Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia and as the traditional owners of this land for over 60,000 years. I also acknowledge and pay my respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples. I would like to extend that respect to the First Nations people in the chamber, in the galleries, and watching and listening today.

On 21 May 2022 the Australian people elected the Albanese government, a government committed to holding a referendum to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice in the Constitution. With the introduction of this constitutional amendment, the government is taking the first formal step to honour this commitment—a commitment we made not just to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples but to all Australians. The Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 is a powerful marker of our respect for the First Nations people of Australia, their cultures, and their elders past and present.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have occupied the Australian continent for over 60,000 years and represent the oldest continuous living cultures in human history. They have maintained a relationship with Australia's land, waters and sky since time immemorial. Yet Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are not recognised in our Constitution. This bill is to amend the Australian Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. It is the first formal step towards holding a referendum by the end of this year. It is a form of constitutional recognition that is practical and substantive, and it is the form of constitutional recognition supported by the overwhelming majority of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates who gathered from all points under the southern sky on 26 May 2017, the day before the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, to endorse the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It has now been six years since the Uluru Statement.

This constitutional amendment will rectify over 120 years of explicit exclusion in provisions of Australia's founding legal document. The Constitution never recognised Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of this country. They were not represented in the constitutional conventions leading to Federation. Constitutional recognition is an opportunity to acknowledge our history and come together for a more reconciled future. As Noel Pearson said in his Boyer lecture last year, 'Australia doesn't make sense without recognition.' He went on to say that until the First Peoples are recognised in the Constitution 'we are a nation missing its most vital heart'.

My colleague Senator Patrick Dodson, the father of reconciliation, said recently that a referendum on this constitutional amendment will be a moment of liberation for all of us. He said:

The moment the referendum is declared we will feel the shackles of the past fall from us.

We will all stand with a clean heart and a clean conscience and we will know our country is on the path to a better direction.

We the Australian people will make that decision on that day when we cast our vote.

Together we can make this happen.

The cultures of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their relationships with lands, waters and sky have endured. The dispossession of their lands, languages and cultures and top-down government policies have inflicted deep and continuing wounds on generations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their cultures. Many suffer intergenerational trauma as a result of this history. Our nation as a whole has been diminished.

In 1967 more than 90 per cent of Australians voted to count Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in certain population counts and allow the Commonwealth to make special laws about them. That overwhelming result would not have been achieved without the concerted efforts of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, activists and communities across the country. On 3 June 1992, just over 31 years ago, the Mabo decision overturned the legal fiction that Australia was terra nullius, territory belonging to no-one. It recognised in law Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' relationship to country. In 2008 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised to the Stolen Generations, their descendants and their families for the profound grief, suffering and loss caused by their mistreatment. This was followed by successive national agreements on Closing the Gap.

However, despite the best intentions of successive governments, efforts to date have been insufficient. New Closing the Gap data highlights that significant work needs to be done: 11 of the 15 Closing the Gap targets are not on track; we are failing. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples still face significant gaps in life expectancy and educational attainment. Despite commitments to reduce the representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the criminal justice system, they are still proportionally the most incarcerated peoples on the planet. On our current trajectory, the gap will not be closed by 2030. On our current trajectory, it will not close in our lifetimes.

It is time for a different approach. It is time to open a new chapter. It is time to listen. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a long history of advocating for parliamentary representation, land rights, civic freedoms and constitutional recognition and to have a say on the laws and policies that will work best for their communities. Too many times those calls have not been heard or they have been ignored. For decades there have been calls for an enduring representative body. A long line of reports stressed the importance of such a body for improving the development and implementation of laws, policies and programs that impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. However, votes in this parliament or the stroke of a minister's pen have seen previous bodies abolished or defunded, and there is currently no independent, nationally representative body with the purpose of providing informed advice to the parliament and the executive government of the Commonwealth.

Years of hard work and calls for a better solution led to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, issued in 2017 to the Australian people. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, activists and communities have led the way in getting us to this point, supported by constitutional experts, parliamentary committees and innumerable others. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was supported by over 250 delegates following consultation with 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who were involved in the referendum council led Uluru Dialogues. The resounding message from the dialogues is reflected in the call from the Uluru Statement from the Heart: voice, treaty and truth.

