Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. The Referendum Council delivered its first final report to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on 30 June. The report encompassed the outcomes of 12 regional dialogues, and the constitutional convention of over 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, held at the foot of Uluru. The outcome of the convention was the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which calls for the establishment of a first nations voice enshrined in the Constitution and seeks a makarrata commission to supervise the process of agreement making between governments and first nations and truth telling about our history. When is the government going to formally respond to the final report of the Referendum Council? And does the government have a timetable for progressing constitutional amendment?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Senator Siewert. That's a very important question that you ask. As you know, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have now received the final report of the Referendum Council, which the government is carefully considering. We intend to work with the parliament towards shaping a proposal that is most likely to succeed at a referendum. The government is committed, in principle, to the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, but we are aware—and I don't think this is controversial—that a bipartisan approach is crucial for success. Changing Australia's Constitution would allow us to acknowledge the integral place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the life of this nation. A successful referendum would be a significant and enduring act of reconciliation.

You asked me about the next steps. As I said, the report is currently being considered by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, there will be a range of views on the best way to proceed, but what is important now is for parliament to consider these matters and agree on a way forward. History teaches us that a bipartisan approach is needed for referendums to be successful. The government's priority will be to work with the opposition and the crossbench to identify that proposal which has the greatest chance of success. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have stated that any proposal for constitutional change must reflect the wishes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, be achievable and have near-universal support to progress to a referendum. In taking that view, they reflect the views offered some time ago by the expert panel.

The Referendum Council undertook a six-month consultation process, as you know, comprising first nations, regional dialogues, public submissions and digital consultations. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, a supplementary question.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his answer, but I notice he didn't answer the actual question, and that was: when is the government going to respond? Does the government support the objectives of the Uluru statement—specifically, the establishment of a first nations voice in the Constitution and the establishment of a makarrata commission?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The development of treaties or agreements and constitutional recognition are not incompatible processes. Both can be steps towards recognising Indigenous peoples and towards recognition. As you know, and as you observe in your supplementary question, the Uluru convention did propose a makarrata commission to facilitate agreement making between governments and first-nations people. But this is a proposal that obviously has very, very serious implications that need to be thought through very carefully. The government is aware of the work that's happening in some states and territories on this issue as well, and we are considering the matter, as I said in answer to your principal question. It is important that we get this right, and getting it right and progressing to a successful and unifying conclusion does mean carefully considering the report and bringing as many people as possible with us.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, a final supplementary question.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the government acknowledge that the proposal for a 'voice to parliament' is the only proposal that meets one of the Referendum Council's four principles—namely, that the council's recommendations must be of benefit to and accord with the wishes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, I think it's unwise to be too prescriptive about that matter, as a matter of fact, and that is why I emphasise that the government is considering the matter very carefully. What we have in mind is bringing this process to a successful conclusion. In the course of quite a long process now, which has included, among other things, the expert panel's report, a parliamentary select committee over two parliaments and the Referendum Council, a variety of different views and approaches have been explored. Ultimately, it is for the parliament to decide which way forward is the best. As I said in answer to your primary question, I see no practical possibility of that being done unless there is bipartisanship, which is why the government has been working with the opposition, whose contribution we acknowledge, and wants to work with the crossbench as well to enable a final and acceptable model to be adopted.