Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. 'We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.' That's the closing line of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. On Friday, it will be six years since that patient, gracious, generous and optimistic invitation was extended to the people of Australia; a hand outstretched, a powerful show of faith in the innate decency and fairness of all Australians. Through this legislation and this referendum, our government is giving the people of Australia the opportunity to take up that invitation, to grasp that hand. If not now, when?

Already this gracious call has been answered by faith groups and community organisations, by local sporting clubs and our national sporting codes—enriched for decades by the skill and genius of Indigenous superstars—by universities, by the business sector and the trade union movement, by every single premier and chief minister across the political spectrum, and by everyday Australians in their thousands knocking on doors and making phone calls, explaining how a 'yes' vote will give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people greater opportunities and make us a better, more united and more reconciled nation.

Later this year all Australians will be asked one question:

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?

Voting 'yes' will add the following words to our Constitution, as proposed in this legislation:

Chapter IX—Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

(i) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

(ii) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

(iii) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

This differs, and is the only time there has been a change made, from the draft wording that I put forward at the Garma Festival in July last year. At that time, when I put it forward, I said it was a draft and we were open to debate, and I encouraged members to come forward—and, indeed, the public to come forward as well. Since then, this draft in this legislation improves on the Garma words and shows the fact that we were trying as much as possible to embrace as many people as possible going forward with this wording, and we took that on board.

The difference between the Garma words and these words in this legislation is the following. The Garma words had 'in recognition' but they said 'of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders' rather than 'Islander peoples'. That's the difference there. Clause (i) remains exactly the same. In clause (ii) we, together with the referendum working group, agreed to changes to make even clearer in clauses (ii) and (iii) the primacy of the parliament. It adds 'the' before 'Parliament' to make it clear it's this parliament, and 'of the Commonwealth' is added in clause (ii) to make it clear that this is what we are talking about.

There are two critical changes in clause (iii). The first is to change the words that were there, that said, 'The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.' That was the Garma wording.

There were two critical matters changed in the wording that is before this parliament. The first is to add the word 'matters' so it reads 'with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice'. What that very much does, legally, is broaden it and make very clear the primacy of the parliament. And the second is the key word 'including' in 'including its composition, functions, powers and procedures'. Again, it's making it very clear; it's making the legal definition even tighter. This form of words is legally sound.

These should be the words that go forward. Indeed, to quote the advice of the Solicitor-General, advice that I note was called for by those opposite. They now have it; the Australian people have it. In the words of the Solicitor-General:

… section 129 is not just compatible with the system of representative and responsible government prescribed by the constitution, but an enhancement of that system.

Powerful words by the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, backed up by people such as former Chief Justice French, former Justice Hayne, the leading legal academic on constitutional matters Professor Twomey and so many others.

Some have suggested that we alter or remove the second clause, specifically the reference to executive government. I certainly respect the member for Berowra and his motives—we share a passion for advancing reconciliation with First Peoples and he has my utmost respect—but the argument put forward is not a legal or constitutional one. They are not saying that the Voice shouldn't talk to the executive government; they're just saying that it shouldn't be included in that part in the Constitution—in recognition as well, of course, that the executive government under our system, as opposed to systems such as the United States, derives its power from this parliament.

They want to alter the proposal in the hope of gaining more support. To that I say two things: firstly, the changes that were made to the Garma draft and agreed to by the Referendum Working Group are aimed precisely at reinforcing the primacy of the parliament; and, secondly, in spite of that, the Liberal Party frontbench had already locked themselves into saying no before the committee process that they called for and they said was important had even commenced its work. And the National Party decided to say no before the draft question had even been finalised. From the outset, instead of seeking ways to agree they have looked for excuses to disagree. This is in spite of the fact that in 2019 both political parties went to that election saying that there would be a Voice, that it would be advanced. The same thing occurred, going back to then Prime Minister Howard, when we spoke about the need for constitutional recognition all those years ago.

Instead of taking the chance to unify, there are some who have sought only to divide. Now clearly there is no form of words that will satisfy some of the leaders of the 'no' campaign. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition gave a speech in this chamber that is simply unworthy of the alternative Prime Minister of this nation. And therefore we will not undermine the hard work and the goodwill from so many people across such a breadth of the political spectrum, including the former Minister for Indigenous Affairs who I pay tribute to today, Minister Ken Wyatt, who worked so hard to bring us to this moment and who was included as a part of, of course, the Referendum Working Group that came to this united position.

Alongside the proposed question and amendments, the Referendum Working Group also published a very clear set of design principles, and I want to go through them today, because what they did was explain what constitutional recognition through a Voice is and how it will work.

One: the Voice will give independent advice to the Parliament and Government. It will be able to make representations to the parliament and executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It can do that proactively as well as responding to requests from the parliament or the government, and the parliament could seek its input early in the development of laws and policies.

Two: it will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities, not appointed by the executive government or the parliament but chosen by locals, serving a fixed term to ensure regular accountability.

Three: the Voice will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, gender balanced and include youth. Members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the Torres Strait Islands, with specific remote representatives as well as representation for the mainland Torres Strait Islander population. All of that work, of course occurred under the former government with the report it commissioned, led by Marcia Langton and Tom Calma—under the former coalition government.

Four: it will be empowering, community-led, inclusive, respectful and culturally informed. The Voice will consult with grassroots communities and with regional bodies to ensure the representations it makes are informed by their views and experience.

Five: it will be accountable and transparent, subject to standard governance and reporting requirements.

Six: it will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures, respecting their work and their contribution.

Seven: it will not have a program delivery function.

And eight: it will not have a veto power over decisions by this parliament or by the government.

These design principles are the product of years of hard work, including by members of the Referendum Working Group. They also represent years of consultation and dialogue among communities—the more than a thousand meetings that took place in the lead-up to the First Nations National Constitutional Convention that was held at Uluru in 2017, and thousands of conversations on country, in cities and in regional towns—and, just as importantly, lifetimes of experience in what works and what doesn't—decades of providing expert advice, authoring reports, leading royal commissions and building organisations, only for those recommendations to be ignored by governments who believed they knew best.

The choice we have now as politicians and as citizens is: Are we going to repeat those same mistakes? Should we just keep doing what we've been doing for such a long period of time and expect a different outcome? Are we going to accept another 100 years of expensive, well-intentioned failure by governments of all persuasions across the board? We have failed. That is why we have a Closing the gap report every year and why, tragically, in so many areas we have not closed the gap. Are we going to sentence another generation to lives of lesser opportunity—as Uluru says, to the torment of powerlessness? Or are we going to learn from the success of programs that empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: justice reinvestment in regional New South Wales—including by the former Perrottet government, that I pay tribute to for their support for this process—reducing the crime rate, reducing the reoffending rate and improving educational outcomes; Indigenous rangers, proudly working to preserve our beautiful national parks; and community health organisations, consistently delivering better services and getting better outcomes. The success stories are there to see, but consulting, listening and cooperating shouldn't be a matter of luck or a question of who is in government. It should be available because consultation and listening is always the best option.

It is disappointing but not surprising that the loudest campaigners for a 'no' vote have already been reduced to relying upon things that are plainly untrue. It's also very telling. In his desperation, the Leader of the Opposition is now seeking to amplify this misinformation and all of its catastrophising and contradictions: those exhausted cliches of Orwell and identity politics, and the ongoing conceit that there is apparently no inequality in Australia now, no legacy of discrimination, no disadvantage to address and no gap to close. That logic suggests, of course, that there is no need for a minister for Indigenous affairs—job done! This is the same Leader of the Opposition who says that he boycotted the national apology because he thought it was just symbolism and wouldn't make a practical difference. Now he's leading a campaign against constitutional recognition through a voice, saying that he only wants symbolism, not something that will make a practical difference.

Let's be clear about this: there is, of course, a powerful, uplifting symbolism in recognising the First Peoples of Australia in our Constitution. The fact that we share this island continent with the world's oldest continuous culture is a source of pride for all of us. The fact that our national story stretches back 65,000 years is something our nation's birth certificate should recognise and celebrate. All of this alone is a reason to vote yes. But this alone won't create jobs and communities, or get children through school, or tackle disease and disadvantage. That's why Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in every part of our country have repeatedly said that they don't just want to be celebrated; they want to be heard. Because the constitutional recognition Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are seeking themselves is the opportunity to improve their lives, to quote the words of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, so 'our children will flourish'.

So when 'no' campaigners make these wild claims about what the Voice will concern itself with, I simply say to them, and indeed to all Australians following this debate: for just a moment put yourself in the shoes of the people calling for this change. For most non-Indigenous Australians, this will make no difference to their lives, but it is an opportunity to make a difference for Indigenous Australians. Imagine that you stand on the other side of the gap. Imagine your brothers and sisters are likely to die a decade younger than the general population. Imagine your daughter is more at risk during childbirth and your grandchild more at risk of infant mortality. Imagine your son's statistically more likely to go to jail than to go to university in 2023. Imagine that people in your community are twice as likely to commit suicide as anywhere else. Imagine the rate of disease and disadvantage among your friends and neighbours is far higher than elsewhere. Imagine all of this. Then imagine that, after generations of being sidelined and ignored, you are finally given an opportunity to change it, to be heard. You are finally given a meaningful say in the programs and policies that you know can work, that you know will make a difference. Do you think you would spend a single second thinking about public holidays or parking tickets or any of the other nonsense that the 'no' campaign goes on about? This referendum is about two things and two things only: recognition and listening—recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our Constitution and listening to them so that we get better outcomes. It is the means to the end. The end is about closing the gap.

In conclusion, Australians will cast their vote in this referendum 60 years after the Yirrkala bark petitions were tabled in the old parliament; 56 years after the 1967 referendum; 48 years after the sand poured through Vincent Lingiari's hands; 32 years after the Barunga Statement, painted and planned by Yunupingu, was hung on the wall of this parliament; 31 years after the High Court upheld Eddie Mabo's call for justice and overturned the discriminatory fiction of terra nullius; 15 years after we said sorry to the stolen generations. All of those were opposed at the time. All of those we were told would lead to bad outcomes. All of those are celebrated now. We hold them up as milestones of national progress. We see them as testament to the instinctive generosity and optimism and character of the Australian people. A 'yes' vote at this referendum is a chance for all of us to take the next step on the journey of reconciliation, to be counted and to be heard on the right side of history—more than that, to be part of a better and more reconciled future and nation.

If not now, when? In this chamber, we are each of us one vote among 151. In this referendum, we will be one vote among 18 million, because this historic opportunity belongs to the people. This is a chance for Australians from all faiths and backgrounds and from all walks of life to celebrate the best of our nation, to show the best of ourselves, to vote yes for constitutional recognition, to vote yes for the form in which it has been asked for—through a voice—to say yes to the invitation to walk together to a better future with humility and hope and optimism. I commend this bill to the House.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of this country, and I pay respect to the elders past, present and emerging. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, who are the traditional owners of the land on which we meet today, as well as the palawa and muwinina peoples, who are the traditional owners of the land in which the federal division of Clark lies.

Regarding the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, I begin by noting that in May 2017 more than 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates gathered at the First Nations National Constitutional Convention, with the overwhelming majority supporting the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which called for—with absolute clarity—voice, treaty and truth. To that end, this bill is the essential enabler for creating the first of those pillars, that of a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous voice to parliament. It is this bill that will allow Australians later this year to have the opportunity to vote in a referendum to decide whether or not to alter our Constitution so as to give First Nations people a say in the thinking, policies and laws which affect them. That is obviously important, enormously important, and that is why I will unflinchingly support the bill and will ultimately, proudly and with a smile on my face, vote yes on a referendum.

