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

I move:

That the Acts Interpretation Amendment (Aboriginality) Bill 2023 be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 September 2023.

We all know why Labor, the Greens, the crossbench and 'Labor light' Liberals refused to support the introduction of my legislation. Their ideology precludes questioning the claims of anyone who, in their twisted view, can legitimately claim to be a victim. Labor senators did this with the unproven claims of Brittany Higgins. It's coming back to bite them now that it has become clear that Higgins shamelessly used them like they shamelessly used her in a transparent but serious attempt to attack the coalition. And they are incapable of doubting or questioning any individual who claims to be an Aborigine or Torres Strait Islander. They see a blackfella, and they see a victim. It's pure racism: assigning a sweeping characteristic to an individual based on their race. And it's unjust because most Indigenous Australians are not victims any more than anyone else. We saw this unfold in South Australia, where the Labor Attorney-General's claim of Indigenous heritage was proven false. His Premier said he'd accept a statutory declaration from his Attorney-General as acceptable proof of his Indigenous heritage—no actual proof; just a statement and a signature.

Here lies the problem my legislation would fix. It would provide a legal definition of an Indigenous Australian. It would require any claim of Aboriginality to meet the same minimum requirements as a native title claim. I had to introduce this to stop fraudulent claims on taxpayers' dollars intended for Indigenous people. However, in principle, we should determine support based not on race but on need. It's time to end the gravy train and treat all Australians equally regardless of race. South Australia's Attorney-General would not meet the definition in my bill, and neither would many others who claim Indigenous heritage.

Many Australians believe a claim of Aboriginal ancestry relies on proof of descent—that to be legitimately considered Indigenous you must have a percentage of Indigenous blood in your veins. That's not the case. They might be surprised that for much of the government the definition is much more relaxed. The three qualifications established by the courts are: you have to be descended from someone who lived here before 1788; you have to be accepted by elders in Indigenous communities; you self-identify as Indigenous. But these days you need only self-identify because it's too time consuming for government departments to prove the other qualifications and any such effort is fraught with potential accusations of racism and discrimination if they don't accept a claim. It's a deliberately broad and very vague definition. It allows many people who are most definitely not Indigenous to claim otherwise. It creates a climate ripe for fraud.

I've noted in recent media interviews that it's not the only thing creating a climate ripe for fraud. Recent reports by the Australian National Audit Office have revealed the National Indigenous Australians Agency and land councils in the Northern Territory are not meeting legislative requirements in managing the risk of fraud and noncompliance. The NIAA is an agency with an annual budget of almost $4.5 billion, and it comes under the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. Indigenous organisations are receiving hundreds of millions of dollars. These same land councils were prominent in the media recently for a declaration urging Australians to support the racist Voice to Parliament at the referendum. One leader urged crowds to 'think with your heart and support us by voting yes'. The thing is that people don't think with their hearts; people think with their brains—and that is what is needed in this referendum debate: a rational assessment of what is being proposed and evidence that the Voice will address disadvantage and close the gaps. Labor will not provide the information or the evidence. Labor won't provide an exposure draft of legislation establishing the Voice to inform the Australian people's vote at the referendum. They say: 'Trust us; just vote yes and, after that, we'll give you legislation that can never be changed. Yes, trust us; come on down—believe us.' Labor knows its planned legislation would very likely drive Australians, or at least those thinking with their brains, to the 'no' camp. Labor will not provide any evidence that the Voice will close the gaps. That's because all the evidence in Australia is to the contrary. For decades, Australia has thrown hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at Indigenous disadvantage, but the gaps have not closed for people in remote communities. Let me just inform you that 80 per cent of Indigenous people live in the cities and urban areas. Only 20 per cent live in rural and remote areas.

This money has gone to programs designed and delivered by Indigenous organisations. In fact, there are over 3,000 Aboriginal corporations and land councils, which puts the lie to Labor's claim that Indigenous Australia is not consulted or involved in developing legislation and programs affecting them. Remember: the NIAA comes under Prime Minister and Cabinet. Is no-one listening? They're an advisory body. It's apparent that some of this money has gone to people who have falsely claimed Indigenous heritage.

