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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. The updated strategic directions statement from the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which falls under the portfolio of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, says that it provides advice on whole-of-government priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, as well as leading and coordinating the implementation of Australia's Closing the Gap targets in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Given we have the NIAA, why does the government contend we need a Voice to Parliament in the Constitution?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Hanson for her question. I think the first and primary answer to that question is that, at the last election, the Labor Party listened to those people who had advocated on behalf of the Uluru Statement from the Heart—people like my very good friend here, Patrick Dodson, and like Jana Stewart over there, amongst very many other significant members of the Labor Party—to try and deal with the issue of Indigenous recognition through a Voice to the Australian parliament. That process wasn't developed overnight; it took place over a long period of time. We took that proposition to the Australian people at the last election, and the Australian people made a decision about who they wanted to govern this country. As soon as we got into government, because they elected us as the government, we undertook to implement the promise that we had taken to the election. You talk about promises. We took a promise to the Australian people, and we have sought to implement that promise. I have to say that I have been disappointed with the opposition in their approach so far to simple things like the machinery bill that could start the process of implementing the— (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, a first supplementary?

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

HANSON (—) (): The NIAA priorities this year include closing the gap, implementing the Uluru statement, developing a new jobs program, delivering First Nations justice—whatever that means—and more. It has also budgeted $31 million to deliver local and regional Voice implementation despite the Prime Minister saying he would not fund the 'yes' or 'no' cases in the coming referendum. Will the minister please inform the Senate about the NIAA's total budget for 2022-23?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Hanson again for her question. I think you're conflating a couple of issues, to be honest with you, Senator Hanson.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How patronising.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it's not patronising. It's simply a statement of fact. Senator Hanson has asked a question, and I'm trying to answer that question for her. That information that you are requesting will of course be published in due course as part of the relevant budget papers, but the issue of the referendum, to implement Indigenous recognition with the Voice— (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, a second supplementary?

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

That doesn't surprise me; there was no answer, and you don't even know. The budget papers are already out. Actually, the NIAA has almost $4½ billion. It employs more than 1,300 people, and its remit appears to be largely the same as the government's somewhat vague intentions for the Voice. That's truth-telling for you. Will the minister please explain why Australians should not believe that the government's ulterior motive in implementing the Uluru statement is to establish an independent, sovereign black nation in Australia?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, I completely reject your proposition. This is an issue that, as I said, the Labor Party took to the last election, and we are seeking to implement Indigenous recognition through a voice to parliament. We are seeking to do it in an open, honest and transparent way. To give you one example, originally there wasn't going to be a 'yes' case or a 'no' case pamphlet. It was requested that we do that by the opposition, and we agreed. As part of that process, Senator Hanson, because you're a member of parliament and because of the way in which that document is going to be prepared, you yourself will have an opportunity to explain to the Australian people whether you're supporting 'yes' or 'no'. I think I can guess your— (Time expired)