Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

This Government's inability to explain what the Voice is and how it would work.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This week the parliament has been on view to the Australian public. The public are very curious about a very significant issue confronting our nation—that is, the Voice—and the question will be put to the Australian people, presumably in the first or second week of October. I think the Australian public were watching this week, expecting answers from the Minister for Indigenous Affairs and, indeed, from the Prime Minister, perhaps even from the Attorney-General. There were over 20 questions put to the Minister for Indigenous Australians and not a straight answer given. Let's be very clear about it: there was not one straight answer. The Australian public viewing this week in question time could be none the wiser in terms of the operation of the Voice if it is voted upon successfully in October of this year.

This is the most significant proposal to amend the Constitution since 1901. This is the insertion of a new chapter into Australia's rule book. When the forefathers established the Constitution, they put in place a double test. If there was to be a change to the Constitution, it required a majority of states and a majority of Australians. They didn't do that lightly. They didn't think a 51-49 proposition would be viable to change the Constitution of our country. They thought through it and put it into black-and-white lettering in the Constitution that that double test would be required, because they wanted to protect the sanctity of that document. They wanted to make sure that the stability that we have thus enjoyed since 1901 as a democracy, as a country, went into perpetuity. They wanted to make sure that, through any event, internal or external to our country, the rule book would be the guidance for this chamber and for the other place. There is no law that can pass this House, no law that can be agreed to by this parliament—even if there is every member of this House, 151, sitting on the one side in support of the bill—that can be passed that is in contravention of that national rule book. The Constitution has primacy over this place. To the extent that there is an inconsistency, the High Court will deal with it. They will rule on it. We saw it only a couple of years ago in relation to section 44, where, almost inconceivably in the minds of many Australians, people who were sitting in this parliament were ruled to be ineligible because of their heritage.

The High Court can sit for years in relation to a particular question that might hinge on a single word, a single sentence or a single paragraph within the Constitution. So, if the proposal is before the Australian people that there should be a change to that rule book, a change to the Constitution, a change to the way that government operates in this country, it needs to be for good reason. I think that's why millions of Australians at the moment, even if their instinct is to support the Voice, or to support a situation that might improve the lives of Indigenous Australians—they would instinctively do that—have a significant hesitation in their minds. And the deliberate strategy of this government is not to answer that question or to allay that concern that millions of Australians have. In fact, we've seen from the Prime Minister, quite openly, contempt towards Australians. The Minister for Indigenous Australians has used language suggesting that some Australians aren't smart enough to understand the proposition being put to them. It's completely shameful. I think it's completely regrettable that our country has been put into a position where we are being divided, not united.

Let's look at a little bit of the history in relation to this debate. Previous governments—Liberal governments, Labor governments—have worked with the opposition of the day to try to find consensus around these issues, to try to find a bipartisan way forward so that we can have the '67 moment, so that we can have 80 or 90 per cent of Australians coming together at a point of national unity. That's what we all crave, because we want a better outcome for people in Alice Springs, in Laverton, in Leonora, in Tennant Creek. We want those kids to lead the same life that we expect to be provided to our kids in capital cities, in outer metropolitan areas, in regional areas. We want an outcome for those Indigenous Australians. We want improvements in life expectancy—of course we do. We want to see educational standards improve. We want to see every Closing the Gap statement and measure improve. Every Australian has that in their hearts, but the question is whether the Voice can provide that.

The Prime Minister has said that, if the Voice fails, it will tarnish our international reputation. If the Voice fails, he says, it will set back reconciliation. Well, I agree with him on the second point, and this is the point that we need to concentrate on now as a country. It's clear in all of the published and private polling that the government will not achieve success at the time of the next election in relation to the Voice in October of this year—at the constitutional election. It is clear that there is a lot of emotion in this debate and the government wants Australians to vote on a vibe. That much is very clear.

I believe very strongly that reconciliation will be harmed in this country if the Voice fails, and it's incumbent on the Prime Minister to address this very important issue. It's incumbent on the Prime Minister to recognise the facts in relation to this debate. The Prime Minister stepped away from the bipartisan approach when he came into government and he saw a wedge. He saw a wedge opportunity: if the vote went down, he could blame that on the coalition parties. That's the political objective, the underbelly of this debate. That's the reality.

If the Prime Minister is going forward with a constitutional change that he believes is going to fail, that will set back reconciliation, then it is incumbent on this Prime Minister to stop that course of action. The best outcome achievable, according to many pundits and many experts observing this debate at the moment, is that the nation is split evenly down the middle in October of this year. It should be incumbent on any Prime Minister to provide the leadership to prevent that from taking place.

