Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

enator COX () (): I think it's a little bit rich that we're continuing to have this conversation—a revolving door of constant singular examples of information that is coming to those who are bringing these motions forward—when there are, in fact, other avenues, as I have talked about at length in this place. One of those avenues is via the Australian National Audit Office. Regarding Senator David Pocock's remarks in relation to the already pending investigation by the Department of Social Services that is happening, it is in the best interest to respect a process that's already being undertaken.

Seeking to undermine that really conveys to me what this is about. The little hood slips off and we get to see what it's really about. This is at-length talking about a Voice to Parliament and having a good old go about how that's not going to solve the problem, but these individual inquiries do. What that does is relay, hopefully, to the rest of those following this debate and the conversations in relation to this motion is the absolute hypocrisy of people who are so out of touch with community that they want to bring on an inquiry to bring those witnesses in front of a public hearing to give evidence, which then compromises those people's safety in those communities. You talk about the almighty power. In fact, in the time I've sat in this chamber, I've heard from a member opposite who spoke about a family or community member being attacked at a community meeting. I think it's pretty rich that people then decide, 'Oh, we'll get them all together and have a public hearing—an inquiry to shame these people with what's happening about the black industry and the black money in this country.'

You can come here and talk about transparency and accountability, but I don't know how many times I've opened my media summary and seen that people have been fact checked about the claims they've made in this long campaign for the Voice to parliament. In fact, I talked about this earlier today in my senator's statement. I used my 10 minutes to talk about the transparency and accountability of having a QR code and telling people it's for a postal vote but in fact it goes to your political party. Or that you can send text messages asking people to donate to your cause while we're sitting in this place. To what? To bring our people down?

It's constant rhetoric, and I would hope that when people talk about standards in this place they can apply those same standards across the board. I don't see that happening. In fact, the thing that I do know is that there are lots of Aboriginal organisations across this country who are not registered with ORIC because it has lots and lots of scrutiny and there are lots and lots of hoops that they have to jump through. They go under acts like the Associations Act in Western Australia, because there's not enough scrutiny under that. So I reject that comment.

I don't come to this place as a senator with lived experience, someone who has history from my old people, to give you all a history lesson at 6:35 at night. But I reject the notion made before that we're all citizens now in this country—that is not how it always was. In fact, I still have the dog tags and the citizenship certificate that my grandparents had to apply for in this country—the tags they had to wear around their necks in this country. They were told they needed to be 'out of town' at a certain hour in this country. They were told they were 'too black' to be able to go into the local pub or the shop. They had to knock on a side window in their hometown in country WA.

Under the 1905 act, so many things were restricted and marginalised—a word that has been thrown around quite a lot in here tonight—in states like Western Australia and Queensland. And we continue to see this pattern of conversation: that blacks can't govern themselves. Well, do you know what? I'm sick and tired of it—I am absolutely done with the conversation that, somehow, people in my communities are seeking safety on that side of the chamber from certain individuals. I think that's pretty out of touch. I admit there are conversations we do have about our organisations that can do better and which should do better. That is at the essence and the heart of nation-building in this country. As an act, native title was created to divide our people, and that's the conversation we should be having—about the regime that was sought, implemented and enacted upon my people around native title. That's not what we asked for and it's not what we wanted in this country.

If we're doing truth-telling in this place, and we want to bring transparency and accountability into the conversation, how about doing some truth-telling? How about talking about where we've come from in 200-plus years and the evolution of all that? But also talk about the wash-up and the legacy of that, because we're still dealing with it today. The Greens will definitely not be supporting this motion. I think it's another patched up, dressed up attempt at an inquiry to bring down First Nations people in this country. It is a detriment that we would even entertain and even have this conversation in this place in a year when we seek to provide self-determination and empowerment to our First Peoples in this country. I definitely won't be supporting that.