This bill responds to the call for a Voice for First Nations peoples enshrined in the Constitution. The government is also working towards a makarrata commission to respond to the calls for agreement making and truth telling. This work will continue beyond the referendum. This bill is about recognising and listening. It recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of this land. It is about creating a Voice, and it is up to the parliament and the executive government to listen. This is an important reform, but it is modest. It complements the existing structures of Australia's democratic system and enhances the normal functioning of government and the law. It creates an independent institution that speaks to the parliament and the executive government but does not replace, direct or impede the actions of either. Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our founding legal document and listening to their views on laws and policies that matter to them will make a difference.

When past solutions have been top-down and disempowering and have not taken into account the experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, they have failed. We know outcomes are better when we partner with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The evidence is there: the Indigenous Ranger programs, the many Aboriginal community controlled health organisations, and justice reinvestment.

These all demonstrate strong and improved outcomes when communities are involved in decision-making. Those examples, spanning many aspects of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' lives, are proof that genuine partnership and community ownership of policy is the way towards a better future.

Our system of government has served most Australians well since 1901. It is time to ensure the system works for the First Peoples of Australia too.

The Constitution sets out the principles that define the way our democracy operates and provides the framework for our federation. Consistently with the rest of the Constitution, the proposed new provisions will provide the broad outline of the Voice and allow the parliament to legislate for its day-to-day operation.

Reflecting the intention to begin a new chapter in Australia's relationship with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the bill proposes to insert a new chapter IX, entitled 'Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples'.

If approved at the referendum, the new Chapter IX will contain a new section 129.

The introductory words recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia. They reflect the fact that establishing the Voice is an act of recognition, in the manner the delegates at Uluru sought in 2017.

Subsection (i) provides for the establishment of the Voice. This provision will ensure the Voice is an enduring institution allowing it to be independent from government and effectively represent the views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples at the national level.

The Voice will be an independent representative body. The intention is that its members will be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples based on the wishes of local communities.

Subsection (ii) sets out the primary function of the Voice: making representations to the parliament and the executive government about matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Those would include:

The Voice will not be required to make a representation on every law, policy or program. The Voice will determine when to make representations by managing its own priorities and allocating its resources in accordance with the priorities of First Nations peoples. Critically, the Voice will be proactive. It will not have to wait for the parliament or the executive to seek its views before it can provide them. But nor will the constitutional amendment oblige the parliament or the executive government to consult the Voice before taking action.

The Voice will provide a path for the executive government and the parliament to consult with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The Voice will create a critical link between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, the parliament and the executive government.

Nothing in the provision will hinder the ordinary functioning of our democratic system.

While the constitutional nature of the body and its expertise in matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would give weight to the representations of the Voice, those representations would be advisory in nature.

It will be a matter for the parliament to determine whether the executive government is under any obligation in relation to representations made by the Voice. There will be no requirement for the parliament or the executive government to follow the Voice's representations. The constitutional amendment confers no power on the Voice to prevent, delay or veto decisions of the parliament or the executive government. The parliament and the executive government will retain final decision-making power over all laws and policies.

The Voice will enhance our democracy and our democratic institutions. Its representations will ensure the laws, policies and programs from the parliament and the executive are better targeted and more successful.

Subsection (iii) provides the parliament with a broad power to make laws about matters relating to the Voice.

This provision will ensure the Voice can evolve to meet the future needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and Australia as a whole. The matters on which the parliament will have power to make laws include those set out in subsection (iii).

After the referendum, the final details of how the Voice will operate will be settled, and legislation will be debated in this parliament.

To develop this legislation, the government will seek views on the Voice model from the Australian community. Consistent with the concept of a Voice, this consultation will include a strong focus on engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as well as the broader community.

The bill, it must be said, is constitutionally sound.