We have proposed that there should be constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians. We believe that that is the 1967 moment of unity for our country. We believe that Australians could stand together in October of this year, supported by the Labor Party, supported by the Liberal Party, supported by the Nationals, supported by the Greens, the teals and the Independents—every member in this place. We believe that's the moment that the Prime Minister should grasp, because the Australian public is not ready to vote for the Voice. The Voice hasn't been explained to them—that has been very clear—and, as I say, it's a deliberate strategy to starve the Australian people of that information.

Consider this reality. The Prime Minister's proposal is that people will vote in October, presumably the seventh or the 14th at this point. They will be asked to vote on the Voice to change our nation's rulebook. The design of the Voice will commence on the following Monday. Australians are being asked to vote before the Voice has been designed. Six months of consultation will take place, we're told. The construction of the Voice, which will be the most significant change to our Constitution in our nation's history, will take place after people have been asked to vote. There are no words that the Attorney-General can include in his second reading speech that will override the words inserted into the Constitution. Let's be very clear about that. The Attorney-General knows that. This legal nonsense that was put forward by the government this week that some sentence inserted by the Attorney-General into the second reading speech will somehow override the provision in the Constitution is a legal nonsense. This Prime Minister owes it to the Australian people to be honest with the Australian people and to stop being tricky. Stop being tricky, Mr Prime Minister.

What we are seeing at the moment is a government that is deliberately keeping information from the Australian public. It is hoping that, because of their goodwill that the government seeks to exploit and because of the vibe of the thing, it will pass. This will be the most significant change made to the way in which our government operates in our country's history. The Prime Minister of the day has the option before him now to work with us, to say to the Australian public that we will go forward in a unifying, not dividing, manner in October this year. That is the hand of friendship that we extend to the government today. We proposed to legislate the Voice. Let's do that. Let's sit down and work together on the drafting of that and make sure that Australians can understand how it works—good and bad—but let them be informed. Don't treat the Australian public with such contempt. That's the duty of the Prime Minister of the day, and at the moment he is sadly lacking in his fundamental duty to the Australian people.

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

What we just heard was 10 minutes of misinformation, 10 minutes spent trying to create confusion and spread division, 10 minutes totally devoid of empathy, 10 minutes completely unworthy of the alternative Prime Minister of this country.

In 2017, Indigenous Australians met and agreed on the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Leader of the Opposition has just given a statement without a heart. This is very clear. The question that Australians will be asked at this referendum is clear. The exact wording of the constitutional provisions is clear. The eight design principles explaining what the Voice will do, and what it won't do, are clear. All of this information has been available, in some cases for many years. Most of it was developed when the former coalition was in government. What's just as clear is that some of those opposite are not interested in answers. They were always set on saying no.

The Nationals said no before they even saw the question, and the Liberals said no before the parliamentary process even started. The question before the Australian people is simple:

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?

Yes or no?

Then there are the provisions which are there:

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

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

2. 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;

3.—

importantly, the one that maintains the primacy of this parliament—

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.

In addition to that, the Attorney-General's second reading speech made it very clear that they would advise on 'matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' and, importantly, on 'matters … which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently to other members of the Australian community.' The eight principles that were developed under Calma and Langton are clear as well: independent advice; chosen by Indigenous people themselves; representative of Indigenous communities; empowering and community led; the need to be accountable and transparent; working alongside existing organisations; importantly, not a funding body; no program delivery function; and, also importantly, the Voice will not have a veto power.

They used to talk about the Solicitor-General's advice. This is what the Solicitor-General's opinion said:

The proposed amendment is not only compatible with the system of representative and responsible government established under the Constitution, but it enhances that system.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Fairfax is getting close to being warned.

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

It went on to say:

… it seeks to rectify a distortion in the existing system … in my opinion proposed s 129 is not just compatible with the system of representative and responsible government prescribed by the Constitution, but an enhancement of that system.

It went on to say it:

would not alter the existing distribution of Commonwealth governmental power … instead operating only as an advisory body to those two branches of government. The Voice clearly has no power of veto.

It went on to say:

… if proposed s 129 is introduced into the Constitution, representative government will be unaffected.

That, of course, is consistent with what people such as Justice French and Justice Hayne have said.

Today, the four land councils of the Northern Territory came to present to me the Barunga Statement, calling for a vote for yes in the referendum. In the history of our federation we've had 122 years of decisions being made about Aboriginal people, without Aboriginal people. With the best of intentions, we have presided over an expensive, well-intentioned failure. It's been 122 years of doing things for Indigenous Australians; this is our chance to do things with Indigenous Australians.

