Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The creation of a voice to parliament will not, as the Prime Minister would have us believe, be a unifying moment. I've already been contacted by elders on traditional lands who say they do not support the voice and had no say in the Uluru statement. This will be no different to the stolen generations apology. Let me remind you of the reason for this apology. We were told it was necessary for us to move forward together as a united nation. How has that worked out?

The Prime Minister's contempt for these dissenting voices, including Aboriginal voices, is very clear. His contempt for those who rightly and justly request details of the proposed voice, such as its powers, functions and costs, has also been very clear. He is not promoting unity at all. The Prime Minister is deliberately stoking division and stoking it on racial lines. As Senator Price noted in her landmark first speech in this chamber: 'Many Indigenous Australians have not been consulted about the voice, and many have no clue what it's about.' This comment has come from an Aboriginal woman. The Prime Minister has dismissed her comments saying, 'They don't stack up.' No. His comments do not stack up. That's because the Prime Minister is listening only to the Aboriginal industry, whose gravy train relies on separating Australians by race and entrenching Indigenous disadvantage. I've been saying this for decades.

There is nothing in this proposal that redresses real disadvantage. There is nothing in this proposal that will end the violence, poverty and failure of service delivery in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. There is nothing in this proposal that indicates how much this entire exercise will cost Australian taxpayers. However, I feel compelled to note that the annual funding of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission in its final years was well north of a billion dollars. It's almost certain a referendum alone will cost in excess of $120 million. A better solution would be to hold the referendum at the next election. What's the rush? There is much in this proposal that is open-ended, ill-defined and fraught with peril. The risk is very real that the sovereignty that all Australians have over their land and country will be handed to a racial minority.

Why does this have to be in the Constitution? What is the real ulterior motive? This can only be about power—creating a nation within a nation. This can only be about taking power from whitefellas and giving it to blackfellas. This is Australia's version of apartheid. Are they prepared for the compensation or reparations which will be demanded when the High Court decides that 'traditional ownership' means 'sovereign control'. Where will you stand, given that you acknowledge traditional ownership every day? Do you acknowledge that I, like millions of Australians, legally own my land and worked very hard for it? Do I have rights to my land, too? Can't you acknowledge my connection to my land and my love for my country? I note Lidia Thorpe's racist interjection in the past when she told me to go back to where I came from. She can rest assured that I did, indeed, go back to where I came from—back to Queensland, where I was born and where I raised my children, and where my parents and grandparents were born. There is nowhere else for me to go. Australia is my home. Australia is our home—Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike.

The Prime Minister says the voice won't have a veto power, but he cannot speak for future governments or say what legislation before parliament must be referred to the voice for consultation, who will be eligible to stand for election to the voice and who will be eligible to vote. We need a stronger definition of Aboriginality. From 2016 to 2021, the number of Australians identifying as Indigenous rose by 92,000 or 26 per cent, while our overall population increase, including immigration, was only eight per cent. This is what we call 'jumping on the bandwagon'. There is much in this proposal that reeks of the empty gestures and symbolism which make progressives feel good about themselves but otherwise achieve nothing. It's also reeking of the disgusting, patronising attitudes that privileged bureaucrats and lawmakers routinely adopt towards Indigenous Australians—proud members of a culture which has endured for tens of thousands of years. This is an attempt to rewrite the past, manipulate the present and destroy the future.

Unlike both sides of this chamber, I have listened to Indigenous Australians and their elders. Stop using them as fodder for your own purposes.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind senators to address members of this chamber and other places by their full title.