Labor doesn't care that many Indigenous Australians are appalled at non-Indigenous people, through deceptive means, getting a share of the money intended for them. Labor doesn't care that this risks the goodwill of the Australian people, who are always wanting to help their fellow Australians in need. Labor ignored some damning statistical evidence in the census. Do you remember the 1967 referendum? That was to actually bring the Aboriginal people onto the census. They were included in the census in the states but not nationally. That was the reason why we had the 1967 referendum, and the 1971 was the first census that was held after that. Going on 116,000 people claimed to be Aboriginal. By 1991, it increased by 129 per cent, to 265,000 people. But there's more. From 1971 to now, it has risen by 700 per cent. Between 2016 and 2021, the number of people claiming Aboriginality rose 25.2 per cent, while the national population rose only eight per cent, and that figure includes immigration. So it was: 'Let's jump on the bandwagon and claim that we're Aboriginal—tick the box—and we'll actually get this funding.'

So where's your answer to all of this? We hear constantly about Aboriginal mortality rates and the problems with Aboriginals—but not by the census figures. So then the other question is: are people ticking the box to get the funding, the money? Remember: there's over $30 billion spent a year, the NIAA gets $4.5 billion—plus $11½ billion for the other departments—and 19,000 claims were made. This is all wonderful!

There was one fellow in Australia who was claiming for all of his family—millions of dollars—and it turned out he was a Sri Lankan. Another fellow wrote to my office and said: 'I couldn't get a job in Australia, so I claimed Aboriginality. I actually got a job. Don't you like the claims: Aboriginals only need apply.' You get that all the time. And why not? You just have to tick a box on a form or sign a stat dec, and you can be a blackfella victim and get all the taxpayer support, employment advantages and victimhood virtue that you can lay your hands on. Labor didn't care that this issue would fester during the referendum period and that it will long afterwards, until it is resolved.

That's what my legislation will do. It's an elegant and effective solution. Native title claimants must have proven descent from someone who lived in Australia before 1788. It's why only about 400,000 people basically qualify. Today I'm arguing that my bill be referred for inquiry because this Senate—with two honourable exceptions in Senator Malcolm Roberts and Senator Ralph Babet—voted it down before it could be debated. You didn't even get a senator's bill up on the floor of parliament before you voted it down. What are you all so scared of? Why won't you be accountable to the Australian people? Why are you terrified that a person has to claim their Aboriginality? What is your problem? What could the senators who voted it down be afraid of, in denying Australians the opportunity to have their say on this vital matter ahead of the Voice referendum?

Why shouldn't Australians hear Labor, the Greens, the coalition and the crossbench give their justification for not caring about non-Indigenous people falsely claiming Indigenous heritage for personal financial gain? Is it more of this Voice to Parliament nonsense about feelings being more important than facts? Is that why the government allocated more than $10 million to support Aboriginal mental health during the referendum period while slashing mental health support for everyone else by half?

My bill will prevent non-Indigenous Australians from claiming that money too. Why would anyone want to prevent that? Why should the children of people claiming to be Indigenous get subsidised meals at school and subsidised access to elite boarding schools when other children in need don't? Especially when we have the Smith Family telling us two million Australian kids are living in poverty. They may not be Aboriginal, but they are children. Some of these privileged Indigenous kids claiming Indigenous heritage and benefits come from families who are as white as I am. Why are Indigenous Australians getting racially exclusive benefits not means tested like pensioners? This is institutionalised racism and unless Australians think with their brains before the referendum, it will become constitutionally enshrined racism.

