Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In 1967, Australians voted resoundingly to fix a fundamental gap in our Constitution to allow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be counted in the population of the country they had cared for, for over 60,000 years. The referendum was a culmination of many years of activism by people who knew that most simple of propositions—what was right and what was wrong. The over 90 per cent of Australians who voted in favour of that referendum and the advocates who campaigned for it would not have anticipated that by 2023 outcomes for First Nations people would be as lacking as they are. This fact makes the Uluru Statement from the Heart the resilient call to action that it is.

Fifty-six years later Australians again have the chance to improve our Constitution with the Voice to Parliament, a body that will begin the process of healing our nation. As Minister Burney and the father of reconciliation, Senator Dodson, have made clear, the Voice will do this through two simple themes: recognition and consultation, recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of this country and consultation by listening to the voices of First Nations people about policies that affect them—not to, not for but with. As former prime minister Paul Keating said in his landmark 1992 Redfern address:

It comes at a time when we have committed ourselves to succeeding in the test which so far we have always failed.

Because, in truth, we cannot confidently say that we have succeeded … if we have not managed to extend opportunity and care, dignity and hope to the indigenous people of Australia …

His words are still true more than 30 years later. It is time to change. The Voice begins that change. The simplicity of the Voice cannot distract from the momentous change it will bring. For me, this is the strength of the referendum question—big outcomes from simple changes, a courtesy based on common decency.

Enshrining the Voice in our Constitution is a key recommendation from the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the dialogues that guided the statement. There are two reasons for constitutional recognition. Firstly, it means that prioritising policy which impacts Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people does not become a fad that can be swept away on the whim of politicians. It signals that the contribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to the national story in the nation's birth certificate will be there forever. Secondly, it means that our Constitution can be truly ours and a shared document that recognises First Australians' vast existence and contribution to this continent. By recognising First Nations people in our nation's founding document, we can show that the Constitution is not about dictating to First Nations people, not about baseless legislation for First Nations people, but about sharing history with First Nations people—not to, not for, but with. It addresses that shameful doctrine of terra nullius, the doctrine that said Australia was an empty land, a land there for the taking. More than 60,000 years of spirituality, art, politics, religion, land management and law meant nothing when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights were terminated because they were not recognised according to British law. This was the doctrine that past politicians used to justify the taking of children, the forceful seizure of land and the wilful destruction of language and culture. By recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Nations peoples of this country, through the Voice, the lie of terra nullius will be nullified in the document that perpetrated it. It will be consigned to history, where all views that have held back First Nations people belong.

The importance of the consultation provided by the Voice cannot be overlooked. Some have said the referendum's themes of recognition and consultation are distinct; they are not. They must be thought of in tandem, complementing each other. By reducing one, the other is reduced. Recognition gains its strength from consultation. Consultation gains its strength from recognition. It is this fact, among others, that led the Referendum Council to conclude that a voice to parliament was a priority. The council found 10 principles to measure each proposal against: whether it did not diminish Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty; whether it involved substantive structural reform; whether it advanced self-determination and the standards established under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; whether it recognised the status and rights of First Nations; whether it told the truth of history; whether it made sure it did not foreclose on future advancement; whether it ensured it did not waste the opportunity to reform; whether it provided a mechanism for First Nations agreement-making; whether it guaranteed it had the support of First Nations; and whether it did not interfere with positive legal arrangement. According to the Referendum Council, a voice to parliament met each of these principles. This led the council in their first report to conclude that the priority of the Voice to Parliament 'is clear from the assessment'. The referendum is the culmination of an historically large democratic process. The Uluru Statement from the Heart, agreed to by 250 delegates, was born out of 13 regional dialogues attended by 1,200 delegates. This is grassroots democracy led by First Nations people at every stage.

My home state of Tasmania hosted a regional dialogue in Hobart which endorsed the Voice to Parliament. Some have said that Aboriginal people in Tasmania disagree with the proposed constitutional alterations. I think the overwhelming support from Indigenous Tasmanians during the dialogues debunks this. I've heard in this place and the other that Tasmanians support recognising First Nations people in the Constitution but don't believe that the Voice is the way to do it. Again, this is not what I've been hearing, particularly in the electorate of Braddon. I've been talking regularly with the community across the north-west of Tasmania, down the west coast and on King Island. Many of them proudly tell me that they identify as First Nations people and that their family are First Nations people. I've been hearing the same thing: people are energised by being able to make history, people appreciate a debate that can be put above politics and be decent, and people tell me the Voice is the right thing to do because it is about time and it's a simple courtesy that has the power to make real change in the lives of people who have long suffered in Tasmania.

Tasmanians know well the mistreatment of First Nations people. The 'Black Line' was a literal human line that moved across our island state looking for Indigenous people to capture, kill or relocate. Many of us were incorrectly taught at school that, because of actions like these, Truganini was the last Tasmanian Aboriginal person. Some have claimed that the Voice could reignite similar race debates to those seen in Tasmania's dark history. I could not disagree more.

In March I hosted a virtual town hall led by Thomas Mayo and my friend and colleague Senator Malarndirri McCarthy. Over 500 people tuned in on a Saturday afternoon to listen, learn and ask questions about the referendum. They told me how excited they were to hear from First Nations people from around Australia—people they would never have had the chance to hear from or talk to. They were grateful and excited that the referendum had provided the opportunity for this conversation. I did not hear anyone worrying that the Voice debate might be initiating race based discrimination. Perhaps this is because each generation—indeed, this generation—is much better informed about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders' culture and accomplishment than any generation before.

Tasmanians have told me that they are aware of this and aware of what their generation can do to educate the next. I think this is what Thomas Mayo and Kerry O'Brien were talking about when they said in their most recent book, The Voice to Parliament Handbook:

I believe it is up to us to answer their question with our actions now, in our generation. We should not pass on the burdens of our colonial past, nor a constitutional ignorance of our Indigenous heritage to our children, many of whom will become the future leaders of our great nation.

If we miss this opportunity, it will be generations before there is another chance.

In his address to the Garma Festival, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese talked about the referendum, providing Australians with the opportunity to be heard on the right side of history. So often in the history of First Nations activism, the importance of events is written after the fact. When Vincent Lingiari and his Gurindji brothers and sisters walked off their cattle station at Wave Hill, they didn't know what their case would mean for Indigenous land rights in Australia and how the image of his handful of sand would be etched into the national consciousness. They didn't know that what they were doing would make history; they just knew that it was the right thing to do. This is the spirit in which I hope Australians will take up the call of the referendum.

The task ahead is vast and doesn't lack risk, but, as the Prime Minister said at Garma, 'We recognise the risks of failure, but we also recognise the risk of failing to try.' The passage of this bill will put a simple but critical question to the Australian people. I urge all my colleagues to campaign for a strong 'yes' vote. I know that's what I'm doing, and I will vote 'yes'. The success of this referendum will set the course for an empowered future. My optimism is based on the simple fact that as a nation we are only as strong as our ability to walk with those who need it most. As the Uluru statement offers:

We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.