With respect to the Leader of the Opposition: when he appointed Julian Leeser as the shadow Attorney-General and the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, I said to colleagues, and I thought, that someone who had been a part of this process for far longer than myself—going back to at least 2012—and who had supported a voice so strongly was able as a legal practitioner to give advice as well to the now opposition, making it very clear that this scare campaign is completely unworthy. This morning the Leader of the Opposition was on Ray Hadley's show, speaking about the Voice dealing with where defence bases would be. I mean, seriously! Indigenous people have an eight-year gap in life expectancy, a suicide rate twice as high, and rates of disease and infant mortality and family violence so much worse than in the general community. Young men are more likely to go to jail than to go to university. They have among the worst incarceration rates in the world. Only four out of the 19 Closing the Gap targets are on track. Something is broken, and fixing it should be above politics. The idea of recognition through a voice did not come from here in Canberra; it came from Indigenous Australians themselves, from the ground up, from the people who know the difference that change can make.

Aunty Pat Anderson said this on Monday:

It is a universal truism when you involve people you make decisions for, you make better decisions …

That is what this is about—listening to people, working with people, getting better at decisions.

All we need to do is listen. That is the opportunity this referendum represents for all of us—not as members of a political party, or, indeed, as members of parliament, but as Australians. We can answer the gracious, generous, optimistic request from Uluru:

We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish.

It went on to say:

In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard.

That's what Australians are being asked to vote for—to say yes to recognition and yes to listening.

I go to all the scare campaigns we've heard before. The Leader of the Opposition, in 2008, said:

I think the Australian people deserve to know the full details of the implications of this policy including the financial ones.

It would beggar belief that they would be contemplating an apology that could open the government up to serious damages claims without knowing what those claims would be.

At a time when there are stresses on the economy we need to know fully the impact of all government decisions.

He predicted $10 billion in compensation claims if the apology occurred—nonsense then, nonsense now. The Leader of the Opposition didn't just sit there and tell Brendan Nelson he was opposed to it; he actually stood up and walked out. That's the Peter Dutton that I know. That's the Peter Dutton that Australians know. And we're seeing it played out again.

I finish where this historic opportunity began—with the final words of the Uluru Statement from the Heart:

We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.

Churches, sporting organisations, civil society, business and Indigenous people themselves are out there saying yes. And I am optimistic that Australians will also say yes. (Time expired)

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

One of the great privileges of this place is we get to speak to 24 million to 25 million Australians. But I want to address my comments this afternoon to the seven million Australians who were born overseas. My parents were born overseas. These are Australians who have had the great privilege of holding an Australian citizenship certificate. I know members in this place all share my pride in attending those events and speaking at those events. You can see the pride in the eyes and on the faces of those individuals as they hold that certificate. I love speaking to those newest Australians and taking the opportunity to tell them that, in becoming Australian, not only have they joined the greatest club on earth but they are as Aussie in that moment as Albert Namatjira, Bob Hawke and Don Bradman—in a more modern context, perhaps John Howard, Steve Smith and Cathy Freeman. The point is that there is only one class of Australian citizenship, but if this proposal is acceded to by the Australian people I will never be able to say that again. Australians like my parents, who held that certificate of citizenship, will never be able to claim they are as Aussie as Indigenous Australians. Exclusive rights will be conferred on those individuals.

Yesterday in this place, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs accused me of being someone who can't read. I appreciate she withdrew that statement, but the truth is that some of those seven million Australians can't read English. My father is perhaps one of them—I might get a serve when I get home! The reality is that's why we're in this place asking questions. We asked the minister 20 questions this week, and it's for her to answer those questions so that Australians who don't have what my parents worked hard to give me—a fantastic education—can understand this proposal. Instead, what we've heard from the minister is, 'We don't want to engage in the culture wars,' and, today, 'I'm not going to answer that question.' Give them the information they seek. What do you have to hide? Australians deserve that information. Don't try to hoodwink them to change something no less important than the Australian Constitution.

Right now, if the Prime Minister wants to show leadership, he should pause; he should accept the Leader of the Opposition's invitation. Let's move forward as they did in 1967. Let's enshrine the recognition in the Australian Constitution. Let's move forward together as one nation. It is an opportunity to have that moment. But the Prime Minister doesn't want that moment; he wants his moment. He wants his Vincent Lingiari moment. He wants to be Gough, pouring the handful of sand into Vincent Lingiari's hand. He wants his Redfern-Park-speech moment.