It is impossible to overstate just how inherently important First Nations peoples are. For at least 65,000 years they have lived on this land, nurtured families, taken care of country and developed a rich and deep culture. They are of global significance. But when the British occupied Australia in 1788, everything changed. Land was stolen. First Nations people were murdered. Children taken away from their family and community. Since then, all First Nations people have been subjected to a paternalistic system that has endured for 235 years. Yes, countless non-Indigenous Australians laboured tirelessly to do the right thing by First Nations people. But many didn't. Systemically, the whole approach consistently and horridly failed Indigenous communities. That helps to explain why an Indigenous voice to parliament is so very important.

History shows this clearly, that what we have been doing up until now simply isn't working. When you drill down into all the problems and deficiencies and the enduring and chronic disadvantage that First Nations people face in this country, we see that so much of it comes from the paternalism of decision-makers like us—in other words, the mindset of old white men thinking, 'We know what you need,' or 'We know what is good for you.' All of that is so terribly wrong.

Business as usual is not an option any longer. All the indicators show clearly that what we've been doing up until now, regarding First Nations people, simply doesn't work. It has failed dreadfully. When we come into the parliament, year after year, to listen to the Closing the Gap speech, we hear of the continued injustices faced by First Nations people and that the policies implemented by successive governments over a number of years just aren't working. Remember, as noted by the Attorney-General in his introductory speech for this bill, 11 of the 15 Closing the Gap targets are not on track and, shamefully, some are actually going backwards.

First Nations people continue to have lower life expectancies, lower educational outcomes and higher suicide rates than non-Indigenous Australians. They continue to be, overwhelmingly, over-represented within the criminal justice system, in particular. Indeed, despite making up only three per cent of the population, First Nations adults make up 32 per cent of the prison population. Moreover, First Nations children are jailed at 20 times the rate of non-Indigenous children. All of that is, quite frankly, unconscionable.

This is not the fault of First Nations people. No, the responsibility falls entirely to a paternalistic system, to old white men who, for more than two centuries, have completely misjudged and mismanaged the relevant policies and their implementation. Governments know this. They've known it for a long time. but it's not as though we haven't had the answers at our fingertips for years. More than 30 years ago, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody did a thorough examination of the issues and handed down hundreds of recommendations to start winding back the shocking prevalence of Aboriginal deaths in custody. But, to this day, none of the significant recommendations have been implemented, and 527 more Aboriginal deaths in custody have, tragically, occurred. Moreover, the rate of deaths has actually increased. That is a systematic failure of the parliament and a perfect example of why the Voice to parliament is so critical.

Through the Voice, First Nations people will finally get a mechanism to challenge the government and hold it to account by being empowered to raise their concerns. For instance, through the Voice, First Nations people will be able to advise government about what is really needed to keep First Nations people out of prison. It will be able to provide advice and recommendations on why effective justice reinvestment is crucial to keeping people out of the justice system, to improving their lives and keeping them out of prison. And this is important. This is the sort of reason we all should support the 'yes' vote. We need to listen to what First Nations people believe is needed and to act on their recommendations, if we are to have the best chance of turning around the terrible injustices being meted out to First Nations people to this day.

Moreover, the wisdom of First Nations people—in particular, their connection to this land—is invaluable and something that should be treasured, but, regrettably, this has not been the case, not just in terms of what is needed for First Nations people today but also in the recognition and preservation of what is the oldest ongoing culture on the planet. Few could forget the moment on 24 May 2020—three years ago to the day, yesterday—when the mining giant Rio Tinto destroyed Juukan Gorge in Western Australia. Remember: in the blink of an eye, 46,000 years of First Nations culture and history were blown up. And for what? For a mining company to pocket $104 million from the iron ore below Aboriginal land, which is a scandal that, morally, at least, should have seen managers locked up and the key thrown away. But, of course, it was all perfectly legal under Western Australia's outdated and inadequate Aboriginal heritage legislation.

Mind you, lax federal and state laws have permitted the destruction of First Nations' cultural heritage for centuries, and it's way beyond time we did something about it so as to make sure their wonderful culture can be preserved for future generations. And preserved it must be—not least because Australia is a much better place because of our remarkable history in full. So we need to not only preserve that but also draw from the culture and knowledge that First Nations people have developed over 65,000 years or more, if we are to move forward as a country.

I trust that my contribution today—backing in, as it does, the many fine speeches delivered by at least some of my parliamentary colleagues—paints a clear picture of why we desperately need a constitutionally-enshrined voice to parliament. But we must not forget, here, that the Voice is but one pillar of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and that, to achieve real, meaningful reform, we must continue to listen to First Nations people, including by establishing a Makarrata commission and legislating a treaty. That is what First Nations people want, and we cannot fall back into the trap of thinking that we old white men know better, because we don't.

If I could make one final point, it's to remind the community that, at the referendum, every eligible voter will have exactly the same power to effect change. Yes, the parliament is preoccupied with this bill, and, yes, some members of the community likely think that we're in here actually deciding whether or not to create a voice to parliament. But of course we're not. No, what we're doing instead is merely deciding a bill that will facilitate the referendum.

So I support this bill, just as I support a constitutionally-enshrined voice to parliament, and I look forward to voting 'yes' in the referendum later this year. To that end, I urge all Australians to do the same, because it's way beyond time for us to listen to First Nations people and it's way beyond time for them to have an effective say in the thinking, policies and laws that affect them.

David Smith (Bean, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to begin by acknowledging that this debate is occurring on the lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples—First Peoples that have had a connection with this land from a time well before this parliament was conceived or the Constitution was drafted. I extend my respects to their elders past and present and I acknowledge any First Peoples with us here today.

I'm privileged to represent the seat of Bean, an electorate with boundaries that begin within 10 kilometres of Parliament House but an electorate whose history extends back thousands of years. It includes many important sites for our First Peoples, including the Yankee Hat rock paintings in Namadgi National Park, and Birrigai Rock Shelter, which is the oldest known place within the ACT where First Peoples lived.

The electorate of Bean is home to more than 3,700 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. They include Professor Tom Calma, the co-author of the Indigenous Voice co-design process. Professor Calma is also the 2023 Senior Australian of the Year and Chancellor of the University of Canberra. His contribution to our nation's story has been monumental. Professor Calma has made it clear: the purpose of the Voice is not to be vindictive; it's about understanding who we are as a nation. His research with Dr Marcia Langton received a consistently clear message from First Peoples: where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the matters that affect their communities, they get better outcomes.

I also reflect on some of the words that local Ngunnawal elder Aunty Violet Sheridan has shared on the topic of the Voice. Aunty Violet has often reminded us that we, as a nation, need to take a look at ourselves and make change for the future. As we gather to celebrate the next chapter in the success story of our great and diverse society, let us all recognise the unique privilege we have to share this continent with the world's oldest continuous culture. It's a reminder that we will always share this land. In Aunty Violet's view, a voice to the Australian parliament and government would complement and amplify existing structures and would not replace the role for these structures to continue to work with government within their mandates.

For 122 years our nation's founding document has failed to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their thousands of years of continuous connection to this vast land. At its core, constitutional recognition through a voice is about two things: recognition and consultation. It's recognition of the 65,000 years of shared history and continuous connection to this land by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and consultation through voice, because listening to communities leads to better policies and better outcomes. This idea, the Voice to Parliament, came from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, a petition which was produced by the 2017 First Nations National Constitutional Convention, a meeting of 250 delegates from across Australia informed by more than 1,000 consultations. This built on existing decades of work. These are simple and practical yet powerful propositions, and an invitation that seeks reconciliation. They are translated easily into this bill.

Every day this parliament commences sitting with an acknowledgement of country, a recognition of First Peoples and their connection to this country. And it commences with the Lord's prayer, a prayer that is essentially about forgiveness and reconciliation. History, identity, connection, forgiveness. They are both, in their different ways, wisdom texts. Every year we commence the parliamentary year with an ecumenical service. At this year's ecumenical service at St Paul's, the Reverend Doctor Sarah Bachelard talked about the opportunities before us with the referendum. Our nation has received the great gift of the Statement from the Heart from the First Peoples of this land. This is a wisdom text born of heartbreak and long and continuing suffering, yet marked by an extraordinary generosity of spirit, and open to the possibility that the wounds of our history might be reconciled for the good of all. The Statement from the Heart can only truly be heard and enacted when those to whom it's addressed make contact with, and listen from, their own heart. This is its gift and challenge to us all.

The call for a First Nations voice to be enshrined in the Constitution is not just another policy proposal to be debated at the level of strategy and argument. As well as a condition of lasting justice for Australia's First Peoples, it's an invitation for our nation as a whole to grow in wisdom's way. At a time when petty factionalism is tearing at the fabric of national and international communities and the crises of our age escalate, the necessity for wisdom in government and among the peoples of the world is urgent. May this parliament and this nation, all of us, grow in wisdom that we may share with justice the resources of the earth and work together in trust. This is the generational opportunity we have before us to grow in wisdom that we may share with justice the resources of the earth and work together in trust.

There are some who see this opportunity for national healing as an opportunity to obfuscate, divide and sow discord. They will be judged for their words. We shouldn't be distracted from our journey. I look forward to working with the community in Bean to have a successful 'yes' vote.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill before the House, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, is a machinery-of-government bill to enable the referendum on the government's proposed changes to the Constitution to be held. As someone raised in the tiny rural and regional town of Brunswick Junction in the South West of Western Australia, I've grown up with Indigenous people at primary and high school and into my adult life, including the great group of footballers who have played and do play for my local Harvey Bulls Football Club. Mostly, my Indigenous friends are the wonderful Noongar people of our South West. I really value those relationships and the cohesive way people in the South West respect and support each other in their communities.

I do not want this to change. I want those relationships to continue to grow even stronger. I certainly don't want to see this referendum and the poor process the government has used become a temporarily or permanently divisive problem in our communities. I certainly don't want it to affect the friendships and relationships that I value in my own life. That's what's bothering me most about how the government has managed this process: the fact that the lack of detail provided by the government has caused, is causing and will continue to cause division, which certainly puts our relationships at risk.

As an assistant minister in the coalition government, I had responsibilities that took me to Tennant Creek and Ali Curung in the Northern Territory, where I listened to local people and heard and saw firsthand what was going on in their communities. Amongst many others, I met with the women's refuge; the local group providing the night patrols, looking after young people and taking them home; and the wonderful women elders who were patrolling their local service station every night. I've listened to and shared the concerns of my colleagues Senator Kerrynne Liddle and Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who've both had some life experiences, including in regional and remote communities, that I have not had and who do not believe the government's proposed changes to the Constitution will improve the lives and outcomes of Indigenous people living in regional and remote parts of Australia. As one of the senators said to me, accountability actually does.

As people know, the coalition supports constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Australians. We endorsed and supported the local and regional voices recommended by the Calma-Langton report. But we do not support the government's proposed changes to the Constitution as drafted in the new chapter 9, section 129. We believe that it's the equality of citizenship that is the strength of our democracy. This equality of citizenship has seen people come from all around the world to share this right and to become Australian citizens. It is a precious right indeed.

However, I do support this bill passing through the House so that the Australian people can have their say. I want to make it very clear: it is not the members of parliament or senators in this place who will decide the outcome of this referendum; it will be entirely the responsibility and the decision of the Australian people. So every Australian citizen will have their opportunity to have their say, to vote for or against the Labor government's proposed changes to the Australian Constitution, and I'm hoping that every Australian will take their vote seriously.

