Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

Wow! I don't think Senator Thorpe will be upset with me for saying this, but I do think that Satan might be skiing to work today because I'm not quite sure anyone thought Senator Thorpe and I would ever be on a unity ticket. Yet here we are. Unbelievable.

The contribution we heard from the ALP reinforced that—I caught up with someone not long ago who is a Voice supporter. The point they made to me in complete exasperation was that every time a 'yes' supporter opens their mouth, they actually push more people to the 'no' vote. I certainly think—and Senator Thorpe used the term, so I hope she doesn't mind me adopting it—that we heard 'whitesplaining' in condemnation of this motion and amendment put up by three Indigenous women: their motives were impugned; their reasons for doing this were somehow ill-conceived and perhaps, if they took the time to think about it and present it differently, the ALP may grant these Indigenous women the grace of supporting their motion. We know that that will never happen, because we know that Senator Liddle and Senator Nampijinpa Price are not only the wrong kind of women because they're conservative women; they're the wrong kind of Indigenous women. We know that they're the wrong kind of voice. They've been joined today by Thorpe, being brought together in a group as the wrong kind of Indigenous voice, trying to push for integrity and transparency.

Does anyone else remember the federal election campaign, when this was a government that was promising integrity and transparency? That was one of their bases: 'We are going to be full of integrity when we make our decisions, and how we make those decisions is going to be transparent.' It's like the $275 we were going to get off our energy bill. It was clearly just a slogan and rhetoric. It had no meaning for them, because, from the second this government came to be, they have done nothing but show a complete lack of integrity and have done everything they can to absolutely hide the basis of their decisions and dirty deals. They demonstrate a complete lack of transparency.

To Senator Liddle's point, it is absolutely time that Minister Burney stood up and took responsibility. If I hear Minister Burney, standing up, almost in floods of tears, saying once more that we need the Voice because we've got to close the gap and that all these things are so terrible—what are you doing today, Minister Burney? What have you been doing in the 16 months since you got in? You've done absolutely nothing to improve the lives of Indigenous people. You've done absolutely nothing to actually oversee any of these organisations and make sure they're delivering outcomes. Minister Burney, this is absolutely criminally culpable. If you know that there are things that need to be reformed and things that need to be done but you're sitting on your hands saying you can't do anything unless the Voice vote passes, that is absolutely criminal. If you know that there are things to be done, Minister Burney, do them today. Start getting on with the work, because we know that there are Indigenous organisations, such as land councils, that are failing to comply with what would be basic governance standards.

Again, by pushing 'yes' voters into the 'no' camp, how can anyone have any trust in this Voice proposal? How can there be any basis of truth that this is a modest change, as we've heard—which we know is a fallacy? How can there be any trust among the Australian people that the Voice in our Constitution will not be just a repeat of ATSIC? We don't know.

We've now heard that those opposite, buddying up with the Greens, are going to oppose any examination of the thousands of Indigenous groups that we know are failing when it comes to governance. It is absolutely extraordinary. I also just heard Senator Thorpe mention the Central Land Council and the audit report. I've got a quick snapshot of it here. What was interesting was that, when the audit council came back with what they found regarding instruments of delegation and how authorisations occurred, they said these could be improved. There's a lack of clarity as to whether the accountable authority can even delegate. We need a bit of improvement there. What we do know, which I think is even more damning, is about the CLC's arrangements in regard to the proper use and management of resources. Keep in mind that, when we talk about their resources, we're talking about $80.2 million. We're not talking about a couple of hundred grand. We're not talking about a small drop of change. We're talking about $80.2 million in 2021-22. I'm pretty sure we can assume that's got up a bit. This was distributed to traditional landholders, but who was it distributed to? How do we know who received that money?

The Auditor-General's report found that their arrangements were 'largely appropriate, except for arrangements to manage the risk of fraud and conflicts of interest'. What was alluded to by Senator Pratt when she referred to 'family members' and then withdrew that because an inference was clearly being made towards another senator? When she made that inference, was she making the inference because she knows what those conflicts of interest are? She is aware that $80.2 million is not necessarily being distributed to who it should be distributed to but who it deems it might like to distribute it to. However, we don't know because we can't get to the bottom of this, even though the Auditor-General's report has come back saying that it's not up to spec.

Remember those opposite talking about 'integrity and transparency'. Those things went out the window with the $275 off our electricity bills. Those things absolutely went out the window because they don't want transparency and integrity when it comes to how the Central Land Council gets to distribute $80.2 million. I can promise you it's not going to the Indigenous people it should be going to. Everybody knows that. In fact, it's absolutely insincere for anyone in this place to say that they think, hand on heart, that money is being distributed in the way it should be a hundred per cent of the time. I'd say even maybe 90 per cent of the time or maybe 60 per cent of the time. Senator Liddle, what do you reckon—through you, Chair?—maybe 10 per cent of the time?