That's not leadership. Leadership right now is understanding that we can move this forward. Accept the invitation of the Leader of the Opposition. I myself prefer the words 'Indigenous heritage', 'British foundation' and, importantly, 'immigrant character'. That would bring us all together. Best case scenario right now is that we wake up on 15 October and Australians are suffering a referendum hangover. It will be a deeply divided Australia, which will put the cause of reconciliation backwards. Don't be that Prime Minister; be a prime minister that takes this debate forward—one Australia moving forward towards reconciliation. This is his choice now; it's the Prime Minister's choice. Does he want an Australia, on 15 October, that's deeply divided or one that can celebrate its unity and move forward?

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me! Time has expired. I'm going to call a halt to these unruly interjections that continue in this House. I'm putting you all on notice. You just had a statement read to you less than 40 minutes ago. Show me that you actually heard something.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very disappointed in the matter of public importance moved by the Leader of the Opposition today. For more than a year the Leader of the Opposition has been looking for excuses to oppose the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. He's not been looking for answers to genuine questions. He's been asking questions which he knows have already been clearly and fully answered. The Leader of the Opposition has not engaged in this process in good faith. We know this because of the Leader of the Opposition announced his opposition to the Voice before the parliamentary inquiry into the proposed constitutional amendment had even been commenced. We know this. We know that the Leader of the Opposition has not engaged in good faith, because this Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly called for the government to release the Solicitor-General's opinion on the proposed amendment and then, when we released the Solicitor-General's opinion, he ignored it because it did not suit his narrative. We know this because multiple members of the Liberal Party have stood up in this place and deliberately misrepresented the views of former High Court judges, and the Leader of the Opposition backed them in. We know this because this Leader of the Opposition has persistently spread misinformation and disinformation about this referendum proposal. The Leader of the Opposition wants to make this a debate about politics. He wants to create division and negativity just like he did when he walked out of the apology on 13 February 2008, except now we have a leader of the opposition who wants to use this referendum to shore up his leadership of the Liberal Party.

This referendum is not about the Leader of the Opposition's leadership of the Liberal Party. It's not about party politics at all. This referendum is about two things. It's about recognising and it's about listening: recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia, with over 60,000 years of history and continuous connection to this land, and listening to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples when it comes to laws and policies that affect them. When you listen to communities, you get better outcomes, making a practical difference on the ground in areas like jobs, health, education, housing and justice. That's what the voice will deliver.

The Leader of the Opposition has tasked the shadow Attorney-General in the other place with inventing ever-more-hyperbolic claims about the Voice, but nothing that the shadow Attorney-General has said about the proposed amendment to the Constitution can change the fact that this proposal has been extensively scrutinised by some of the best legal minds in the country. That includes the Constitutional Expert Group and the Solicitor-General. They have concluded that the bill is legally sound. As I noted, the government has released the opinion of the Solicitor-General on the proposed amendment. I know that the opposition does not like the opinion. They don't like the opinion, because it doesn't suit their narrative. They don't like it, because it effectively draws a line under the wrong and baseless arguments from the Leader of the Opposition and other senior members of the Liberal Party.

Contrary to the nonsense that's been spouted over the last couple of weeks by the shadow Attorney-General and by this Leader of the Opposition, including today, the Solicitor-General says:

The proposed amendment is not only compatible with the system of representative and responsible government established under the Constitution, but it enhances that system.

The Solicitor-General has also said the proposed constitutional amendment 'would not alter the existing distribution of Commonwealth governmental power'. He said the proposed constitutional amendment 'imposes no obligations of any kind upon the Voice, the parliament or the executive government'. The Solicitor-General said the Voice will operate alongside the existing structures of Australian's democratic system. The Solicitor-General's opinion is consistent with the views of the overwhelming consensus of constitutional experts, which is that the proposed constitutional amendment is constitutionally sound. Australians can have confidence that constitutional recognition through a voice will work. This referendum is the best chance we've had to address the injustices of the past and create change that will deliver a better future. The Voice can do no harm, only good for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and our country more broadly. (Time expired)

Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With the Attorney-General being here, I want to compliment him on his second reading speech for the bill. I actually thought that speech addressed a lot of the risks that many of us think exist in that drafting. The problem is, it doesn't solve the problem of those risks because of the wording that you have used, and we've heard it in answers to many of the questions this week on scope, words like 'specifically affect' or 'treats people differently'. If that was so important that you put it in your second reading speech, why aren't those words in the actual draft? They're so important because you know that risk exists on scope, yet it's not present in the actual wording.