If you've never read the Constitution, please do so. You will find that the strength of our foundation document lies in it being uniquely Australian, very practical, very pragmatic, very matter-of-fact and very effective. It is the very simplicity of it that is its enduring strength. It's the set of rules by which Australia is governed. It has special status because it overrides any other laws and can't be changed by the parliament of the day. While the Constitution enables parliament to create or change laws, the Constitution itself can only be changed through a vote by the people, a referendum. It also sets out the role of the High Court, and one of the High Court's principal functions is to decide disputes about the meaning of the Constitution. So, in the case of the government's proposed changes to the Constitution, it will be the High Court that will have the final say on any disputes arising from the proposed new wording in the Constitution.

There will be one question on the ballot paper at the referendum, but it's what will sit behind the question that people will not see on their ballot paper: the wording of the actual chapter that will be written into the Constitution. It is the constitutional and legal risk raised by the wording in the bill which we do not support—the amendment which states that the Voice may make representations to the parliament and the executive government. That is the section in the government's drafting that has caused the most concern and debate by experienced High Court judges, constitutional lawyers, and, more broadly, in the community. I encourage people to read the proposed new chapter but also understand what the new chapter will mean and how it will work in practical terms. This is the core problem for so many Australians. Because the government has not and is not releasing any of the detail, the government hasn't been open and transparent with the Australian people through the duration of the debate around the Voice. People do want to know, and, in fact, they have a right and a responsibility to know exactly what effect the changes will have before they cast their vote. What will the changes do? How will they actually work? What powers and functions will the Voice have? What are the risks?

These are very genuine questions. How will the 24 people on the Voice represent the diverse rural, regional and remote communities? How will the voices of the Noongar people in my electorate and elsewhere in Western Australia be heard and reflected by the Voice? And how will the changes improve the lives of Indigenous people living in regional and remote communities? But it's only after the referendum that the final details will be worked out. There hasn't been a constitutional convention to work through all of the concerns and issues or clarify the processes and outcomes and to work through in a multipartisan process the concerns of the constitutional lawyers that we've heard and seen so much about. As the Liberal members noted in their joint select committee dissenting report as part of that short inquiry, the government is seeking constitutional change:

… without detail, without process, and without a proper understanding of the risks.

This is of serious concern, particularly given that any changes to the Constitution are permanent. If this proposed change to the Constitution is supported by the Australian people, it would mean a permanent change to the Constitution, and any matters from that will be adjudicated by the High Court.

Irrespective of your points of view, please have respectful discussions and debates. At the end of the day, each one of you will get the opportunity to have your say when you vote at the referendum. It will be your choice. The final outcome will be decided by you, the Australian people, as it has been in every referendum, which is why changes to the Constitution should not be done without genuine processes and serious consideration.

There will be a number of reasons that will guide people's decisions at the ballot box. For some, their decision may be based on their strong belief in the equality of citizenship that underpins our democracy that defines their vote. For others, it may be decided on whether they believe the wording proposed by the government in this bill actually contains unacceptable constitutional and legal risk. For others, their vote may be decided on whether they believe a 24-person group that is a Canberra based group and a bureaucracy will actually deliver better outcomes for Indigenous Australians who live in regional and remote communities. They may have other reasons entirely. However, changes to our Constitution need to be taken very seriously.

The joint select committee report was very clear that the government's proposal contains a significant constitutional risk that could affect our system of government. And, if this proposal is accepted by the Australian people at the referendum, as I said, it will be the High Court that ultimately decides. It is the High Court that has precedence over the parliament in interpreting and ruling on the Constitution. The foreword of our Constitution says:

One of the High Court's principal functions is to decide disputes about the meaning of the Constitution.

We know that very eminent lawyers and former judges cannot agree on what the risk is. That indicates that there actually is a risk. I know that former High Court Chief Justice French said a duty to consult would 'make government unworkable'—that was his view. Former High Court Justice Hayne said it would disrupt the ordinary and efficient working of government to such an extent that it would 'bring government to a halt'—that was his view. Former High Court justices Callinan and Gyles said no one could reliably predict how the High Court would interpret the clause. The joint select committee report also said that the government's proposal does contain significant constitutional risk which could affect our system of government.

But, having grown up with Indigenous people, as I said when I started my comments, what I don't want to see is division, either temporary or permanent. I am personally very concerned by the divisive nature of the debate around the Voice, which is why I'm asking people to have a very respectful debate on this issue. The opposition has engaged in a respectful manner throughout this. We support, as I said, constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the first Australians. We endorsed and supported the local and regional voices recommended by Professors Calma and Langton when in government. I am concerned about the process that the government has used throughout the duration of the debate around the Voice.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill is indeed historic. Later this year every Australian will have the right—not just the right, actually; the responsibility and the obligation to cast their vote in the referendum to recognise Indigenous heritage in our country and give it a voice in the Constitution. That's a big thing. That's our modern nation's birth certificate, our foundational law which constrains and empowers our parliament, the courts and our system of government.

We've been talking about this a lot in my community in the electorate of Bruce in south-east Melbourne. Voting yes will affirm and weave together the three great strands of our national story. Firstly, modern multicultural Australia. The Greater Dandenong and Casey councils are the most multicultural parts of Australia.

Cassandra Fernando (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Holt, in front of me, hails from this turf; my neighbour. There are people there from more than 150 different countries, speaking well over 200 languages, with more than 100 different faith groups every day. It's a modern miracle. There are few places like it on earth. If you doorknock a street, you can go to 20 houses and find people from 20 different corners of the globe living peacefully and harmoniously side by side. It is sad and pathetic that the great hope of the Liberal and National parties and the 'no' campaign is to spread lies, misinformation and disinformation in multicultural communities. They've said it publicly. That's part of their plan. What I pick up at citizenship ceremonies, events, temples, churches and mosques is respect and support for the 'yes' campaign.

Secondly, the other great part of our national story, is where we are, our Westminster democracy, from British and European settlement, our very system of government. Those core parts of our national character: equality, decency, a fair go for others. Thirdly, our Indigenous heritage. The world's oldest continuous culture, with 60,000 years of human history and connection to this land. These can't just be words that we say. They have to mean something. We should be proud as a nation. We should read our country's birth certificate in the Constitution and see this recognised; see it given voice.

The Aboriginal people of our lands have asked for this change to the Constitution to recognise their heritage, their culture and the fact that there were people here first before all of us, and to give a voice to parliament and government on issues that affect them. That's important because that exposes the first big lie of those opposing this step, that its 'Labor's referendum', 'Albo's plan or 'the Prime Minister's referendum'. That language is a nasty, cynical political tactic. This flowed from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, from years of constitutional conventions right across the country. That request was made to the Australian people six years ago now, and it is time for every Australian citizen to have their say and to vote for whether we choose to accept this invitation to meet that request from Indigenous Australians and vote yes.

This change is both symbolic and practical. Symbolism matters. It's symbolic because it will end more than 120 years of exclusion of First Nations people from our Constitution. This also matters, I believe, for the moral fabric of our country. It's not about feeling guilty or ashamed of our history. I'm proud of our country. But Australians are decent and fair-minded people. We can recognise our history and reconcile our past. Symbolism matters as well for the dignity of Indigenous people. It does impact wellbeing. It does impact mental health. It does impact practical outcomes. It also matters for how others in the world see us—our neighbours in South-East Asia, the Pacific island states—where every bit of research and professional foreign policy advice says how our Indigenous people in this country are treated, how they are recognised, how they are respected, and directly impacts our nation's prospects, our standing in our region, our influence.

This change, though, is more than symbolism. It's about making a practical difference for Indigenous Australians. For far too long, governments have been telling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people what's good for them rather than listening to what they actually need. If you listen to people, you get the results. This referendum is not about guilt or shame. We can't change our history, but we can change our future. It's a fact that Indigenous people in our country have never had a fair go. In order to improve their lives, they need a voice, a guaranteed voice. Frankly, if none of that persuades people, who really loses from this? We tried everything else for over 100 years. 'We're going to do more of the same.' That's the answer of those opposite.

It is incredibly disappointing—not surprising, given their leader, but unfortunate—that the opposition have decided to turn what should be a unifying moment for our country, accepting this invitation from Indigenous people, into a partisan political debate by campaigning for 'no'. It's the truth. It's made it hard. There's never been a referendum in our country that has succeeded without the support of the Prime Minister and the opposition leader. Of the 44 put, through our history, only eight have succeeded, and never one where the opposition leader hasn't supported it. History is against us, but we have to make history.

I believe in the decency of the Australian people, that they will do that. I'm optimistic. The case for 'yes' is overwhelming and the 'no' case is based on lies, misinformation and disinformation. We heard it from speakers before: 'Well, there is no detail.' The detail is all there. It's been there for years. They resort to making stuff up, and just because they say it in a reasonable voice doesn't make it true.

I'm going to finish with myth busters, to rebut some of the myths. The Voice to Parliament will not be a third chamber of parliament. It will not have the power to veto legislation or government policy. Its function is solely an advisory body, to provide advice to government on matters pertaining to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The government doesn't have to accept the advice, nor does it have to do anything the Voice advises it to do. The Voice to Parliament will not be a Canberra voice. It will not be another bureaucracy. The Voice will have representatives from all states and territories as well as remote representatives and Torres Strait Islanders. Representatives on the Voice won't be appointed by the government; they'll be elected by Indigenous people for fixed terms.

The Voice to Parliament will not cause a deluge of litigation, nor will it clog up the courts, nor will it set interest rates or determine foreign policy or direct the defence forces or any of the other stupid things we've heard over recent months. The sun will come up. The Voice doesn't give First Nations people special rights compared to the rest of the population. The Voice is about recognition and consultation. Nothing more. Nothing less. The Voice won't divide our nation; it will unite us as we take a crucial step towards reconciliation. It will send a powerful signal to every Australian from every Australian. It will show that the Australian people want their governments to listen to them and work with First Nations people to finally close the gap.

In 1993 Paul Keating spoke of the fundamental test: our ability to say to ourselves as a people and to the rest of the world that Australia is a first-rate social democracy, the land of the fair go and the better chance. I have every faith in the Australian people that they will take this opportunity, take it seriously, and make the decision to vote yes to this historic change.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take this place to a different place, at a different time. It's a small hall in a small regional community. It's March 1977. The small hall is the Institute in Mount Gambier, and the town Mount Gambier. There were two relatively-soon-to-be new Australians sitting in the front row of a civic ceremony conducted by the then mayor of the town. Those people were my parents. They were sitting there nervously, excited about making their pledge to become Australian citizens—something they considered long and hard because it was at a time when they had to give up their rights to Italian citizenship. They made that choice and, after it, full of pride my father commented to my mother, 'I'm now as Australian as Gough Whitlam, as Don Bradman, as Albert Namatjira.'

I attend citizenship ceremonies in that same hall. Not 50 years later, I'm given the great privilege, as the member for Barker, of speaking on behalf of the minister for immigration. I take the opportunity to speak to prospective Australian citizens there, waiting as my parents did—nervously, excitedly—to make two really important points. The first point I make is that ours is a welcoming nation, and I prove that by pointing to my own family history. My parents sat exactly where those prospective citizens sit, and not 40 years later—in fact, barely over 30 years later—their son has been given the great privilege of representing the people of Barker in this place—the ninth person since the Australian Federation to do so. If that's not a statement about how welcoming our nation is, I don't know what is.

