Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Hansard source

What an interesting experience this has been—participating in the committee process and having accusations directed at me and my colleagues suggesting that we're only using these processes for self-interest and not conducting ourselves with due diligence when it comes to the proposal, which is going to make one of the greatest changes to our Constitution that we'll probably ever be confronted with in our nation's history. It has largely been based on the foundation being the Uluru Statement from the Heart. There has been conversation around listening and truth telling. I would suggest that the truth is that the Uluru Statement from the Heart isn't representative of First Nations Australians in their entirety. It was, again, signed by 250 unelected individuals who represent 0.03 per cent of the entire population, which is not a sound representation of Indigenous Australians by any measure. And there were conversations with 1,200—well, from what I understand of the dialogues, it wasn't 1,200 completely Indigenous Australians because there were those who were not Indigenous who were part of those dialogue conversations. Again, that is not a sound representation of Indigenous Australians by any measure and, therefore, not a sound basis for this referendum proposal to go ahead.

We heard from Senator Liddle that she has had conversations with traditional owners who have been disregarded and ignored and who are very upset with the way in which their spiritual place has been exploited for the purpose of this referendum, for the purpose of emotionally blackmailing Australians to support a 'yes' vote and for the purpose of justifying the position of those across the other side of the chamber. It seriously means nothing when there are those that want to consistently capture or attempt to capture the moral high ground and use terms like 'truth telling' when these are the cold, hard facts before us. I am amazed that, while being accused of only participating in this process for self-interest, there are those who have admitted to their own self-interest in appeasing their white guilt for the purpose of voting yes and constitutionally enshrining a voice to parliament.

Accusations of fearmongering have been made, when what we are trying to do, as part of our due diligence, is to understand what the detail of the Voice is and how it is going to impact not just Indigenous Australians or marginalised Indigenous Australians but all Australians. There are those that might be satisfied with no detail, but certainly we are not satisfied with the lack of detail. We are not satisfied that the Australian people are being asked to make a huge change to our Constitution with no detail—to sign a blank cheque to make a permanent change to our Constitution based on no detail. We have been attempting to squeeze blood out of a stone, through asking questions around the design principles of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, getting nowhere, and then understanding that, actually, these two pages here—if it's, ultimately, up to the parliament of the day—mean absolutely nothing when it comes to the creation of this supposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

Yes, there are many reasons to be concerned going forward with this referendum—many, many reasons to be concerned. It is actually members of the Voice committee that provide those concerns for the Australian people. There are those who have been quoted in the Australian as saying:

People who are opposing (the voice referendum) are saying we are destroying the fabric of their sacred Constitution. Yes, that's right, that's exactly what we're doing.

It's followed by:

Our Constitution is racist … it was designed as a racist Constitution.

If this is the belief of a very prominent member of the working group, then why are we moving forward to amend the Constitution with zero detail whatsoever? It will appease those with white guilt; it'll do something for them. Why is the government moving forward with such a potentially destructive amendment that could potentially destroy the fabric of our sacred Constitution? They're not my words. They're the words of Professor Langton, of course. They're not my words. I am simply pointing out why the Australian people are very, very concerned and why they have asked us to ask the questions of the government to provide detail to in fact appease their concerns.

Everybody knows that Australians have an incredible amount of goodwill towards Indigenous Australians. There are those people with that goodwill who want to see the lives of marginalised Indigenous Australians—remembering that not all of us are marginalised and require special measures, despite the fact that the Voice is supposedly for all of us, even those of us who are quite privileged. The fact is that we do not live in a racist country. We live in a country where there is incredible goodwill, and those individuals with that goodwill want to contribute meaningfully and therefore want to understand how supporting this Voice will in fact contribute meaningfully to our most marginalised Indigenous Australians. Those answers could not be provided for those Australians of goodwill tonight. They could not be provided.

This has been an incredibly disappointing exercise. No, we don't want to have to be here till the early hours of the morning, but we are here. Again, that is for the purpose of practising due diligence, as being members of this parliament requires us to do, in order to be able to better inform the Australian public. Unfortunately, we have failed tonight. We have failed in our endeavours to better inform the Australian public as to what this referendum and the Voice to Parliament mean—what its functions would be and what its outcomes would be. (Time expired)