And you don't need to be an experienced lawyer or a former High Court judge to know that your second reading speech can only be used in specific circumstances, and those circumstances are where there is ambiguity. So the question I would like to put you, Attorney General, is: where is the ambiguity in the drafting? If the ambiguity exists, fix it. If the ambiguity doesn't exist, then your second reading speech has no effect and no work to do, so the constant reference to it throughout the week was pointless. It's a well-crafted speech that does not address the risk that we had identified in the joint select committee.

This is not about the vibe; it is not about recognition, which has bipartisan support; it is not about seeking better outcomes, which we all want to happen—all of us want that to happen, and we should not pretend otherwise. And if there's a particular person in this place or the Senate who doesn't want better outcomes for Indigenous Australians, I'd love to hear who that person is. I'd love to hold them to account. Our job here is to listen to and represent everyone in our electorates. This place, the House of Representatives, is the voice of Australia. We represent everyone whether they voted for us or whether they voted against us. Whether they have been here for multiple generations or they came one year ago, we are their voices here and we should be listening to them.

So when we say, 'Of course we can do better, of course we can,' is there an underlying assumption there that there's something wrong with our democracy? That there's something broken in Australia's democracy? It's not perfect, but I tell you what: it's one of the best democracies on earth. And we know it's one of the best democracies on earth because people all around the world, when they have a choice of what country to go to, do you know what's top of their list? This country. Australia. And when you see people with tears running down their faces, so proud to become citizens of this country, it's not just because they've gone through all the hoops and hurdles to become a citizen, it's because they know what else is on offer in the world.

We are an ancient country but as a democracy we are quite new. We are also one of the oldest and most stable democracies. One of the key ingredients for that is our Constitution. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, we deliberately made that a hard document to change. Australians are very protective of it, and that's why it has been changed on so few occasions. And in the copy of the Constitution that we all have—I think if you pull your desk drawers out, you'll find a copy of it—it says this:

Australia's Constitution contains little of the soaring rhetoric which is familiar in the constitutions of many other lands. That is one of its strengths. It is a practical, matter-of-fact, unpretentious but effective document. As such, it reflects the pragmatic, no-nonsense attitude which we like to think is among the most attractive features of the Australian character.

It's a functional document and it has served us well. We haven't had civil wars. We haven't had blood on the streets. We have been a stable and effective constitutional democracy and we should be very, very proud of that.

We didn't have a constitutional convention—and let's not pretend the Uluru dialogues were a constitutional convention. They weren't. None of those words that were put forward to the Australian people in October were tested or discussed in those meetings. They weren't. It did say there was a desire for a voice, but it didn't have any discussion of the detail. So the substitute we had was a few weeks, five days really, for us to hear evidence. And that was treated with contempt because at the end of that process not one word, not one comma, not one syllable was changed because you had made your mind up. You had decided that it was perfect. If the Constitution is amended in October, it is inevitable that the High Court will be asked to decide whether the executive has certain duties under part II. Let's not pretend that part III fixes it, because you fought so hard to keep part II, and you fought so hard for a reason—because it has real power.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start this MPI by telling a bit about my story. I grew up in a little town called Whitton in the Riverina. I learned to swim in irrigation channels. We shared that water with yabbies and red-bellied black snakes. I was born at a time when a white woman having an Aboriginal baby was shocking, and doubly so if that woman was not married. My Great Aunt Nina and her brother, Billy, raised me. It was not easy for them, but through their love and kindness they keep me the solid start in life and laid the foundations for the life I have today. In 2010 I returned to Whitton. I was a New South Wales cabinet minister at the time, and a man a little older than me said to me, 'You know, Linda, the day you were born was one of the darkest days this town has ever seen.' I was so shocked. That someone with my unlikely story could be a minister, the first Indigenous woman in federal cabinet and the minister for Indigenous Australians is not lost on me. But what matters is what this represents for Australia, how far we've come and how far we still have to go.

I was 10 years old when Australians voted in the '67 referendum. Today I am responsible for another referendum, despite the fact that for the first decade of my life I didn't count. This time it is to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the Constitution. This referendum is our chance to do better, to make lasting change that will make a practical difference on the ground in communities. Just last week we saw new data that shows 15 of the 19 targets are not on track. If we needed any more evidence that the same isn't good enough, this is it. We have to do things better, and that's where the Voice to Parliament can help, because the Voice will be the mechanism for government and parliament to listen. It will be a resource of local knowledge and can help to make better policies. But instead of listening to these ambitions, we have spent years and billions of dollars on poor outcomes, and this has happened because there is no structural accountability—no voice. Regardless of your own opinion, we should all be able to agree that we need to do better.