The second point I make is the most powerful, and that is that once they take their pledge, given that there are no classes of Australian citizenship, they are as Australian as Bob Hawke, Cathy Freeman, Albert Namatjira—the list can go on. This is important because while I'll be able to continue to say our nation is a welcoming one, I'll never be able to make that statement again should we, as a nation, decide to amend the Australian Constitution to include a chapter called 'The Voice'.

The truth will be that there will be two classes of Australian citizens: there will be those Australian citizens who can trace their heritage to Australia's First Peoples and there will be others, like me, who can point only to their parents. Now that, with respect, will be a great travesty. Because, whether it's our national anthem or other tunes that people like to refer to colloquially as our national anthem, we talk about being one, but we will no longer be one, and that is the truth.

I want to take this opportunity to ask the Prime Minister to pause and to consider seriously what he's about to do. We should take every opportunity in this place to bring Australians together and to unite Australians. He has an opportunity right now to pause and to reconsider this trajectory. He knew, on assuming the prime ministership, that he had choice. He could pursue the Voice to Parliament, or he could accept a different proposal. In 1967 we were talking about a referendum to end the racial divide in this country and to recognise our Indigenous Australians. I can't believe we're in a position where we're now considering doing the exact opposite. That's where we find ourselves.

Right now, the Prime Minister should, for fear that this proposal fail, pause and accept the proposal that we, effectively, amend the preamble to the Constitution. If he were to do that, our nation would unify behind him and we would get a 1967-style resolution—I anticipate that the 'yes' vote in that situation would exceed 90 per cent—and we would be taking a significant step towards the continued unification of the Australian people. Personally, I've a preference for the phrase 'Indigenous heritage, British foundation and an immigrant character'. I think those words are elegant but speak to all of us. What a great way to describe the Australian journey. If the Prime Minister were to do that, he would show himself to be the statesman that Australia needs right now.

The alternative is to rush headlong into this proposal, which he seems committed to, and we will end up with a divided Australia irrespective of the outcome, I suggest respectfully to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let's imagine a circumstance where there's a slim victory by the 'yes' campaign—a 52-48 result and just over the line in relation to the number of states required. That won't bring Australians together. It won't. Equally, a slim victory by the 'no' campaign will not bring Australians together.

Instead, what needs to happen right now is we need to put partisan politics aside. We don't need, with respect, contributions like the one I just heard about how this is about politics. We need to say: 'You know what? We're not going to make Australians choose in a situation that ends in them sadly divided. We're going to pursue an option that will bring all Australians together, like the great leaders of this country did in 1967.' Now, it's an offer. I'd love to think that the Prime Minister will be inclined to accept it. I think we'd be a stronger, more united nation if we did it, and who knows where that would take us?

By the way, I would support consideration of legislating a voice at the same time, because the concern I have is not this mechanism but where it's going to be placed. This proposal is to put the Voice in the Australian Constitution permanently. There's no opportunity to amend that. There's no opportunity to tinker with the proposal. It's uncertain. It's risky. I get all that, but the biggest concern I have is that it's permanent. It's that permanency that I have a real problem with.

The reality is that when we developed the Australian Constitution over 120 years ago there were nationwide debates. They were open debates. We didn't have the internet to socialise those discussions back then, so the debates were transcribed and shared with Australians. It took a decade to come up with a world-leading document which has solidified our democracy, as I said, for 122 years. Compare that to this process. There have been meetings behind closed doors; there was, I think, a 2½-week committee process; and there was a proposal, a proposal that hasn't led to bipartisanship, because we haven't had constitutional conventions like those which we had in the lead-up to the republic debate. None of that has happened. So this process, instead of being one that's trying to bring Australians together and get Australians to vote at a very high level on an agreed position, is one where Australians are thrust into tribes.

The member opposite said that the detail has been out there for years. Well, no—the Calma-Langton report certainly hasn't been around for years. But even the report itself talks of 'options'. Right now, I can't tell my electorate whether the 24 members of the Voice would be individuals elected or selected. I think that's a pretty fundamental thing. Indeed, when the original authors of the Australian Constitution sat down, I can't imagine they would've accepted this: 'Oh, look, we'll put a proposal to the Australian people; it's going to establish a parliament and a judiciary. We'll have dual chambers in our parliament. But I don't know whether we've decided yet whether the members of parliament will be elected or selected.' That's ludicrous to even think of.

Those opposite say: 'Oh, look, it'll just be a voice—an advisory body.' The Prime Minister himself has said that it would take a 'brave' government to act in defiance of the Voice. The reality is: a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament will almost inevitably be interpreted by the High Court as having an implied obligation on behalf of the parliament to listen. Even the Prime Minister himself has said that it would be a brave parliament that would act in defiance of a recommendation of the Voice.

I am proud to be a member of this place where, across both houses, we have 11 members of parliament elected to serve, dutifully, their constituencies. That is a great thing, and I hope that we see more of that—just as I hope we see more Australians from Italian descent and more Australians from the other threads that make up the great tapestry of multicultural Australia. But, with respect, we are going to end up in a circumstance where our Australian government is hamstrung, if we continue down this route.

Now, the Prime Minister loves to refer to this as a 'modest' change. Well, effectively, there are three operational chapters of the Australian Constitution. There's the judiciary, there's the parliament and there's the executive. And yet it's a 'modest' change, it is suggested by the Prime Minister, to include another chapter. Now, this is a full chapter in a document where every word has meaning and where there is jurisprudence from 122 years providing the interpretation of every single word in that document. This is no modest change. Be under no illusions: this is a big deal, and it is the single most significant proposed change to the Australian Constitution in 122 years. Its proposed impacts are the most significant of any proposal put to the Australian people, and I'd be much more comfortable if this had come about following a well-tried-and-true constitutional convention type process—or, better still, after we had unified the Australian people around changing the preamble to the Australian Constitution and we had implemented a voice via legislation, which is, as I've said, capable of amendment.

Instead, I've got to be honest and I'm going to call it for what it is. This is a blatant political attempt to create a wedge between those opposite and those who sit on this side of the place, so that the Prime Minister can have his Redfern moment. You know what? Dividing the Australian people is not worth that. If he wants to be exalted as a statesman, he should stop this process right now and he should tell the Australian people he's going to join with his opponents to propose changing the preamble in the Australian Constitution. That will bring Australians together.

Alison Byrnes (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia and as the traditional owners of this land for over 60,000 years. I also acknowledge and pay my respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, on whose ancestral lands we meet today. It is an honour to stand here in Australia's parliament and offer my support for the Voice to Parliament and the proposed change to our Constitution. I urge the parliament to pass the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023.

The time for the Voice and the constitutional amendment has well and truly come. In fact, it is long overdue. Our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, has described the Uluru Statement from the Heart as 'a generous offer from our First Nations people'. He is absolutely correct. The Minister for Indigenous Australians, the Hon. Linda Burney, sees the proposed referendum as a unifying moment for Australia. This is based on recognition of over 65,000 years of continuous connection to land by First Nations people and listening to grassroots solutions to help close the gap and improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It is a historic opportunity which we must not ignore.

Governments of all persuasions have been at best only partly successful in leading the community in reducing the inequalities facing Indigenous families and communities. These inequalities are in everyday life and in the opportunities available for current and future generations. Over the last 20 years there have been welcome improvements, including in infant mortality rates and the number of First Nations people completing year 12 or above. But today in 2023 Indigenous Australians live about nine years less than non-Indigenous Australians. And we can see vast inequalities in health status, unemployment levels and imprisonment rates across Australia. We as a community have a long way to go to close the gap. We have to do things differently if we want positive results, and I truly believe that the Voice to Parliament is a vital element of that new way.

The Voice will be an independent, representative advisory body. It will speak to the parliament and to the executive government. It is not a third chamber of parliament; rather, as the Attorney-General said in his second reading speech, the Voice:

… complements the existing structures of Australia's democratic system and enhances the normal functioning of government and the law.

Adding to that democratic element is the assurance that regional voices are an important component of the Voice. It's about grassroots solutions being heard in Canberra.

Our local Indigenous community leaders urge all Australians to support the Voice. Local Indigenous gentleman and advocate Mark Bloxsome and his wife, Lynda, who I met with recently, are concerned:

There is a lot of confusion and misinformation out there about the Voice … The referendum … is about overdue constitutional recognition. The confusion and misinformation getting around is actually clouding the issue.

Uncle Richard Davis is a Dharawal man who was born in Wollongong and grew up in Coomaditchie in Kemblawarra. As chairman of the Illawarra Aboriginal Corporation he is following in the footsteps of his parents, who were instrumental in founding the organisation. He says:

The Voice to Parliament is the right thing to do. It's as simple as that.

We have never been acknowledged formally in the constitution as the first custodians of this country, and it is time for that to occur. The Voice is something we can build on and build a better future for everyone in this country.

Dr Jodi Edwards, a Yuin Dharawal custodian, has dedicated her life to connecting with and forming local communities and contributing to Aboriginal education across New South Wales. She says:

We need to support the Voice to parliament. The Voice will help reshape and shape laws and policies which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and Communities, and enable Parliament to gain direct input … about their future.

Michelle Wilson is from the Coomaditchie United Aboriginal Corporation, an organisation dedicated to raising the esteem, pride and dignity of young Aboriginal people in their culture and heritage. Her hope is that the Voice will provide more practical and realistic advice to government.

I wholeheartedly support the legislation and urge all Australians to vote yes in the referendum.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Later this year, Australians will cast their vote in a referendum to change our nation's rulebook, the Constitution. There is no doubt about it: this is one of the most significant and important decisions Australians will ever make about our system of government. Why? Because, if this referendum is carried, Australians will have voted to change the way our nation is governed in a permanent way. The nation that we know today, our representative parliamentary system of democracy and our lives will be changed dramatically, and, unfortunately, arguably not for the better. There is no doubt about it: Labor's Canberra based Voice is four things: it's risky, it's unknown, it's divisive and, on top of all that, it's permanent. The Liberal Party is opposed to the Prime Minister's Canberra-centric Voice.

But, despite our opposition, it is a decision for the Australian people. Australians expect to vote on the issue later this year. As we have said, we will not stand in the way of the Australian people having their say. The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act requires the Electoral Commissioner to distribute an official pamphlet containing arguments for and against a constitutional change. The arguments for or against a constitutional change must be authorised by a majority of parliamentarians who voted for or against it in parliament. In other words, some parliamentarians must vote no to this bill to ensure that the Liberal Party is able to provide substantive input into the official 'no' case, while supporting the bill in parliament.

I am strongly opposed to the Voice proposal. As a first-generation migrant to Australia from Singapore, my birth certificate is very different to the birth certificates of most members in this parliament because it records my race as Eurasian. A search of the Singaporean government website reveals that official documents routinely record a citizen's race to achieve social policy objectives, such as to maintain racial diversity when allocating public housing or determining which subjects a student is permitted to study at school—as was the case during the 1980s, when Chinese students were required to study Mandarin, and not Malay, as their second language, as part of a pro-Chinese government campaign.

In Singapore, a citizen's race excludes them from holding certain positions in parliament, due to racial quotas. Not so in Australia. I never want to see racial differentiation introduced into our system of government. It is refreshing that my Australian citizenship certificate and those of millions of fellow migrants do not record our race. It gives us the freedom to be equally Australian citizens with the liberty to aspire to any office in the land; to stand for election to parliament and perhaps one day serve as Prime Minister or Governor-General; to live where we choose; and to study whatever subjects we choose. Therefore, we must resist differentiating Australians by race in the Constitution. The big danger with the Voice is the destruction of equality of citizenship. As my colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price, a proud Walpiri woman, says, 'We are one together, not two divided'.