As the Solicitor-General's opinion, attached to the Attorney-General's submission to the committee, stated:

… proposed section 129 is not just compatible with the system of representative and responsible government prescribed by the Constitution, but an enhancement of that system.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, what would you like to do? Would you like to table the remainder of your speech? If you were to seek leave to keep speaking, I think it would be only fair to seek leave for yourself and for the leader of each other party for the time you additionally take, so that we move forward.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to seek leave to incorporate the remainder of the introduction speech into Hansard. This is obviously an important bill with a lot of detail.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy for you to seek leave to continue to read it, but I also ask that you seek leave for leaders of the other parties so that they have the same amount of time additionally.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am conscious there's a lot to get through. I'm happy to table the speech.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where I'm coming from is: it's an important speech, and you're reading it. But, if you seek leave to continue, the same allocation of time that you take I would like to be given to the opposition, the Greens and other Independents. Given it's only a few minutes, I don't think it's really going to—

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think any of us are talking about speaking for another hour each. In the interests of finishing, that would be good.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are seeking leave on that basis.

Leave granted.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum was established to inquire into the bill. The committee published 270 submissions and heard from 70 witnesses. The committee's report recommended that parliament pass the bill unamended. The committee's report highlights evidence from First Nations people about the practical difference the Voice would make to their communities. As I say, the bill is constitutionally sound, and that is backed up by the Solicitor-General's opinion, which I've just read into the Hansard. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights also examined the bill. It concluded that the bill is compatible with human rights, including the right to equality and nondiscrimination.

This bill embodies the hard work by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to achieve constitutional recognition and an effective representative body. Recognition through a voice is neither the beginning nor the end of this story, but it is an important new chapter. In addition to acknowledging the efforts of countless First Nations leaders, activists and communities that led to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, the government sincerely thanks members of the referendum working group, the referendum engagement group and the constitutional expert group. Their counsel in developing this bill and guiding the conduct of the referendum has been both wise and invaluable, and provides a solid foundation on which to continue on the path towards recognition.

I would like to thank the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, for her commitment, her strength and her leadership. We also owe a debt of gratitude to our Senate colleagues the Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, and Senator Patrick Dodson, the Special Envoy for Reconciliation and Implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. They have worked tirelessly to progress this important constitutional amendment for the benefit of all Australians. The government also thanks members of the broader Australian community for their engagement throughout this process, particularly those who made contributions to the joint select committee.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart was issued to the people of Australia, not to the government. It's now time for the Australian people to decide whether to accept that offer when they vote in this referendum. I trust the Australian people to understand this is an opportunity for a better future not just of the First Peoples of Australia but for all Australians. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is set out in full in the explanatory memorandum for this bill. In the words of that historic statement:

In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.

It is now 2023. It is time to accept the generous invitation in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It is time to listen.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. In rising to speak, I make the observation that, in the 15 years I have been in this place, never did I think I would rise to speak on a bill introduced by the Prime Minister of Australia that would seek, deliberately, to transform our great country forever, and not for the better. Never did I think I would rise in this place and speak on a bill that, by its very substance, seeks to intentionally divide our great country based on race forever—a bill that makes a mockery of the words set out in our national anthem that we now proudly sing: 'For we are one and free.' If the referendum that is proposed by this bill is successful, the nation that we know today will be irreparably damaged forever. The bill will destroy one of our most fundamental values—equality of citizenship—a value that currently sees every single Australian citizen regardless of race as equal, because no more will we be a nation of equals. We will no longer be one together. We will have become too divided.

That is what Mr Albanese, as Prime Minister of our country, wants to do. This is despite the success of the 1967 referendum, a fundamental turning point in our nation's history where, as Australians, we rightly united our country as one people. On 27 May 1967, Australians voted to change our constitution so that like all other Australians Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would be counted as part of the population and the Commonwealth would be able to make laws for them. A resounding 90.77 per cent said yes, and every single state and territory had a majority result for the 'yes' vote. It was one of the most successful campaigns in Australia's history as it legitimised the principle of equality of citizenship in a multicultural society, something that Mr Albanese now wants to destroy.

