comes to health, education and employment. People are aware of the problems with domestic violence and substance abuse and that there is a need to fix those too, but the starting point for everything is respect. People aren't asking to be heard because they are from any particular race. The racial characteristics of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are a complete red herring. In the Northern Territory, particular groups of Aboriginal people are asking to be heard because, since time immemorial, they've had obligations to, and responsibilities for, a particular part of this continent, and their culture and traditions are bound up with living at that place. It is disgraceful that people use that as a means to create doubt and division in the hearts and minds of people.

I get that there are Australians who have already made up their minds and will vote no. No other Australian has the same obligations and responsibilities. If something is going to happen that will affect Tiwi Islands and the people living there, they want to be able to speak about it to government, not just as Australians but as Tiwi. No matter where you go, on whichever group's country, the sentiment will be the same. People do not feel that they've been listened to for who they are, and the current political system does not have the bandwidth to properly register the nuance and context of that grievance. This referendum is a major step towards fixing that for this country. I commend this bill to the House.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Later this year Australians will head to the polls and be asked to vote to change our Constitution. Their vote will carry as much weight as mine. As MPs and as people, we in this House will each have one vote, just like every other Australian. That is why the Liberal Party is supporting this bill, to allow Australians to have their say. To start, it is important to note that the Liberal Party supports the recognition of Indigenous Australians in the Constitution and legislated local and regional voices to ensure Indigenous communities, like ours in Healesville, have their voice heard. This process should have been an opportunity to unite all Australians in recognising Indigenous Australians in our Constitution and delivering tangible outcomes for local Indigenous communities. However, the Prime Minister has refused to engage with the Liberal Party in good faith. He has sought to politicise this process for his own political agenda.

As members of parliament, we all bring our lived experiences to this place, and they shape who we are and what we believe. I've spent my life living in Casey and have been very fortunate to have a strong connection to our local Indigenous community, especially through my time growing up in Yarra Glen and playing cricket with the Healesville Cricket Club. My connection to Indigenous Australia was strengthened when Rachel and I were married, and I was lucky enough to gain an Indigenous brother-in-law, Brendan; and an uncle, Jason, who's Indigenous. I've been very fortunate to have different Indigenous people in my life. The key lesson that I have learnt through this experience is that there is not one homogenous Indigenous community but rather communities made up of individuals—yes, with a shared culture, but with individual experiences, beliefs, passions and challenges.

That leads me to one of the fundamental concerns I have with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. How will these individual and community voices be heard? Without knowing the details of local issues and circumstances, there is a genuine risk that well-intended improvements are misdirected and even damaging for communities, something none of us want to see.

The township of Healesville in my electorate of Casey sits on the lands of the Wurundjeri people, who have inhabited the region for thousands of years. Their deep connection to the land, their culture and their traditions are an integral part of Healesville's history.

This history would not be ours to know without the words of William Barak. Barak was born near what we now call Wonga Park. He witnessed the many changes brought about by European colonisation and became a strong advocate for Indigenous rights and heritage. His advocacy led to the establishment of the Coranderrk Aboriginal reserve in 1863. The reserve, just outside Healesville near Badger Creek, became a haven for Indigenous people. It became a self-sufficient community where Indigenous Australians cultivated the land, raised livestock and led a regimented life defined by work, religion and education. Coranderrk became Victoria's best-known Aboriginal reserve, until its closure in 1924.

To this day, Healesville continues to honour its Indigenous heritage and history. The legacy of William Barak lives on in my community through organisations such as Oonah health and community services, who play a crucial role in promoting cultural awareness and support for the local Indigenous population.

Now, throughout this national discussion on the Voice, my primary concern has been to make sure I've engaged with my local community, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. From my engagement with our local Indigenous groups and leaders, there is no doubt that there are differing opinions on the Voice and there are many concerns.

In February, I invited the former shadow minister for Indigenous Australians to Casey. We had previously discussed the Voice and the unique needs of the Indigenous community in Casey. He came out to Healesville and we met with some of our Indigenous leaders. We also met with the Yarra Ranges Indigenous Advisory Committee, visited Oonah health and Worawa college, a fantastic Indigenous college in Healesville directed by Dr Lois Peeler, AM.

To further enhance this engagement, I've engaged with a group called democracyCo to hold a joint community forum this Sunday, 28 May, because it is important for me to hear the views of my local constituents. Participants were carefully selected to reflect the demographics of my electorate, and on Sunday they will hear from Indigenous leaders on both the 'yes' case and the 'no' case. I look forward to updating the House next week with the results from this forum.