Enshrining our Constitution a body for only one group of Australians means permanently dividing Australians by race. The Voice will be a permanent, publicly funded group for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders with additional rights embedded in our Constitution. The Voice will forever be a symbol of division rather than an instrument of unity. The coalition does not believe that that is what Australians want.

Our Constitution is the foundation document on which modern Australia is built. But it is not complete. It could not foresee that, over the next 122 years, Australia would become one of the great multicultural nations of the world, a country in which more than a quarter of Australians, including myself, my mother and my father, were born in another country, and almost half of all Australians have one parent born overseas. And, of course, our Constitution did not recognise our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. That all changed in 1967, when Australians, overwhelmingly, at a referendum, voted to bring our country together.

The story of our Indigenous heritage is one of three great threads that are woven into the fabric of our nation. The other two threads, our British foundation and our immigrant character, have intertwined with it to build a nation with a unique character, made prosperous through agriculture, mining and industrialisation. The Constitution is our most important legal document. It establishes the legal foundation of our country, a nation moving forward. The Australian Constitution did not arrive as a perfectly completed document. In fact, took years of careful consideration and debate in its drafting. No-one in this place would argue that it is a perfect document and, indeed, every word is open to interpretation.

By enshrining the Voice into the Constitution, we deny the parliament the power to alter it by legislation, as was the case when this parliament legislated to abolish the dysfunctional Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Further, enshrining Labor's Voice will open a legal can of worms with challenges and interpretations adjudicated by the unelected High Court. Labor's proposed model isn't just the Voice to Parliament but to all areas of executive government. It gives unlimited scope, from the Reserve Bank to Centrelink. There is a significant risk of considerable delays to government decision-making, creating dysfunctional government. The Hon. Ian Callinan AC KC, a former High Court judge, said:

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

Former High Court Justice Hayne said it would 'disrupt the ordinary and efficient working of government' to such an extent that it would 'bring government to a halt'. It is a matter of public record that even the government's own constitutional expert group could not reach an agreement on what this constitutional change would do. Our Constitution has served our nation well in terms of stability. One of the key differences between the Liberal Party and Labor is that we, as Liberals, place far greater trust in the democratic institutions of our country. We are cautious about transferring the authority out of the hands of the people and into the hands of the courts, who do not represent them.

Let me be clear: I do not support the risky, divisive, unknown and permanent change to our Constitution. Changing our Constitution is a momentous step. It hasn't been done by referendum since 1977. However, Labor is refusing to reveal the details of legislation before Australians vote. The Voice is a three-stage process: voice, treaty, truth. This referendum is only the beginning of the process—the tip of the iceberg. Many Voice activists say this will be the first step towards reparations and other radical changes to existing property rights. How can a nation sign a treaty with some of its own citizens?

My constituents have continually raised their concerns with me, asking how much it will cost them. Prime Minister, how much will the Voice cost? How many extra public servants will be required to administer the Voice? What is the anticipated recurrent expenditure? How much will taxpayers spend on remuneration, motor vehicle fleets, accommodation and travel expenditure? These are all valid questions which the Australian public are entitled to ask.

Budget Paper No. 2 in the 2023-24 budget makes clear the government will provide $364 million over three years to deliver the referendum on the Voice. This includes $336.6 million over three years for the AEC to conduct the referendum, $12 million for the National Indigenous Australians Agency and the Museum of Australian Democracy for civics education, $10.5 million for the Department of Health and Aged Care to increase mental health support for Indigenous Australians during the referendum period and a further $5.5 million for the National Indigenous Australians Agency for consultation, policy and delivery.

In 2023-24 the government has allocated $4.3 billion for the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which has over 1,400 staff. Their role is to advise the government on improving the lives of Indigenous Australians. Labor's Voice would basically replicate this, and it is not clear how the two would interact. Australians deserve all the details before they vote on a permanent change to the Constitution.

Bureaucracy slows things down. I have never met anyone who wants more bureaucracy in their life. The Albanese Canberra based Voice will mean administration and decision-making of government departments will be wrapped in another layer of complexity and will no doubt be slowed down by this process. If the Voice is given the constitutional function of making representations, many say it will have to be told in advance of relevant matters that are being acted on before they are decided by government. The Voice would then be given the time and resources to analyse these matters to decide whether they will put forward a position. If that is not done, its constitutional rights will have been breached, opening government up to constitutional and administrative law litigation. How can government operate effectively with such constraints? This potential administrative paralysis will happen across all government departments and other forms of government.

Currently in our parliamentary representative system of democracy 27 million Australians are ably represented by 227 federal members of the House of Representatives and senators. This 47th Parliament is the most ethnically diverse parliament on record, with 11 members identifying as Indigenous. By proportion, Indigenous people are more than equitably represented in our present electoral system.

The government's inquiry into this bill has been embarrassingly poor and has denied Australians the opportunity to understand the impact of constitutional change. The inquiry into the 1999 republic referendum had 12 hearings, after a full constitutional convention that invited delegates from around the country. However, this parliament's joint select committee was allowed less than 28 hours for hearings, including the time spent on introductory and ceremonial aspects. Incredibly, the joint select committee was given just six weeks. The government have also denied Australians the benefit of a constitutional convention, which could have ironed out details and narrowed the issues in dispute.

As a first generation migrant, I value equality of citizenship and celebrate that my Australian citizenship certificate does not classify me by my race, unlike my birth certificate. Yet the fundamental premise of the referendum segregates Australians by race. The Albanese government has rushed through the referendum process without providing necessary detail, exposing the operation of government to legal challenge in the courts. The Australian people should never be asked to vote on a constitutional change without fully knowing what they are voting for.

Andrew Charlton (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The previous speaker on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 raised a litany of risks associated with the Voice: cost, sovereignty, bureaucracy, process and administration. But the bigger risk isn't this modest change. The bigger risk is that the situation in Australia remains the same—that we retain the gap in life expectancy, that we retain poor educational outcomes for First Australians and that we do not change the shocking health outcomes that persist in many Indigenous communities. That is the risk that First Nations Australians are living with today, and that is why we need a change and that is why we need a Voice.

With this proposed referendum, our nation faces a test of maturity. Are we mature enough to recognise and acknowledge the reality of our nation's past—the pain and suffering caused by decades of injustice? Are we mature enough to strive towards a better version of ourselves—to strive towards a fuller and more inclusive definition of what it means to be an Australian? In the language of our anthem, can we advance Australia to be more fair?

It's a fundamental fact that listening to communities leads to better laws, better policies and better outcomes, and the Voice proposal enables us to do just that. It will allow for proper representation from our First Nations peoples to inform the decisions that govern their lives, their communities and their future. It will allow for justice and help close the divide when it comes to education, health and economic outcomes. But, at the end of the day, it's also just the right thing to do. It's also just a change that we'll look back on in years to come and see as a positive movement forward in our national story.

I represent a community built on the lands of the Burramattagal people, a clan of the Dharug. Parramatta is a great city, an aspirational city, and it's got a bright future emerging fast as a global city and one of the largest economies in New South Wales. But Parramatta's future is built on solid foundations, set over 60,000 years ago by the Dharug people on land where the fresh and salt water meet in the Parramatta River, creating fertile ground in which generations of Australians have flourished. The lands that the Dharug people presided over and took care of are rich in meaning and resources. Today in the heart of Parramatta's CBD, along the banks of the Parramatta River, you can see the artwork paying tribute to the Burramattagal people, telling the story of Parramatta through the eyes of our First Nations peoples, from time immemorial to the frontier wars to the decades of colonial policies that dug the trench that exists today in the health and education outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

I believe that it's time to add new chapter to this story—a chapter defined by recognition and reconciliation. This is what the First Nations voice is all about. It's what's inspired the design principles which will guide the Voice and ensure fair First Nations representation. The Voice will be able to make representations to the parliament and executive on matters relating to First Nations peoples. The Voice will be chosen by First Nations peoples based on the wishes of local communities and be representative of First Nations communities. The Voice will be empowering. It will be community led. It will be accountable and transparent. The Voice will make a positive difference.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Later this year Australians will face an important choice, a choice that will have lasting impacts on our country, and that is whether we will change the Constitution. All Australians want to see improved outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Of course we do. We all want to see practical outcomes that improve the lives of Indigenous Australians, especially in some of our most remote communities. What is happening to Australians in those communities is truly terrible—devastating. As Peter Dutton has said, no leader, no party and no Australian occupies the moral high ground on this matter.

The Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, this proposal—the government's Canberra voice—does not provide any practical solutions that will address the issues Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are facing. How can it? There is no detail. We do not know what it will look like, let alone how it will operate. Details should come before the vote, not after it. Australians deserve the detail so they can make an informed choice. To me personally, there are three good reasons to vote no.

While we do support the Australian people having their say, let me be clear: we do not support this risky, divisive, unknown and permanent change to our Constitution. The first point I'd make is that this proposal before us is permanent. It is impossible to change without another referendum. Once our High Court makes an interpretation, the parliament cannot overrule it.

Our Constitution, which this referendum seeks to amend, is, of course, our founding document, a document that has always intentionally been minimalistic. It's a short and relatively succinct constitution, deliberately so. It emerged from many, many years of constitutional conventions and deliberations. I encourage all Australians, if they get the opportunity, to have a look at some of those conventions and deliberations. They were Australians at their very best. They weren't Australians at that point, of course—they were part of a whole series of different colonies—but it was Australia at its best. It gave birth to the modern Australia that we know. This document is a recognition of the work, the collaboration and the time that went into its formation, of people from across all parts of Australia collaborating and working together to come to a document which has served us so well.

Like many Australians, I'm sceptical about changes to our Constitution. Changes to our founding document have the ability to change the fabric of how our government, our country, operates, not always for the best. That's the very real risk for this proposal. The proposal risks that the administration and decision-making of government departments will be wrapped in another layer of complexity and, no doubt, be slowed down by the process. The government denied Australians the benefit of a constitutional convention in keeping with what brought our founding document into place in the first place. A convention could have ironed out details and narrowed the issues in dispute, but the government chose not to have one. The Australian people should be trusted to make an informed choice. They should never again be asked to vote on a permanent constitutional change without knowing what they are voting for.

The second point I would make and reason why I'll be voting no is that this voice proposal is broad and it is uncertain. Australia hasn't changed its Constitution by referendum since 1967. These are big decisions that Australians rightly take very seriously. We want to know how proposed changes will work and what the impacts will be. Will there be unintended consequences? But the government has been deliberately vague. The government is asking Australians to vote without knowing how the Voice will operate.

We don't even have the most basic details you would expect with a change of this magnitude. Australians deserve all the details before they vote on a permanent change to our Constitution. Is it a fourth arm of government? Is it another chamber of the parliament? Will there be another physical chamber? How many new politicians will there be? How much will it cost? What will be the practical applications of the Voice when it comes to decisions of government legislation? Will it delay processes of government, particularly urgent processes, as we saw during the pandemic? These are all questions the government can answer and has chosen not to, and clearly we don't have the detail we would expect of such a significant change.

We have asked questions in this place that the government hasn't answered, like the scope of the Voice. Does it extend to the Reserve Bank, to Centrelink, to the many other agencies that work across government? How will it apply to them? What's very clear is that the breadth of what is being proposed could extend to those agencies. The practical operation of this is a very serious issue for governing this nation, and practical application matters. I learnt this in my previous life, in business and out in the community before coming to this place. Great ideas are one thing, but practical application is ultimately what matters. We don't know how the Voice will practically engage with decision-making processes, what role the Voice role will have in relation to the legislative processes, for instance. In fact, the Prime Minister himself has admitted it would be a very brave government that didn't take the advice of the Voice, whatever it may be.