So, in coming to this debate, I would ask all Australians to answer a very simple question: do you believe in the fundamental principle of equality of citizenship? Because if you do, if you believe all Australians are equal, regardless of race, regardless of where they came from, then the answer to the question posed by this referendum must be a resounding no.

An Australian prime minister should always be striving to bring Australians together, yet with Mr Albanese we have a prime minister who is deliberately seeking to divide Australians. As the late David Jackson, a pre-eminent constitutional lawyer, has said, 'The inclusion of the proposed section 129 would mean that we will become a nation where whenever we or our ancestors first came to this country we are not all equal.'

Labor's voice, if successful, will be a permanent, publicly funded lobby group for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples which has additional rights that no other Australian has and these additional rights will be permanently embedded in our Constitution. This top-down, elitist Canberra voice does nothing to help Indigenous communities on the ground who just want to build a better life for themselves and their families. And, because of the permanent nature of this change, it says to some of the most marginalised Australians that you are different from everybody else and you will be treated differently forevermore.

The bill is not a pragmatic constitutional change that improves our system of government. It is a bill to establish a single national institution for some but not others based on race. It is not an institution that has been road-tested and refined over the years. There is no similar body overseas to which it can be compared. It is completely novel. Extraordinarily, we do not even know how this permanent, constitutionally enshrined body is intended to work or how many tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars or more it will cost the Australian taxpayer and we do not know what additional administrative effect its operations and decisions will have on stable government. This is because the Albanese government is asking Australians to vote for the Voice on nothing more than the vibe.

Extraordinarily, the Prime Minister has said that they will only design this permanent national institution after the referendum passes. You wouldn't buy a house without a plan or without knowing how many bedrooms it has or what it looks like. You wouldn't buy a car on no more than the vibe and then wait to find out whether it's a minibus or a motorbike. But that is what Mr Albanese is asking Australians to do with the Voice.

If the question is approved at the referendum, this bill will insert a new chapter into our Constitution. The chapter will consist of a single section, section 129. Proposed subsection 129(ii) of the new proposed section is vested with extraordinary constitutional powers to 'make representations to the parliament and the executive government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples'.

It is this second clause which is the most problematic. In substance it establishes a constitutional guarantee. As others have described it, the Voice would be able to make representations about anything, from submarines to parking tickets and from the Reserve Bank to Centrelink. No agency and no issue would be beyond the scope of representations made by this new national body.

Again, as pointed out by one of Australia's pre-eminent constitutional lawyers, the late David Jackson, this issue is not fixed by relying on the power to make laws under proposed subsection 129(iii). This is our pre-eminent constitutional lawyer saying this. He points out that any attempt to limit the Voice's broad power to make representations would be invalid. Then the question you have to ask is: what would be the corresponding obligations placed on government agencies, seeing as the Voice now has a constitutional right to make representations? In other words, what are the consequences and what is the real impact on the Australian public?

Mr Albanese and anybody else in Labor cannot tell you what these consequences will be because they don't know, and yet they're asking Australians—in fact, I would say that they are no longer asking. They are now demanding and demeaning those who stand up to them. They are demanding that they make a permanent change to our Constitution based on nothing more than a vibe.

In a recent Senate estimates hearing, we were told that the Solicitor-General has now provided not three but four pieces of advice to the government—a series of opinions on the Voice—but the government refuses to let the Australian public know what is in these opinions. I ask: what is the government hiding? Why will they not let the Australian people see these opinions? Even the Solicitor-General himself has acknowledged that the drafting creates room for argument as to whether agencies must consider representations.

But the potential consequences go way further. It would not be difficult for a future court to conclude that, in order to properly fulfil its constitutional function of making representations, the Voice would need to receive advance notice and advance warning of the decisions. Without detailed advance warning, how can the Voice fulfil its constitutional function of making representation about matters relating to Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander Australians if it doesn't know all of the background facts and policy options that were being considered by the government relating to decisions that affect all Australians? It would not be difficult for a future court to say that the Voice must receive relevant information. Again—it's a pretty obvious question—how can the Voice make meaningful representations if it does not have sufficient information to allow it to do so? But then the logical question arises: what is sufficient information? What is the required time frame to satisfy the constitutional requirements which the Voice will impose on the government and the bureaucracy?