This MPI concerns how this Voice will work, so let's be clear—the Voice will be an independent representative advisory body made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. It will be chosen by local communities. It will give independent advice. It will allow local voices to be heard. It will be gender balanced and include young people. It will be accountable and transparent. It will cooperate with existing structures. It won't deliver programs. As the Prime Minister has made clear, it won't have a veto. It is forward for everyone.

Friends, how often do we get the chance to put a shoulder against the wheel of history and push? For 65,000 years Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have been speaking 363 languages but have had no voice. This year, you have the power to do something about it. This whole idea of Constitutional recognition through a Voice began with Aboriginal and Torres Islander peoples themselves. History is calling—it's calling on us to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, and it's calling on us to vote yes for the Voice.

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance, and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House. This MPI addresses the failure of the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the failure of the government to answer questions that have been put this week in this place. These are genuine questions. These are questions that the Australian people have. These are questions that all of us, including on your side, all have constituents that are asking these questions—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please address your remarks through the chair. I remind the member for Hughes that when she uses the word 'you', she is directly reflecting on me.

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Many constituents throughout Australia are asking the same questions that we have put this week to the minister. These are questions that need to be answered. This referendum is very important. This is very important for Indigenous Australians and it's very important for non-Indigenous Australians. I don't know that there is anyone in this country who is not appalled at this absolutely appalling gap between the health, welfare and education standards of Indigenous Australians and those of non-Indigenous Australians.

My husband's family comes from a remote community right out in western New South Wales called Lake Cargelligo. I have seen firsthand the way that a lot of Indigenous Australians live. I may represent a city electorate that does not have a very high Indigenous population—however, with family that are Indigenous, I feel very strongly about Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians and about doing something real to address the appalling standards of many Indigenous Australians in this country. Therefore, when I first spoke on this legislation I spoke about us needing to wake up as a nation the day after the referendum and being able to look at ourselves in the mirror and at our fellow Australians—for non-Indigenous Australians to be able to look at Indigenous Australians, and for Indigenous Australians to be able to look at non-Indigenous Australians—and be united. The way that this process has been handled to date by the Prime Minister is not leading us down that path. It is dividing Australia. I believe that if it continues this way, it is setting our country up for a dreadful problem with race relations going far into the future. That is not something that I want. That is not something that anyone in this place wants.

Changing our Constitution has been made very difficult by our forefathers. The drafters of this document deliberately made it difficult. There is a reason thousands and thousands of people each year travel across the world and choose Australia as their home. That is because we have one of the oldest democracies, and it is based on a founding document that is simple in its language and that is very difficult to change—and that was done deliberately. We have only had eight occasions since Federation where this document has been changed. Therefore, if the government is going to the Australian people and saying, 'We are now asking you to change this document, to make a fundamental change to our Constitution,' I again say that this is not the way to go about it. This should have been two questions. It should have been done so, so differently. We could have had 80, 90 or maybe 95 per cent of Australians commit to Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. That would have been a day for celebration. That is how that day would look the day after the referendum. If we continue down this path, with questions failing to be answered, we will wake up the morning after this referendum a divided nation and a very sad nation.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This debate is about how we respond to an invitation—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the member for Fisher have something to say?

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Deputy Speaker.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I expressly asked the House to stop the interjections. If the member wishes to defy me, I will ask him to leave the chamber. The Leader of the House has the call.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This debate is about how we respond to an invitation—an invitation that came through the Uluru Statement from the Heart. When we hear from those opposite about what efforts could be made for bipartisanship, can I say the pattern that we've seen this time is not unfamiliar to people who've followed some of these debates over many years. I remember what was said in the fear campaign that was run during the Mabo debate. I remember what was said for years. A lot has been made of the walkout during the apology, but let's not forget the years between the Bringing them home report, when it was argued, again and again, what a disaster it would be if the apology happened. And now, in response to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, what we're seeing is the same thing again.

I think those opposite underestimate the generosity of a whole lot of Liberal Party and National Party voters. I really do. If you think about the process of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, none of us knew where it was going to end. It's a political game to try to say, 'This is the government's idea.' None of us knew where the Uluru Statement from the Heart was going to end up. When it was delivered, it was delivered to us all at once, and there was actually a time when the Liberal-National government was considering how it would respond. This goes back a very long time. This is not a process of a few months, as previous speakers have claimed.