I also recently had the opportunity to speak to a well-known Indigenous elder in my community. I've got to know this man over many years, but particularly at the many welcomes to country that he holds in our community and for our community. He was strident in his opposition to the Voice. He and his community have not been engaged or consulted with in any way throughout this process. They hear about the Voice only through the media. Now, this is promoted as something that will improve the lives of Indigenous Australians, yet some Indigenous elders in my community have been left in the dark as to what the Voice entails for them. This man is frustrated and worried that his community will not have its voice heard through this Voice to Parliament model.

This is an example of why the detail on the local and regional voices is so important. It would alleviate the fear and frustration that some local Indigenous communities feel.

But even more concerning was his request that his name not be used during this speech, due to his concerns over repercussions for honestly speaking out about how he feels and how his community feels. It's deeply concerning that he holds these fears, and, as we continue this debate, beyond this House to the public, I urge all Australians to engage respectfully in this conversation and respect the views of all Australians.

Throughout my consultations with my community, two primary concerns have arisen that the government have not addressed. The first, as I've talked about, is how the local Indigenous voices in my community of Casey will be heard. The second relates to the legal risks associated with the proposed amendments. I will not speak in detail on the legal risks associated with the constitutional amendment, as greater legal minds than mine have discussed these in detail. I would note, however—with disappointment—the missed opportunity by the government to engage in the committee review process in good faith and make amendments to the wordings of the legislation, to remove or at least reduce the legal concerns many people have.

I want to focus the remaining time I have on the local and regional voices that have not been addressed by the government today. The reality is that the challenges the Indigenous community in Casey face are different from those in inner-city Melbourne, Gippsland, Shepparton, Far North Queensland, Central Australia or anywhere else in Australia. That is why the detail of how local and regional voices interacting with the national Voice is so important and should be known before the referendum.

I wrote to the Minister for Indigenous Australians on 3 May 2023 seeking more information and clarity about my concerns, following her confirmation that regional voices are part of the government's plan. Reasonably, I requested a response by today, 24 May. I asked the following four questions of the minister: Could you please provide more detail on how these regional voices will operate? Will there be a regional voice for my Indigenous community, here, in Casey? Were any Wurundjeri people involved in the Uluru Statement from the heart? Are there any Wurundjeri people on either the referendum engagement group or the referendum working group? These questions are all important to me, to the residents of Casey and—most importantly—to the Indigenous community in Casey who have been asking these questions.

I'm yet to receive a response from the minister. And I still hold the concern that the Indigenous voices of my community have not been heard through the formation of the proposed Voice model and will not be heard in the national Voice. I want my local Indigenous voices to be heard so we can deliver better outcomes for our community. There is a real risk they will not be heard as part of this national Voice—resulting in even worse outcomes in my community. I know that if the framework is established correctly not only will my community's voice be heard but all Indigenous communities' voices, at the grassroots level, will be heard. The needs and concerns of the Indigenous population in my community are not the same as the needs or concerns of Indigenous Australians in remote Australia. They're unique issues, and they deserve to be heard.

I am disappointed that the government has not engaged in good faith with the Liberal Party, by refusing to answer the 15 questions the Leader of the Opposition put to the Prime Minister. I'm even more disappointed that the Minister for Indigenous Australians has not been willing or able to answer the four questions on how the voices of my community, the Wurundjeri people, have been and will be heard. Any alteration to our Constitution should unite Australians, not divide us. Those opposite have repeatedly refused to answer basic questions on the operation of the proposed model for a voice to parliament, resulting in many Australians not being able to support the Voice as it stands today. I'm so grateful that I have had the opportunity to know so many Indigenous Australians through my life and in so many different ways, and their voices are important to me, as are the voices of all Australians and, importantly, my constituents in Casey. They should be heard, not in a symbolic way but in a meaningful way, to deliver tangible outcomes that will close the gap. As it stands today, it is not clear how this National Voice will close the gap for Indigenous Australians in Casey and across the nation.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Higgins, 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. Our nation is facing many challenges, economic headwinds, environmental hardship and devastation, as well as health challenges. But we have a moment, while we are dealing with these challenges, to raise our gaze to matters that are greater than all of us. From the heart of our nation, Uluru is calling. It is beckoning us. This journey towards constitutional recognition of our First Nations people, some say, began 24 years ago. It was a Liberal Prime Minister, John Howard, who first floated the notion of constitutional recognition in the 1999 referendum. That may not have succeeded, but it set in train a process that has spanned 24 years—a steady tempo of reform and changes and engagement unprecedented for any referendum that has come to the Australian people.