The bad news for everybody is that there are actually no clear answers as to how these risks will manifest in the future. All we know and the reassurance that we are told that we should all take from this is that this will be in the hands of the High Court of Australia. If this bill is endorsed at referendum, these risks will be permanently embedded in our Constitution. Nobody knows what a future High Court would do, and Australians, with all due respect, should not be asked to sign a blank check.

It is a matter of public record that even the government's own Constitutional Expert Group could not reach agreement on what this constitutional change would do. Some said it could give rise to a constitutional duty for government to consider the Voice's representations even if parliament did not want this. Others disagreed. The Solicitor-General has conceded that there is room for argument, but we know the potential consequences are severe.

The Liberal senators' dissenting report to the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum made the following observation in paragraph 1.37:

If proposed s 129 is interpreted by the High Court in a way that imposes on the Executive either a duty to consult the Voice or consider its representations, this will have profoundly disruptive effects on the operation of government. This is not a rhetorical flourish on our part. This was the undisputed evidence presented to the Committee, including from witnesses who were intimately involved in the government's design process.

The dissenting report then refers to the assessments made by former justices of the High Court Robert French and Kenneth Hayne. It's worth reading Mr French's comments in full. He stated:

Given the immense range of matters in which there might be an interaction between a proposed policy or practice and impacts on Indigenous people in one way or another, to imply a duty to consult across all of that range would really make government unworkable. I don't think the High Court is in that business.

Mr Hayne made similar observations. In other words, former justices Hayne and French agree that, if a future High Court decides there is a constitutional duty to consult with the Voice, it would be catastrophic for government. They then went on to say that we should take it on trust that a future court would never do that. But predicting what a High Court will do is precisely the risk that many others—eminent lawyers, former judges and prominent academics—have warned against.

We all know that no-one can say what a future High Court will decide, and that is exactly the point made by Mr French's former colleague on the Federal Court bench the Hon. Roger Gyles AO, KC. His submission is, quite frankly, extraordinary. It should be mandatory reading for those opposite who make bland assertions that the legal risks are low. As Mr Gyles said, 'neither the government nor any expert can give those unequivocal assurances'. His damning submission says that assertions that a future High Court will not imply a duty to consult are 'misleading' and that those assurances should not be relied upon by those considering the proposed constitutional change.

The point is just as forcefully made by one of Mr Haines former High Court colleagues. Former justice Callinan AC rejects the blindness to risk that seems to afflict those opposite. He said:

It would be imprudent to underestimate the capacity of any future High Court for ingenuity or originality.

…      …   …

It is an irony that so many of the proponents of the Voice, well-intentioned and highly regarded as they are, should be echoing the language so often and infamously used by the late Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen to reporters seeking information about government, "don't you worry about that".

Where does that leave the rest of us? The thing these distinguished jurists agree on is that a duty to consult with the Voice would make government unworkable. The thing that they disagree on is whether a future High Court could decide if there was such a duty. The only certainty we have left is that the government's Voice proposal confirms significant risk. It is uncertain how the High Court would interpret it, but if carried at a referendum it will be permanent.

It did not have to be this way. The government could have chosen an orthodox process. Rather than making its decision on the constitutional wording behind closed doors, the government could have chosen to hold a constitutional convention to iron out the details and narrow the issues in dispute. Debates over the various options could have been held publicly for all Australians to see. More could and should have been done to give the proposal the scrutiny that Australians not only are entitled to expect but deserve when you are asking them to cast a vote to permanently change their founding document, our Constitution.

Instead, what has the government done? They pushed this proposal through with an urgency that was entirely of the government's making. It's the Prime Minister's time table and the Prime Minister's process. There is no external deadline to which he must conform. He chose all of this. The result is that the parliament and the people of Australia will now be asked to vote on a constitutional change that has not been fully scrutinised and is fundamentally uncertain.