What is clear is that the proposal will reach far beyond just the issues that relate to Indigenous affairs. Labor's proposed Voice model isn't just to the parliament, but to all areas of executive government. Worryingly, there's no agreement amongst legal experts on the impact of the Voice and how the High Court will interpret such a constitutional change. For instance, Ian Callinan AC KC, former High Court judge, has said:

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

We know that even the government's own Constitutional Expert Group could not reach agreement on what the constitutional change would do. The Solicitor-General has conceded there is room for argument, and we've former High Court Chief Justice French say a duty to consult would 'make government unworkable'. Former High Court Justice Hayne said it would disrupt the ordinary and efficient working of government to such an extent it would 'bring government to a halt'. Former High Court Judge Callinan, again, said no-one could reliably predict how the High Court would interpret the constitutional change. And former Federal Court Justice Giles has said the same thing.

Let me turn to the third reason I will be voting no. We need to bring Australians together on tough issues, not divide them. The starting point here is that every Australian citizen is equal in the eyes of our founding document. This is a fundamental principle underlying and underpinning our democracy. All Australians are treated equally in the Constitution. Any and every Australian can be a member of our parliament, our judiciary, our executive—and that means Australians across all walks of life. We want to see Australians across all walks of life in this place. That's the purpose. At the end of the day, it is the House of Representatives. Labor's Canberra Voice will change this equality of citizenship that is so fundamental to what I have been brought up with and what has been such a successful formula in our nation.

What's being proposed is to create a new institution where this is no longer the case, and the risk is that it will divide Australians and not unite them. Enshrining in our Constitution a body for only one group of Australian citizens means dividing Australians by race. It says to some of the most marginalised Australians, the Australians who do need appropriate support from this place, that you are different from everyone else, and you'll be treated differently forevermore. This proposal will enshrine in our Constitution a group right. Traditionally, constitutions around the world, to the extent that they acknowledge rights, have individual rights. There is no comparison with this group right in other countries. It would be unprecedented. That's not what we're about here in Australia. As I mentioned, the great thing about this country, the principle that I grew up with and believe in very deeply and very firmly, is that in our Constitution and in our nation all citizens should be treated as equal citizens in the eyes of the law.

The Canberra based voice is permanent, broad, uncertain and risks being divisive. There is a better way forward. What's not permanent, broad, uncertain and divisive is establishing local voices. It's those local voices that know where the problems are. We all know in this place that local communities understand best what's right for them and what's needed for them. Every local community is different. I see that even across my community in Hume, which extends from south-west Sydney all the way out to Central West New South Wales. Every part of my electorate is different, with different communities with different needs, and that is absolutely true of our Indigenous communities as well. It's those local voices that we want to hear from, that we see as solving the hardest problems and needing strong and effective governance most of all.

This wouldn't be a Canberra based voice but local and regional voices, recommended in the co-design process by Professors Tom Calma, and Marcia Langton. They are bodies embedded in local communities and regions, established at the grassroots level, and they would be recognised by legislation. These local voices have the potential to be engine rooms for real change on the ground, the change we all want to see, because they're tailored to the needs of that community. We could do that right now. We could establish that process, get it working, evaluate it, strengthen it and build from there. Outside of the Canberra bubble this is how businesses, community organisations and not-for-profits develop now. It's how the real world works. We have an opportunity to do that right now with agreement right across this place. What works, you keep; what doesn't work, you fix. This proposal being put forward by the government doesn't do that. Local and regional voices would not be divisive but would unite.

Let me finish by saying that the sad reality is that it seems the government is happy to divide Australians. That's not what we want to see, but we have seen alarming signs of the divisive nature of this proposal by some. We have seen some appalling behaviour. Some of those on the 'no' side of this case have been treated in a way that is truly a disgrace. The sad reality of modern politics is that many now want to play the person rather than the ball. I implore both sides of this argument, both sides of this important debate, to focus on the issues, focus on the debate and focus on the arguments. It is a reflection on the people who have engaged in some of the less positive behaviour, rather than a reflection on the issue at hand. This sort of behaviour has unfortunately become part of the activist playbook for some. I won't engage in those tactics, and I certainly urge others to stay on the right side of this debate, which is to focus on the issues. I'm calling on all sides to be respectful in this debate. In this country we can disagree without personal attacks.

The outcome of this referendum is not any political party's choice. It's not the choice of the Referendum Working Group, and it's not the choice of companies, businesses or sporting codes. It's the choice of the Australian people. This is every Australian's choice.

Sally Sitou (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

SITOU () (): I am so grateful to be able to stand in this place to talk about the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill in front of these flags here: the Australian flag and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags. I think it is important that we recognise that these flags symbolise the entirety of the Australian story. This is a message I often start my citizenship ceremonies with, when I have the privilege of going. That is a story to those new citizens who have just been sworn in—that they are now stepping into their Australian citizenship and that they are part of this Australian story. They are newer, and they may be adding more chapters, but they are part of an Australian story—not one that began 200 years ago; they are part of an Australian story that stretches back 60,000 years. When they stand up at their citizenship ceremonies they do it in front of those three flags, and it's important that they do. But, unfortunately, our Constitution is a truncated story. It doesn't fully express who we are as a country. It doesn't fully express who those individuals were who made up this country 60,000 years ago. I think it's time we tell the full Australian story.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart is an incredible document, one which I hope becomes part of Australia's historical treasures. There were two parts in that document that I found particularly poignant. The first, at the very beginning of the document, is where it references the connection First Nations people have to this land. They call it 'a spiritual connection'. I was struck by those lines because whilst my connection to this country is deep, personal and emotional, and I'm thankful every day for my Australian citizenship, I don't however feel a spiritual connection to this land. Maybe it's because my family are migrants, maybe it's because I'm a city dweller, but I don't have that spiritual connection with our land, waters and skies. First Nations people do. Their connection to this continent is spiritual, profound and enduring, and there is much for us to learn from them.

That we are home to the oldest continuing culture in the world is truly remarkable. That the culture, traditions, knowledge and storytelling of Australia's First Nations people has endured for more than 60,000 years is something we ought to celebrate. Yet, for too long, we haven't. We have denied First Nations people their identity, land and kin. The consequences of that have been long-lasting, the extent of which is captured in the Uluru Statement from the Heart:

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.

That, to me, answers the 'why'. Just think on that: proportionally First Nations people are the most incarcerated people on the planet. I've also heard the Minister for Indigenous Australians say in this place that there are communities in Australia that do not have access to clean drinking water. Just think on that: in modern Australia there are people who do not have access to clean drinking water. It should hurt us in our souls that there are communities in Australia who are so disadvantaged.

The answer to why we need a voice to parliament is so clear. It's time to get this done. It's time we recognise and celebrate First Nations people in the Constitution. It's time we listened to First Nations people and gave them a greater say over the policies and decisions that impact them. It's time we demonstrate we are a big-hearted and compassionate country. It's time we as Australians rise to meet this moment.

Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I've previously spoken in this place on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, and my views are very well known, if you paid attention to the media this morning. I do want to talk about the Constitution because in the Constitution there is a section that talks about the separation of powers between the judiciary, the parliament and also law enforcement. It's been a long-held principle that that separation of powers should be adhered to. I would not contemplate telling a police officer how to do his job, nor would I consider in any way telling a magistrate, judge or justice how to do his or her job, or criticising a decision made, whether in sentencing or delivering a judgement to a jury. These principles are important, as is respect—respect for each other and respect for one's personal opinion.

The debate on the Voice to Parliament, in my view, is lacking respect. You have one vote. I have one vote. Every Australian has one vote. It is yours to make. I will not criticise you for your opinion. But when those on the 'yes' side criticise those who choose to say no, it simply demonstrates the reason why those who choose to say no will not stand up publicly—because they are labelled racist, disgraceful or paternalistic. So I urge those people, I urge people on both sides, to show respect to one another.

I will not walk back from my speech. I am proud of what I have said and I am proud more so of what I have done in this place. I support every member of my community and I support every First Nations person and every First Nations people. This is not a question about whether we should recognise them in the Constitution. They should be in the preamble, and I have said that all along. This is about a voice to parliament. Let's not conflate the two issues.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 is a fairly simple and straightforward bill. It is designed to set in motion the process for a national referendum on establishing the Voice. It should not be complicated nor obfuscated by concerns as to how the Voice will operate, because that is a discussion for another time and place. It should not be clouded by spurious predictions of legal challenges to the Voice, most of which have been carefully examined and dismissed by senior legal minds. It should not be rejected by those who claim it is not the ultimate solution to centuries of injustice and disadvantage, because it's only intended as a beginning, and it should be embraced as such.

The point of this bill is to enable the parliament to ask all Australians about whether our Constitution should formally recognise the First Peoples of this nation, in a long-awaited extension of the time we asked all Australians back in 1967 if Aboriginal people should be counted in the national census. We will also ask all Australians whether our First Nations people should have an enshrined body to speak to government for better practical outcomes. It is about nothing more and nothing less than this. This referendum we wish to put before the Australian people arises from a long and extensive conversation and consultation.

There are many in this chamber who have and will present wise and passionate arguments in favour of this bill; there are many who will disagree. Perhaps I can offer a point of difference by providing the perspective of a migrant Australian. I still remember several decades ago when multiculturalism was considered a radical new policy. Once, so-called new Australians, of which I was one, arriving here 60 years ago this year, were expected to bury their birth languages and cultures to suppress their identities and assimilate into 'the Australian'—in that context, meaning the white Anglo-Celtic way of life. This in itself is quite an irony since a truly Australian way of life might be better equated with a number of our Indigenous cultures. After years of political struggle and campaigning, it is now widely recognised that Australia is a more just, richer, better-resourced and better-adapted society for its cultural and linguistic diversity through the embracing of multiculturalism.

I trust that we as a nation also have the maturity now to embrace a formal acknowledgement of a voice for first Australians who, for so long, have been marginalised and discriminated against. The Constitution is the document that sets out who we are, what we aspire to and what our intentions as a nation are. It's right that it should also name and acknowledge the traditional owners and custodians of the lands, water and sky. The argument in favour of establishing the Voice beyond the main one, which is what multiple representative forums of Indigenous Australians have asked for, also requires a historical understanding.

In the past, we have had various bodies and advisory councils to provide advice on important policy matters that particularly affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities. But they have always existed and operated at the behest of the government of the day. For decades there have been calls for an enduring representative body, not one that can be abolished or starved of funding by a minister or department. A constitutionally enshrined voice can establish the enduring vehicle by which Indigenous Australians can speak directly to parliament and government about the real-life issues facing their communities and how best to deal with them.

We know that outcomes for First Nations communities in areas of longstanding and structural disadvantage are always better when government, policymakers and service delivery organisations work in partnership with these communities. We know how so many programs and interventions, some well-intentioned, others not so well thought out, have failed. They have failed to address the gaps in health, longevity, justice and flourishing caused by decades of dispossession, dislocation and discrimination. We've learnt the importance of working with community, not imposing upon community, if we hope to achieve real change and empowerment.

This bill is simple, but it is also profound. It is deeply symbolic, but it is also about real and lasting change. It is about facing our past with honesty and embracing our future with hope and inclusion. It is about our integrity as a nation. It is about heart. It is about common sense. It is about honouring our First Nations people, as they have asked us to. So let's now give our fellow Australians the chance to answer this call.