Ultimately, we are all human beings, all Australians and should be treated equally. It was the No. 1 issue in 1996 and I stood for election. I was thrown out of the Liberal Party for standing up for equality for all Australians. The Liberal Party were terrified of being called racists. There was nothing racist in that. It was calling for equality for all Australians, and I haven't stopped since then. I still call for it to this day. And if you actually talk about this referendum that you're going to line Australians up for, that is racist. Pure and simple. I actually won my seat with public support, with the biggest swing in the nation of all the seats. That's how the public felt about my being elected to the parliament to represent them in Oxley.

Half of Australia is under native title. Three per cent of the population own or control half of this country. No-one claiming to be Indigenous has more right to this land, water or sky than I or any other Australian. We are living in this land, here and now. Stop playing the victim. Stop dividing us as a nation. What this referendum is doing is wrong, and you have not been upfront with the people.

If you're going to actually pursue this referendum, which you are, there are going to be 24 people not elected, not democratically, that you want to appoint to the body. So what are we going to do if these people aren't truly Indigenous? Why are they going to be appointed? Are we going to actually—how about you pick up Bruce Pascoe. That's right, he wrote Dark Emu, but a lot of his stuff has been proven to not be true. Will he be on the board? He's not Indigenous. We know that. Who else could possibly go on this board? If you want an Indigenous Voice, why don't you have the guts to pass this bill so that people have to prove they are Indigenous? Why not make them prove that they have a right to taxpayer funded dollars like every other Australian? In fact, let's just get rid of the whole thing altogether and let's treat everyone equally.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition's view is that this bill raises important questions that do warrant public scrutiny. However, given the bill that is noted in the business of the Senate notice of motion has already been negatived by the Senate, it is no longer appropriate that it be referred to a legislation committee for inquiry. Instead, it's the view of opposition senators the appropriate course is to refer the substantive issue to a references committee for careful consideration.

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

The Greens will not be supporting the referral of this bill to the committee. First and foremost, under Australian law, aboriginality is well understood, so this bill is actually seeking to solve an issue that doesn't even exist. In the historic 1992 Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) case, Justice Brennan stated:

Membership of the Indigenous people depends on biological descent from the Indigenous people and on mutual recognition of a particular person's membership by that person and by the elders or other persons enjoying traditional authority among those people.

It is very clear, and this criteria is widely accepted within our community. And there has been no identified need to change this by our community.

Our Aboriginality as sovereign people is not up for debate by white people in this place. No-one in this place can tell me whether I'm Aboriginal or not. Linking Aboriginality to native title will not prevent fraud; it will simply strengthen the colonial abuses of Aboriginal rights by attempting to erase our identity, our culture and our existence. Linking someone's status as an Aboriginal person to their membership of a native title claim links their right as sovereign people to a flawed system that was set up by the government and was badged as being self-determined. It's not self-determination at all. This bill ignores the areas of Australia that have competing native title claims, that have claims that have failed, and it ignores the areas of this country where native title rights have been extinguished. They've been extinguished under whitefella law, which is what the argument is here. It's still Aboriginal land; it always was and always will be.

Not only is this bill unnecessary and, frankly, stupid; this bill perpetuates the racist stereotype that Aboriginal people are handed free stuff—'Oh, they're handed free houses, free education, free land', and whatever other conspiracy theorist argument they have cooked up over there—and it's because we apparently get so much free stuff that there are a huge amount of people running around out there who are claiming to be Aboriginal, so they can get free stuff. I'll tell you what being black in this country gets you. I'll give you a list: overcrowded housing; lower life expectancy rates; higher rates of preventable disease; having your children removed; being racially profiled and thrown into jail; having your land and culture destroyed; and, on top of that, intergenerational trauma. Statistically, my kids are more likely to go to prison than they are to university in this country.

If Senator Hanson is truly serious about protecting the identity of First Nations people, I invite Senator Hanson to come here and speak in support of cultural protections, education in language, culturally and environmentally sound housing and health programs, and getting our kids out on country. There is nothing absolutely more shameful in this place than racist dog-whistling. This deserves no more airtime.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, as moved by Senator Hanson, be agreed to. A division is required, but it will be deferred until tomorrow because it is after 6.30 pm.