When the Uluru Statement from the Heart came forward, one of the things that was extraordinary about it was that, for all the things it could have asked for, the ask was so modest and the language was so generous. In terms of explaining the problem, a lot has been quoted from the end, but let's not forget the problem being described in the middle of that statement:

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

Faced with all of that, what the statement asks is that recognition occur through a body called a Voice. Why is the government asking for recognition through a Voice? It's because that's exactly what the process requested—a process that was supported by the previous government while it was happening.

You say, 'These are the questions that are being asked.' How could you look at the circumstances that so many communities are facing and think that when adult incarceration is 14 times higher the Voice will come back wanting to talk about the Reserve Bank? Or that when children in out-of-home care are almost 12 times higher that it's going to want to make recommendations about Fair Work Commission appointments? Or that when year 12 attainment is so low—for non-Indigenous it's 90 per cent and for Indigenous it's 68 per cent—that it will want to make recommendations about submarines? Life expectancy for males is 71 if you're Indigenous and 80 if you're non-Indigenous. We all know that gap is there, and we all know that every single person on the Voice will know that it's there. Do we really think they're going to want to advise not on that but on the location of defence bases? Do not pretend that those opposite are doing anything other than what they are doing. I know some people have been caught in a party decision, but this is an attempt to undermine something which is a modest proposal. It is simply saying, 'After all of the history and all of the challenges, we want to be recognised and we want to be listened to.'

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Wannon, I'll ask you to leave next time.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And with that, there are two ways of responding to the invitation. Australians are generous.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Wannon, I will remind you in particular, given the multiple interjections just then, of the very modest request that was made of us all during a statement that was read to the House an hour ago. Let's be a little bit mindful. I have asked for no interjections. I have tried to make sure you are not being interjected on your side. So, please, show respect. I give the call to the member for Braddon.

Gavin Pearce (Braddon, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health, Aged Care and Indigenous Health Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is clear that too many Indigenous Australians still are experiencing unacceptable disadvantage. That is clear. That breaks my heart. It breaks our collective hearts. It is unacceptable. Now is our defining moment to work together to bring about real change and to close the gap. The question before us is not about whether our First Nations people should be heard. Of course they should be heard. The question before us is not whether we should recognise Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution of Australia. Of course, we should. That is a fact. The question before us is whether altering the Constitution is the right mechanism to bring about lasting improvement on the ground to those heartbreaking statistics that we hear and to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples so that they live a better life in a better community.

As Australians make their deliberations, I urge them to look inside their hearts and to ask themselves this question: Am I 100 per cent sure that making this decision on this referendum is the right decision? And am I certain that that will change outcomes on the ground for Indigenous kids in the next generation? Changing the Constitution is an appropriate mechanism and that will bring about, as I said, improved outcomes for our First Nations people. I do so from a very heartfelt position.

I think back to my time in NORFORCE. NORFORCE is an Army unit which is responsible for surveillance and reconnaissance in remote northern Australia. It is where we involve our Indigenous communities, our Indigenous soldiers. We sign them up, and they protect our coastlines. We are trained to live in the bush there, mostly by the aunties. I remember looking into their eyes, as they taught me schools that kept me alive. I can't explain to this place the amount of love and respect that I have for those aunties. I still today remember them.

I still today remember some of those diggers that I took on who had no future at all. I had one bloke who came to me with a torn pair of jeans, a T-shirt and a toothbrush. He had no future at all. He was in trouble with the law and they gave him to me to sort him out. Well, that soldier, after some training and some leadership, led a team from the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment into Afghanistan and won a medal for gallantry for leading a team. He now has the respect of his community, and young kids from the community are also signing up for NORFORCE.

So you see what I mean about the infectious nature of lifting self-esteem, of raising the confidence level, of showing that leadership. But it needs to happen on the ground. It needs to happen where the herd is. That leadership needs to come from those leaders on the ground, and that is where we need to focus, not on some elitist committee in Canberra. On the ground where the herd is.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, member for Braddon. I'm going to ask for a little bit of quiet from the member on my right. I will ask you to show the respect that I have been asking of the opposition. Let's hear this debate through. Member for Braddon, please proceed.

Gavin Pearce (Braddon, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health, Aged Care and Indigenous Health Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, the clock was still running while you were speaking.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will give you an extra five seconds.