The pinnacle was actually the delivery and creation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. This brought together over 1,200 First Nations people from all across this country, these disparate nations. They reached consensus. It was hard going, but sleeves were rolled up and the work was done. Hard discussions were had, truth-telling was made, and the Uluru statement was finally delivered and signed by 250 delegates. I'm honoured to have one of those delegates, the member for Lingiari, sitting next to me. The Uluru statement is a gracious offer. It is a hand that has been extended out to Australians, and we have a moment now to grasp that hand and run with it.

The Voice referendum is about two things: consultation and recognition. The recognition is to say that we see and acknowledge on the birth certificate of our nation 65,000 years of continuous history and culture. This is long overdue. It absolutely removes this fiction of terra nullius. With respect to consultation, it's all about listening. It's about accepting that what we have done for the last 200-plus years has simply not worked. In the last 30 years alone we have had at least seven national bodies devoted to improving and advancing Indigenous health, wellbeing and welfare. They have been formed, dissolved, reformed and dissolved again. And what has it resulted in? It has resulted in statistics that are a national disgrace. Closing the Gap—it doesn't seem to be closing. In fact, on the most recent report released last year, there were several indicators which have gone backwards. We can keep doing the same thing over and over again, but don't expect a different result. It's best that we stop this top-down, paternalistic view of governance and actually listen to our First Nations people.

The Uluru statement is a blueprint for a better way. It tells us what they want. And what they're asking for is simply a seat at the table so that we, as legislators in this parliament and in future parliaments, make better, informed decisions with their needs and their lived experience in mind. And that lived experience is incredibly important. Our First Nations people, at 3.8 per cent of our population, are an extreme minority. You can go your whole life and not even meet anyone with First Nations heritage. What does that mean? It means we have no contact with them in our workplaces, our sporting teams or our schools. So how are we to actually understand their lived experience and what intergenerational trauma means?

I've heard a lot of rhetoric about, 'We shouldn't give a group special privilege in the Constitution,' and that other minorities will somehow be clamouring to have the same privileges. I'm a minority. I'm a migrant. I came to Australia as a child. But what I didn't experience in Australia was being removed from my mother. What I didn't experience in Australia was the butchering of my people. And I certainly didn't have my property and my land removed from me; in fact, quite the opposite. This country opened its arms and carried me and my family forward. But those same privileges—in fact, rights—have been denied our First Nations people for too long. Why? Because they carry such trauma that is passed like a bad gene from one generation to another to another, and it cascades and balloons, and it crushes and crumbles people to the ground. So while they are struggling to just make ends meet and survive day to day it is now up to us to turn around and reach back and help them come up. And we do that by listening to what they want.

The actual constitutional question is very modest:

A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

You'll be asked to approve this, and you have to write yes or no. You may have doubts when you are at the ballot box. My advice to you is to cast the doubts aside and vote yes, because this is simply the right thing to do. We can't keep doing what we're doing and expect a different result.

What will the change to our Constitution mean? It will mean waking up to a completely different country—a country that can look back at its past, acknowledge it and be unshackled by it. It means that we can come together in a different sense of maturity and go forward. Noel Pearson, an Aboriginal thought leader, describes this change to our Constitution as something that will adorn it. To me, that speaks of a shining jewel in our Constitution. This has been confirmed by the Solicitor-General, who believes this change to our Constitution will in fact enhance it. Those were his words—that it will enhance it.

It's perhaps best to listen to Aunty Pat Anderson:

The Voice is about getting grassroots Voices amplified and feeding into Canberra, representing the views and Voices of their communities.

The really important message from the dialogues was that there is no Voice that exists now that represents who we are and what we want.

What a state of affairs in 2023 that our First Nations people, with such stature and knowledge and wisdom and culture and history, do not feel they can actually feed any of those gifts into this House, this parliament. It speaks to a language of deficit that we've all become accustomed to with respect to our First Peoples. That's all we ever hear. And you know why we hear that? Because that's what the media wants us to hear. Bad news sells. I'm tired of it, and frankly I don't want to hear any more about First Peoples through the filter of the media; I want to hear directly from them. Having a voice to parliament means the whole of this country, the Australian people, will hear directly from them, and we will turn around this language of deficit to one of positivity, abundance and surplus. That's the future I want—a future of surplus for our First Nations people, where there is just so much love and culture and gift giving that it will bring up the rest of this country.

Higgins holds a special place in the journey to this referendum because it was a former Higgins resident, Sir Robert Menzies, who actually agreed to the 1967 referendum. That was finally delivered by my predecessor, a Liberal Prime Minister and former member for Higgins, Harold Holt, in 1967, with the highest vote in the history of all our referendums, of 90.7 per cent. It was an absolute landslide. Why? Because back then the Australian people were appalled at the living conditions of our First Nations people. They were appalled that they were not counted, that they were not seen, that they were invisible.