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a representative of all of the Torres Strait and a considerable number of remote Indigenous communities throughout Cape York, I've developed an understanding of the issues that these communities face over my many years of service in the electorate of Leichhardt. When we talk about Indigenous disadvantage, we cannot equate the circumstances in remote Indigenous communities with those in metropolitan areas or larger regional towns. They are two very entirely different realities. The variety of choices and supports available to Indigenous Australians is not insignificant, but the supports are simply not found in the remote locations. There are choices that can be made in the metropolitan areas in schooling, universities, health, housing and jobs. There's no shortage of funding for Indigenous people to make these choices. Tick the box on the application and funding is available.

The real challenge is being able to get people engaged and extending the support into our remote areas. The challenge there is finding a way of making sure that Indigenous Australians in these metropolitan, outer metropolitan and regional towns actually take the opportunities that are there.

There are great examples of Indigenous Australians who are engaged and are doing wonderful things. We've got successful examples of doctors, lawyers, teachers, leaders across industries and even politicians. There are even some you might not expect, like Daniel Joinbee from Yarrabah, who runs Gunggandji Aerospace, which is the only 100 per cent Indigenous owned aerospace consultancy; and Sharon Bonython-Ericson of Illuminate FNQ, which is driving opportunities in STEM for kids and helping grow the capacity of regional Indigenous and non-Indigenous kids to quite literally reach for the stars and to follow in the footsteps of people like Daniel Joinbee.

Another fine example is Tania Major from Kowanyama. She is a very proud Koko Bera woman. She went to university. She's a criminologist. She's done some fabulous work engaging her community through softball. While she's no longer living there, she's very committed to that community. She was also Young Australian of the Year.

The point is that there's no shortage of capable Indigenous Australians. Unfortunately, when you make your way out into the very remote communities across Cape York, across the country and throughout other areas of Australia, the story is quite different. These choices and supports are not available and many of the opportunities that do exist are only for government-driven Community Development Program work. It's quite sad to see so many young people aspiring to be just CDP workers.

Those who wish to remain in their communities are faced with limited options. They can be a ranger, an Indigenous health worker or a teachers aid. They are the main opportunities, but there are other roles that have relatively limited upward momentum within their respective remote communities.

It might be of interest to members of this House to know that, unlike in metropolitan, outer metropolitan and regional towns, should a young person in these remote communities want to go out and make something of themselves, aspiring for a better life, but wish to remain in their community, they don't have the option of even having their own housing. They must stay in their family home because that is all that is built—family homes. Whereas, if they were employed somewhere else and then applied for a job in that remote community, they would be afforded a house by the department. So they would get a house if they flew in, but if they stay there they're not entitled to one. What a disincentive.

For instance, a young person working irregular hours in, say, the health sector in the community is surrounded by their family—from infants to toddlers right through to grandparents—all living under the same roof. It's really not an insignificant issue. It's complex. It just reinforces further elements of disadvantage. You can't have your own space as a mature-aged young person in a community. You can't have your own place to learn to be house proud. You're trying to get ahead, but the needs and priorities of your entire family across generations can make it exceptionally difficult. And we expect this to be functional.

These young people can't move into their own place. Anywhere else it's a rite of passage. This simple illustration says to me that they in fact don't have the choices and the supports. When we are talking about disadvantage in these areas, this is where we need to focus to improve the quality of life and to get better engagement and better choices.

It seems that all we ever do is go around in circles. We saw what happened with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. ATSIC started with effectively the same aspirations being promoted for the Voice. Sadly, it was another abject failure. It was particularly a failure again in these remote communities. A privileged few did very well out of it, but the majority of those in remote communities have continued to largely suffer and go without.

We've had slogans like 'closing the gap'. Have a look at the continual failures. Prime ministers from both sides have had to stand up year after year in this place and admit failure after failure. The metrics have stalled and the gap remains, if not grows. To me, the Voice is another slogan. We simply must do better. And there is no detail. It's all: 'Trust us. We'll change the Constitution and we'll fix all the problems.' Quite frankly, judging on the history, I don't trust that rhetoric. The reality is: we'd be far better if we were to legislate now so that we could then make the necessary changes until we got Indigenous policy in this country working for Indigenous Australians.

I have no argument that Indigenous voices need to be heard. It's important that the 11 Indigenous voices that we have here in this parliament are heard. But it's equally important that those on the ground who are living in remote communities, facing the daily reality of failed Indigenous policy, have their voices heard too. I agreed with the Minister for Indigenous Australians when she said earlier this week that we need to deliver 'structural change that empowers Indigenous communities' and that we should be 'getting better advice so that we get better policies and better outcomes'. That's an absolute no-brainer. But I think we have to do this by listening to regional and remote voices. A bottom-up approach is needed. It's obvious to me that a bureaucratic approach is not going to resolve these ongoing challenges.

It is the popularly elected leaders in our respective communities that have demonstrated their own successes that need to be given the chance to raise their voices; otherwise, we'll just get more of the same. A great example the House might be interested in is the remote community in my electorate of Old Mapoon, where Aileen Addo and her council, and their predecessors, have done amazingly well. We're talking about a remote community council consisting of four women and one man. Old Mapoon started like any other remote community, where governments brought together families from around the region, for convenience of management and supplying converts to the church. Sure, at the time, it was well-meaning. However, the community was betrayed in 1963 when, in the interests of further mining operations, the church, the government and the mining companies colluded and declared the mission to be unhealthy. They rounded up the entire community and forcefully relocated them to New Mapoon on the tip of Cape York. But, to add insult to injury, as the families were being barged out of the bay, they had to watch their homes being torched—a very sad indictment of the history of our region. Interestingly enough, half of the community chose to stay at the new site, at New Mapoon, and, to this day, continue to face many of the challenges we see in remote communities. The other half spread themselves around Australia and then, in 1984, they chose to come back home and decided to rebuild. And haven't they done a fantastic job. They brought many skills, acquired during their time of banishment.

Another community leader worthy of mention is the long-serving mayor of the Lockhart River community, Wayne Butcher. It's certainly a community not without challenges, but the progress that has been made by Wayne and his team is worthy of recognition. Again, like Aileen Addo's, Wayne's voice is one that should be heard.

These are wonderful examples of communities that have been successful, where, in stark contrast, other communities in Cape York continue to suffer from different levels of dysfunction. And I say this to underscore the fact that the community leadership has a significant role to play.

Since the introduction of Indigenous policy in this country, there has always been a select group of self-appointed Indigenous leaders that are predominantly metropolitan academics. They have long provided guidance to policymakers, and it appears that this trend will continue to prevail under the guise of the Voice. And we've seen where that has got us today.

Many people on both sides of the parliament have long hailed the work of Noel Pearson in advancing Indigenous policy. They've held him up as a messiah—like a figurehead for Indigenous Australians. He is acknowledged as one of the architects of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to the Parliament that we're debating here today. There is no doubt that Noel has significant influence over Indigenous affairs, but I, like many others in Cape York who have seen the reality of his influence, have long been critical of governments and bureaucrats that only care to listen for his voice. Over decades, Noel Pearson and his organisations and policy initiatives have exerted growing influence over governments of all persuasions. They've received hundreds of millions of dollars over many decades for his pet projects. And for what? Many of these remote communities that Noel has used as policy experiments remain dysfunctional, whether it's Cape York welfare reform, Cape York Employment, Good to Great Schools or a range of other concessions—the list of Noel's entities and programs just goes on and on.

With great difficulty, I've been able to ascertain that since 2005 Noel has accumulated something like $550 million of Australian taxpayers' money—and that's only what I've been able to find—and subsidies for his entities and policy initiatives. The vast majority of these have been in remote communities in Cape York. Noel comes up with the policy ideas, the government give him the money, he runs the program, and God help anybody who stands in his way. It's evident to me that these funds are a lot more than that and go back further than 2005.

I ask the question: is there value for money? In my view, it's always been a ruse. I challenge anyone to come up and have a look at what influence he's actually achieved. The communities in Cape York who have, effectively, banned Noel—like Mapoon—are doing exceptionally well. Those who've let Noel's influence into their communities remain dysfunctional, and I'm sure the House is aware of the well-known example of Aurukun in Cape York.

Noel has been in the government's payroll for decades, advising and influencing Indigenous policy, and I say to government: do we really need the architect of so many policy failures involved in producing another one? While he identifies himself as a Cape York Indigenous leader, Noel Pearson has never stood for an election. He certainly wants to lead—and should face the community. Let's see where he goes, then, on polling day.

When it comes to a voice, many are calling for respect and restraint. When regarding the views of others, a level of dignity is required, particularly in these sensitive debates where such a diverse range of views is involved. I can tell you now, Noel, that you won't win the hearts and minds of others by penning pieces like the one you did in the Australian on 20 May, writing off baby boomers as racist just because they don't subscribe to your world view:

The boomer readership of this paper is of course antipathetic to recognition. They are mostly obscurant and borderline casual racists in their views.

As a baby boomer myself, I find these comments deeply offensive, a cheap, grubby attack on the genuine criticism relating to your brainchild.

It's classic Noel Pearson behaviour—shout down anybody who disagrees with you and call them a racist. It really typifies the individual. That's not how you start bringing people along on a journey towards improving Indigenous disadvantage and securing constitutional recognition.

I am not opposed to the Voice per se, but it should be legislated in the parliament. We have no substantive detail, and it's a very significant thing to change the Constitution. We can't expect Australians to vote on a feeling or a guess. The old line, 'Trust us, vote yes and we'll figure out the details later,' is simply not going to fly. It's an extraordinary proposition and I completely understand why many Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, are having serious reservations.

Recognition is absolutely critical. We need to be taking recognition out of this debate and installing it in the Constitution immediately. What I'm urging us to do here is to get the Voice legislated and to work it through until it's the best it can be—when we start seeing improvements happening. Then we can start saying we're successful in this very important area of policy.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 known as the Voice. Asking Australians to participate in any referendum is a big deal. This is because any change to our Constitution, our nation's guiding rulebook, is a big deal. Every word in our Constitution can be open to legal challenge and interpretation. It is therefore the government of the day's responsibility to have very carefully thought through the wording of any referendum question being put to Australians and also the proposed wording to be incorporated into our Constitution. Once a change is made to our Constitution, it is very difficult to unchange it.

History shows that there is very little chance of a referendum succeeding in Australia, regardless of the proposed wording change. Since our Federation, Australians have only supported eight of the 44 proposed constitutional changes. 1977 was the last time Australian electors approved an amendment to our Constitution. Given this, when considering asking Australians to vote on a referendum, I believe it is incumbent on the government to do a number of very key things: (1) ensure that the proposed wording change will not be open to legal challenge; (2) ensure that there is a rigorous review and consultation process; and (3) ensure that there is ample detail provided to Australians about the consequences of any proposed wording to our Constitution.

Legal experts do not agree on how the High Court will interpret the proposed constitutional change to create the Voice. Ian Callinan AC KC, a former High Court judge, has said:

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

It is a matter of public record the government's own constitutional expert group could not reach agreement on the consequences of the proposed constitutional change. Some said it could give rise to a constitutional duty for government to consider any Voice representations even if the parliament did not want this. Others have disagreed. The Solicitor-General has conceded that there is room for argument.

The government's inquiry into this bill has been poor. The inquiry into the republic referendum held 12 separate hearings. This was after a full constitutional convention that invited delegates from right around our great country. The Albanese government determined that a constitutional convention was not required for the Voice. There has been no explanation given for this decision. If we had had a convention on the Voice I'm quite sure that we could have ironed out the details and at least narrowed the issues in dispute. Instead, the government decided merely that a joint select committee would be formed to review the bill, and that was given only six weeks to conduct the inquiry. I believe that was woefully inadequate, and I simply don't understand why the rush.