Thank you. The second point I want to raise is this. We talked about division. I'm very passionate about the people that I represent, my constituents. A lovely lady who's 89 came up to me in the street the other day; she's a beautiful woman who's raised half a dozen foster kids—some of them, Indigenous—and she whispered to me, 'I don't think I can support this Voice, Gavin.' And there was no-one around. The fact that that beautiful person, who didn't have a racist bone in her body, thought that she had to whisper because of the shame of having a different opinion to what she was, supposedly, supposed to have—that is division, and that is division that we can't live with.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This referendum is an opportunity for this country to take a step on the road towards justice for First Nations people. But what is clear, from motions in this place, from speeches in this place and from the interviews being given to right-wing shock jocks, is that there are those in this country who want to deny justice to First Nations people.

Unfortunately, and sadly, the Leader of the Opposition has taken this opportunity to divide, instead of to unite—to continue to use a long and tragic tradition of seeking to use race to try to win votes. And why is this? Well, let's remember that the Leader of the Opposition claims there's sexual abuse in Alice Springs but refuses to report it to the police. The Leader of the Opposition opposes lifting the age of criminal responsibility, which currently sees First Nations children locked up at record rates. That is what is driving this and these contributions to this debate and his effort to divide this country. The Uluru statement was presented to the last government when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He vigorously opposed it then, as he vigorously opposes it now, because, if there's one thing about the Leader of the Opposition that's worth noting, it's that he doesn't change. Last time he was in opposition, when there was a formal apology made to members of the stolen generation, he turned his back and walked out, and said he couldn't support the apology, and was deaf to the cries of anguish.

He has built his career on attacking those in a weaker position than himself: calling people seeking asylum 'illegals', and fearmongering about different racial groups, trashing them in the media and in his public comments, and seeking to further his lot through the marginalisation of the weakest in our world. It's the sort of approach that you would expect from One Nation, but it is coming from someone who wants to lead this country. That is his record on immigration. He built and ran prison islands, which saw human rights abuse on an industrial scale. When women were raped, he accused them of trying it on. When people were left with no other option but to set themselves on fire, he claimed it was hype. And he accused refugee advocates of coaching self-harm. That is the history which is leading us to this point. And he has denied the climate crisis, siding with coal barons and urging gas corporations to continue to pollute—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, is there a point of order?

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and then attacked those—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Member for Melbourne; I'm taking a point of order.

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

A point of order on relevance: I do invite the Leader of the Greens to address his comments to the subject matter before the House today in the MPI.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is. I'm sorry; I'm overruling you. The member for Melbourne and Leader of the Greens is being entirely relevant to the topic.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's attacked those who've been the victims of the climate crisis with his unforgettable 'water lapping at your door' joke. The Leader of the Opposition falsely claimed that people in my home town of Melbourne were afraid to go out to dinner because of African gangs, and I can't begin to tell this parliament the anguish, the distress and the hurt that that caused people in my community—to hear someone who was aspiring to be Prime Minister telling falsehoods about what was happening in our home town, using fear, that then turned on the most vulnerable in our community who needed our support at a time of unity. He claimed that allowing Lebanese Muslims to immigrate was a mistake, and—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, Member for Melbourne. I'm giving the call to the member for Riverina, on, I expect, another point of order?

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

And I respect your position; I respect what you said. But this is a matter of public importance about the Voice, not about what the member for Melbourne is raising right here—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, no, no—

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

and I do ask you to bring him back to the subject matter.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just going to speak to that. Stop the clock, please, for the member for Melbourne. I have heard a lot of wide-ranging debate on the voice—a lot—and the member for Melbourne is being entirely relevant to this topic. You were all heard in a respectful silence. I'm asking you to afford the member for Melbourne the same privilege. You have a right to raise points of order. I have dealt with them both. I would hope that you would allow the member for Melbourne, in the less than one minute that he now has remaining, to complete his statement. He gets the full five minutes that each of you got. If I were to pull—anyway, let's move on. Member for Melbourne, you are being relevant, and I'm sorry for those interruptions.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is critical to understand what is behind the coalition's approach to try and divide this country, because it is part of a history of trying to use race to win votes. We need a Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Constitution because of people like the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Hanson, because without a First Nations Voice too many will continue to talk about First Nations of this country as criminals and not as equals. They will ignore how the laws of our parliaments have disproportionately impacted First Nations people. The coalition see the Voice as a threat. They see justice, liberty and equality, according to the far-right-wing Liberals and One Nation, as a threat.

But this country is changing. We want a different future. We want to be more than a prison island. We want to come to terms with how we all came to be here. We want to punch up and not down. We want a country which treats everyone fairly. We want to be brave and bold, not weak and cowardly. We want to be proud of our future.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion has now concluded.