We have an opportunity now to turn all of this around and take forward those ideals that have actually had bipartisan support until now. This is an opportunity for Australia to come together, to reconcile its past with its present in order to go forward together, stronger into the future. It was Martin Luther King who said that the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. The Uluru statement is an appeal to our better angels. Those angels responded in 1967. They will respond again in 2023.

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

As I rise today to speak against the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, I want to remind the House how successful our Constitution and democracy have been since the Constitution came into effect in 1901. Our Constitution has given us laws, liberties, protections and privileges that give us the Australian way of life and that are the envy of the world. I and the other 150 members of the parliament represent 151 electorates across Australia. Each member has approximately 110,000 constituents. We also have 76 elected senators, 12 representing each state and territory. We are chosen by people through a democratic vote as the persons who best represent all of our electorates. As we all know, our constituency across Australia comes from many different walks of life, whether that be with regard to race, career, religion, culture or gender, and our job is to represent all of our constituents without fear or favour.

Later this year, Prime Minister Albanese, wanting to make his moment in history, will be asking the Australian people to make a choice through a referendum—to vote on the government's proposed changes to the Australian Constitution. This is a major change and should not be taken lightly. In Australia, since 1901, there have been 44 referendums and only eight have been successful. In the past, part of the process prior to the referendum has been a convention, where bodies come together to nut out the proposal and examine the pros and cons. For this referendum there has been no constitutional convention. Instead, there was a 4½-day committee process. The Nationals have expressed concerns about this committee process in examining and considering this bill. The limited time afforded to consideration of this bill has been inadequate and is extremely disappointing.

Thankfully, it is the Australian people who get the final say as to whether we change or preserve our constitution. But it worries me that, when I have asked the views of my electorate, the hard reality is most people don't know what voting yes will mean for Australians. This is because the Prime Minister wants us to vote yes on a vibe, without detail or explanation. The Prime Minister is treating Australians like mushrooms. You wouldn't apply for a job without knowing what that job entails. You wouldn't marry your lifelong partner without speaking to them, getting to know them or understanding who they are. You wouldn't buy a house without knowing the price or carrying out an inspection first. So why are we being asked to make a decision on a question that comes with no information, no detail and little understanding?

After 12 months in government, we've seen the Albanese Labor government's inability to plan. We've seen more broken promises than you can poke a stick at. We've seen rushed and poorly thought through policy changes. We've seen a disregard for what industry and small business need. We have seen a real disdain towards the regions and rural Australia. This Labor government seems to miss the mark when it comes to knowing what people really need. Labor have created a cost-of-living crisis, and now they are trying to divide the nation on the basis of race.

When the 47th Parliament of Australia first came together on 26 July 2022, Prime Minister Albanese promised, under his reign, an inclusive term, a united term and a transparent term. But this is one of many broken promises we've seen over the past 12 months. We're now seeing it again with this proposed amendment to enshrine the Canberra voice in our Constitution. Where is the inclusivity? This Voice is already causing divide, and we are only just starting to talk about it. Where is the transparency? The detail? What is the Prime Minister trying to hide?

Adding another layer of Canberra bureaucracy is not going to fix the issues that our First Nations Indigenous communities are facing. Throwing money and more Canberra public servants at an issue will fix nothing. History has proven this. The 1973 Aboriginal Consultative Committee was the first advisory body for First Nations people, and the delegates were voted in by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Even then the body was dissolved after it attempted to gain powers it was not originally afforded. Then, in 1985, the National Aboriginal Conference was disbanded by the Labor Hawke government after it became obsessed with factional fighting rather than supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. After that was the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, which was dissolved after a report concluded it had not connected with First Nations people, being too Canberra focused. Its successor, the Indigenous Council, was disbanded for very similar reasons.

And now, established in 2019, we have the National Indigenous Australians Agency, the NIAA, who receive $4.3 billion per year of taxpayers' money to lead and coordinate Commonwealth policy development, program design and implementation and service delivery for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The NIAA also provides advice to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Australians on whole-of-government priorities to lead and coordinate the development and implementation of Australia's Closing the Gap targets in partnership with Indigenous Australians, and to lead Commonwealth activities to promote reconciliation.

After all this, all of these pre-existing groups and bodies, here we are yet again, faced with making a decision which, ultimately, is just another layer of thick red tape and won't close the gap for Indigenous Australians. As history has shown, another taxpayer funded Canberra bureaucracy will do nothing to help practically improve the welfare of Indigenous communities, especially for women and children in regional, rural and remote areas. In simple terms, our nation needs a better bureaucracy, not a new one.

The Nationals are a party solely dedicated to rural, remote and regional Australia.

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

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.