We, as a coalition, or as the Liberal Party, will have a number of authorised dissenters who will help contribute to the 'no' case that is sent to electors as part of the referendum process. Our position is clear—we support the Australian people having their say, but we do not support this risky, unknown and permanent change to our Constitution. My very simple message to the Australian people is this: if you don't know how the Voice is going to work, vote no. If you don't know, vote no.

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

I rise to speak to the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. It's with great pride that I rise to speak on this proposed alteration as one of the 11 First Nations representatives in this parliament. Every time we speak in this place, we are speaking on the unceded lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people. I want to acknowledge their elders past and present and recognise all First Nations people across this country, who have fought and continue to fight for the rights of our people, to access our lands, to protect our culture, to practice our law and also for recognition and for our voices to be heard. I acknowledge that I would not be standing here today without those who have come before me, and I thank them all for their hard-fought battles and their achievements.

I had the honour of attending the Barunga Festival this weekend, as the only non-government parliamentarian to make the trek to regional Northern Territory, 83 kilometres outside of Katherine. There I was able to put my feet in the red dirt with representatives of over 100 of the most remote Aboriginal communities in the north of Australia. It was with much joy, celebration and respectful discussion that the four land councils of the Northern Territory signed the Barunga Voice Declaration and presented this to Minister Burney on behalf of the Albanese government. It's been 35 years since the Barunga Statement was presented to the then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke. This Barunga Statement was also supported by the Cape York Land Council and Kimberley Land Council.

The Barunga Festival began in 1985 as a celebration of cultural survival, drawing together people from across the north of Australia to paint, to sing, to dance and to play sport. I'm grateful to have experienced some of those activities last weekend. The Barunga Festival, like many other festivals like it, is an important moment of celebration, discussion where we share cultural practices and bring communities together to yarn about social and political issues.

At the first Barunga Festival, the leader of the Bagala clan of the Jawoyn people, Bangardi Robert Lee, said:

The main aim of the festival is to bring people together, sharing and understanding each other's problems. This way we can get to know one another properly.

I believe this sentiment is true, especially this year with conversations about a voice to parliament, inviting the non-Indigenous people of Australia to get to know us properly. And that is my ask of all Australians before they vote on this referendum. It is my ask that, before we vote in this referendum, we get to know each other. As First Peoples of this continent, we want you to know what our cultural and strong beliefs are, to know our love of the land and sea country, to know us as members of your local community and, most importantly, to know and understand the discrimination that we face and how this continues to hold us back.

We are the oldest living culture in the world. We have cared for this land, preserved the waters and ecosystems, and navigated by the stars in the sky for tens of thousands of years. We are hundreds of nations across this country with different stories, languages, cultures, arts and dances, and, as I was reminded at Barunga this weekend, we can live under one banner. Australia is diverse and rich with culture, yet so few non-Indigenous Australians experience this as part of their own country.

The Barunga Statement of 1988 called on the Commonwealth parliament to negotiate a treaty recognising First Nations people's prior ownership and continued occupation and sovereignty. Bob Hawke committed the Australian government to deliver a treaty for our nation, but politics got in the way of that. The Barunga Statement also requested that the Australian government pass laws to establish a nationally elected Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisation to oversee Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. In fact, this is what the Voice to Parliament is. The Voice, treaty-making and truth-telling are the three pillars of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. They are tangible goals that can bring the Barunga Statement to life.

Our people have been providing to Australian governments beautiful, deliberate and considered words in the form of statements, declarations and agreements for many generations. What we now need is action, and that is the responsibility of all of us—Indigenous and non-Indigenous and from remote communities all the way to the executive government of this place.

First Nations people have the answers to the challenges that impact on our lives, and the Voice to Parliament will allow these to be heard. Securing a 'yes' vote at the referendum will recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of this continent by establishing a body that has a say on the matters that will affect them, just as the Barunga Statement requested. The Barunga Statement asked that the body be elected, and this is an important feature that I support. The Voice to Parliament must be connected to and responsible for the voices of regional and remote communities to ensure that all of our mob are heard at all levels of government, especially here, in the nation's parliament, where all the important decisions are made. There are more of us sitting in parliament than ever before, but we are still only 11 of 227 members of this parliament. We all have different views. We come from different parties and different parts of this beautiful country, and our 11 voices are not enough to tackle the challenges that our people face, no matter how hard we work. This is why we need a voice to parliament.