Prime Minister Albanese is asking Australians to vote for this change to our Constitution without providing the details of how the Voice will work in practice. Some 'yes' campaigners have argued that the proposed changes to the Constitution are modest or that they are no big deal, but, as I have said, any change to our Constitution is a big deal. In February this year I penned an opinion piece on the Voice which was published in the West Australian newspaper. In this piece I said:

Closing the gap requires the support of both sides of the aisle … If we are going to propose the inclusion of the Voice in our Constitution the Australian public should be treated … with respect. Australians have a right to ask the Government common sense questions—

regarding the referendum. Since February the government has announced a referendum question and the proposed constitutional wording. Sadly, there are now even more questions and even greater uncertainty as to how the Voice will work in practice.

I went on further to say:

In WA, our regional and remote communities are at breaking point. Our hospitals, police force, community organisations and local councils are literally crying out for help.

I represent some of our most vulnerable Australians. I want only the best for my Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander constituents. I want the children to go to school and to get a job, for the home to be a safe place, for overcrowding to be a thing of the past, to keep our young people out of Banksia Hill Detention Centre. I want the reduction of alcohol abuse and drugs. The most important thing is to stop our kids from having kids. Clearly the way in which federal and state governments have been supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders needs to have a complete overhaul. It is simply not fit for purpose. I expect all of my federal colleagues here, and represented across our land, want the lives of our First Nations people to be improved. I do not think that that is being debated. Many argue that the Voice is the answer, but there are many others who are not convinced of that.

According to the Calma-Langton report, which laid out in detail how a national Voice model would operate, the first step in the process of creating the Voice was to start with local and regional voices, and I believe, as someone who represents the second-largest Indigenous population in our great country, that that is a very good starting point. For too long Canberra has been telling Indigenous communities what is best for them. The government, however, has acknowledged at some point in the future there is an intention to create a local and regional voice structure. But, in the meantime, the proposed Voice model would be a top-down approach.

I had hoped that the Voice would have provided a vehicle for Indigenous Australians to have their say in how national policy affects the local challenges, and we know there are plenty of challenges. But it will simply be impossible for the many Indigenous communities across Western Australia to be represented on any Voice committee, which will undoubtedly be a very city-centric, Canberra focused body. How on earth will the voices of regional Western Australia's Indigenous communities ever be heard under what is being proposed today?

The Prime Minister says that the Voice will unite the nation. I'm sorry, Prime Minister; I disagree with you 100 per cent. If the Voice referendum is not successful, we will not only have expended many millions of dollars and untold amounts of human resources for no outcome, but the Canberra bureaucrats would have continued to spin their wheels without making headway to improve our existing programs.

In conclusion, I do not support the proposal that is contained within this bill. However, I will not stand in the way of the Australian people having their say. It is right and proper that Australians have the final say on the referendum.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not without some degree of sadness and trepidation that I make my contribution on the bill before the House today, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I say that because I listened to the Prime Minister's speech here this morning and his claim that he is desperate to unite our nation, but just like the member for Durack, who made her comments just a few moments ago, I fear that the approach taken by the Prime Minister is dividing our nation in a horrible way. At a time when I would rather be here celebrating the extraordinary achievements of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in this country—achievements through the arts, through culture, through sporting fields, here in this parliament, in business and in commerce—we are having a conversation that is talking down our country in a way which makes me very uncomfortable.

I stand beside the member for Canning, who knows full well the contribution that our Indigenous brothers and sisters have made to the Australian Defence Force over decades. Even before they had the right to vote, Aboriginal men went to war and fought for our country, and no-one saw the colour of their skin when they fought in the Army, the Air Force One or the Navy; they saw them as fellow soldiers, airmen and Navy personnel who could assist to keep our country safe. I'd rather be celebrating those achievements here today in my comments than participating in a debate which I fear can only end in a more divided Australia.

In joining this debate, I want to make a very simple point from the outset: there is so much that I agree with the Minister for Indigenous Affairs on when she speaks about the enormous issues facing our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, just as I agreed with the former minister, my great colleague Ken Wyatt, and supported his efforts towards practical reconciliation measures and Closing the Gap measures. I offer my sincere bipartisan support to the minister in almost all of her endeavours, and I think that is a feeling, an emotion and a practical view that is held virtually across the entire chamber. But I do believe this debate will only get worse in the months ahead. It will become more divisive, and it will paint a negative picture at the expense of the truth, just as, when I worked very closely with our veteran community over a period of several years, there was a public narrative that all veterans were broken, busted and bad, which played into a cycle of despondency and desperation which simply didn't reflect the reality of the situation. Certainly there are many veterans who need great assistance from the government and our community, and they are entitled to receive that, but the vast majority are transitioning well and going on with their lives.

In our Indigenous communities, there are many success stories we need to celebrate in this place, notwithstanding that we have to acknowledge the challenges we face. The minister and I agree entirely that issues around life expectancy, family violence, incarceration rates, and health and education outcomes are all genuine issues, to which the full strength of this parliament and the full strength of state parliaments needs to be applied to achieve real action on the ground, but in this debate we must be so careful not to completely embrace a simple narrative that everything is broken and everything is bad. There are some incredible programs occurring right now across rural, regional and remote Australia. There are local actions being taken by dedicated communities, volunteers and professional people achieving great outcomes. People are getting out of bed every day and making a difference in their own communities, and we must not disrespect them in this debate. We must not disrespect them by pretending that nothing good is happening on the ground in our communities at the moment.

I say 'our communities', because it is 'our communities' in my party, the National Party. Overwhelmingly, the people we are talking about here, in this debate in Canberra today, live in rural, regional and remote Australia. I'm not for a second suggesting there aren't Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in our suburbs, but when you look at the electoral map and you look at the census data it is evident that a higher percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people live in the electorates that are represented in this place by the Nationals. I had the chance to listen to the contributions of several of my colleagues, and I want to single out a couple of them.

I listened to Mark Coulton, the member for Parkes. I think the percentage of Aboriginal people in his community is about 16 per cent. In the last election, Mark received an increased primary vote, and he won booths which are the homes of predominantly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. He wouldn't have been winning those booths or winning that seat with an increased margin if he weren't doing a good job on these very difficult practical challenges of helping Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people achieve their full potential.

I also listened to my good friend the member for Cowper, Pat Conaghan. He talked about his lived experience as a whitefella growing up in Kempsey, where there were Aboriginal kids playing sport with him and going to school with him. His dad was a doctor, the first doctor in his community to allow Aboriginal people into his clinic— in the 1960s—to get treatment. That's not the activity of a person who, as he was unfairly portrayed in today's media by a Supreme Court justice, is somehow being racist.

In my own lived experience, growing up in Gippsland, my extended family included Aboriginal children who had been fostered and adopted by my dad's cousin, so family reunions were very much a black-and-white affair. The kids would turn up from Orbost. We'd have an instant cricket match when a busload of Aboriginal kids, who we regarded as our cousins, turned up. So we had a very interesting upbringing.

So my opposition to the Voice today is not because I'm racist. It's because I believe it's actually poor public policy. I believe it won't achieve practical outcomes. What really worries me is that I believe the Voice, this debate, where we're heading, will divide Australians on the basis of race where we were never divided before. It actually undermines the way our democracy is meant to work, and I simply can't support it in its current form.

From my experience, regional Australians do want to close the gap. They want to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. Regional Australians want to improve the lives of all vulnerable people, but regional Australians also understand it takes hard work and consistent effort—not simply voting for a vibe because urban elites, the Prime Minister, sporting organisations or big corporations tell you that's what you have to do.

I have a simple message today in what is a complex debate. My simple message to people who are considering this issue is: it's actually okay to say no. You can consider this issue and reasonable people can examine the same facts in this complex area of public policy, and it's completely reasonable to have a different view—but please do it respectfully. It's actually okay to say no. You're not racist if you say no. If you don't believe that a new bureaucracy enshrined in our Constitution will make any difference on the ground, then vote no. If you believe the Prime Minister hasn't given you enough detail and he won't trust you with the detail of his proposed Voice, then don't trust him with a 'yes' vote.

I've been contacted by many Gippslanders seeking my view, and I've gone into some detail to explain my reasons, including a lengthy explanation on my website, so I won't go into all that today. I won't seek to change anyone's opinion either. I think Australians are smart enough to figure this out for themselves. I will say, though, that the tone of this debate has to be reset, and the only person who can reset the tone of the debate is the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister has to reset the tone of the debate. He can't make public comments like, 'It's the decent thing to do to vote yes.' When he says that it's the decent thing to do, he's saying that, if you intend to vote no, as an Australian citizen, you are somehow indecent. I just don't believe that. I do not believe that the people seeking to vote no are somehow indecent. So I call on the Prime Minister to try to reset the tone of this debate. I know you're passionate about it, Prime Minister; I know what your view is. Everyone knows what your view is. But don't try to portray Australians as somehow being indecent if they happen to have a different view to you.

But worse than that, we had the extraordinarily unhelpful comments from the leader of the Greens. The leader of the Greens is actually saying that people on my side of the House are racist if they intend to vote no. He's actually saying that we are racist by intending to vote. And then we have the Premier of Victoria describing people as mean and nasty if they intend to vote no. This is the grub who just sacked thousands of timber workers in my community, and he has the gall to suggest that somehow wanting to vote no in the referendum is mean and nasty. I say to people like that, do not talk down—

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Makin.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I draw your attention to the unparliamentary term that was just used and ask the member to withdraw it.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the sake of the record, I was referring to the Premier of Victoria and I called him a grub. But I withdraw the remark if you're offended by that. You're probably the only person in this place who would be. I withdraw the remark.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please continue.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I'm saying is that we have people like a Supreme Court judge sending emails to a member of parliament from a position of extraordinary privilege in our community saying: 'Your position and the position of your party is needlessly cruel and mean-spirited and is patently based upon a political stance that is indecent in its ignorance. May you live long enough to acquire sufficient wisdom and self-awareness to be ashamed of yourself.'

The point I would like to make very simply to people who have a different opinion to the 'yes' campaigners is that it's okay to say no if you have a different view. In my party, we believe in localism. We believe very strongly that the best people to make these decisions on how to overcome local challenges is to work within the structure of national laws and state laws, plus government supports where it's needed, but from our experience centralised decision-making across a range of key issues continues to undermine the success and prosperity of regional communities, including our Indigenous people. The Voice will entrench that disconnect.

It is simply wrong and disrespectful to so many hard-working professionals and community leaders to suggest that nothing positive is occurring across our nation today when it comes to measures to close the gap. From my experience as a minister in veterans affairs and other portfolios, there's always more to be done in every area of public policy, but we should recognise the success stories. I say to those opposite and to those who have painted such a dark picture of our nation: imagine if all the programs from the federal and state governments that are already funded by taxpayers weren't in place today. We have to acknowledge that there are some great initiatives in place. From my experience, the programs that are locally run and directed at local problems tend to have the best outcomes.

It's also incredibly important to keep recognising that Australian voters have already provided a voice in this place for Indigenous people, with the current federal parliament proudly boasting 11 MPs and senators across all political parties—a truly significant achievement. Our political reality in recent years has been that political parties and the Australian voters have recognised the lack of diversity among elected MPs and have taken steps through democratic systems to begin remedying that situation.

In closing, I repeat my earlier comment: it is okay to say no to the Voice. I encourage everyone to treat each other with respect and kindness in this potentially divisive debate. I think Australians are up to the challenge, and I call on the Prime Minister to help reset the tone of the debate. I thank the House.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, 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.