Securing a 'yes' vote in the referendum is our next step. It's only the beginning of what is needed to restore First Nations rights. I am, and the Greens are, very committed to seeing action on truth-telling and treaty-making in this country, and we don't have to wait for that; we can also start this work and the crucial processes that are needed right now at the same time as achieving a 'yes' at the referendum. It is promising to see some of the states and territories progressing truth and treaty, and now we need the federal government to follow suit.

The Voice is a structural change, one determined by the Australian people, hearing our voices and understanding the context and diversity of our issues. For non-Indigenous people to be moved into action, we also need truth-telling. We need a treaty. We were robbed of a treaty 230 years ago when white settlers arrived here, and we were robbed of a treaty 35 years ago when white men unfortunately played politics in this place. Our call for treaty across this country still continues. We are sovereign people and sovereign nations, and the Commonwealth government must treat us as such. Our sovereignty has never been ceded. My sovereignty is my birthright—to care for this country, to protect its wildlife and ecosystems, to be a knowledge holder and to pass that traditional knowledge on to the next generation. Not until we see the effective implementation of all three elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart will we see progress on closing the gap, ending racial discrimination and achieving true self-determination.

In the 200 years since colonisation, we've been fighting to survive. The frontier wars saw our people chained and massacred and our land systematically stolen. Government policy ripped our children from their families and punished them for speaking our languages and practising our law and our cultural traditions. Today, we fight the governments and the fossil fuel billionaires who are destroying our sacred places, meeting places for ceremony and cultural business, ancestral songlines and trade routes that existed—the social and spiritual fabric of our culture. First Nations children are more likely to go to prison than they are to university in this country. We have lower life expectancy and higher rates of preventable illnesses, and our children are still being taken.

Despite governments' best efforts, my mother's family survived five generations of the stolen generation. I am one of the first generation of my family to have been raised by their parents in their household in five generations. This has deep and personal impacts for my family that we in fact grapple with every day. Institutionalised racism creates intergenerational trauma. First Nations people have lost so much since colonisation, yet we carry on fighting for our rights and, in particular, for our recognition. We carry this burden every day, and let me tell you how heavy the load is and how it takes a significant toll on our people.

For too long our laws and policies have been made for us without free, prior and informed consent. When we say 'nothing about us without us'—the Voice has the ability and is the chance for our people across the country to have a say in matters that affect them. The Voice is a mechanism for those issues; it's not an individual platform. Our community leaders have the answers. We know what works best for us, and it's time our voices were heard and acted upon. This referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to advance reconciliation, justice and healing in this country. It is about recognising and respecting First Nations people of this country and their unique needs and culture, the oldest living culture in the world. This is about stopping the revolving door of the handpicked who have been benefiting from their access to politicians. It is about using the First Nations value of reciprocity to create a space to listen and to hear, whilst providing an opportunity for direct access into those processes to achieve free, prior and informed consent. It could be a significant and unifying moment for our country, and a successful referendum could start a decade of change for First Nations people, advancing truth telling, treaty making and, in fact, the true essence of self-determination.

The referendum is only months away, and it will be after a long and exhausting fight for First Nations people. I want to tell mob who are watching out there to take care of yourselves and take care of your communities. This will be a tough time, but we are strong and we are resilient. To non-First-Nations people, we need you for this to be successful, because we also need you to shoulder some of this burden. We cannot carry this by ourselves. We need as many people as we can to come on this journey with us towards truth, treaty and a voice. We all have a role to play, and I want every Australian to embrace this and think about what this could actually mean for the next generation of First Nations people—my children, your children, our grandchildren. What type of country do you want to live in? One where the traditional custodians are listened to and genuinely involved in matters that involve them, or more of the same that has not been working—the legacy of public policy failures that have impacted on generations of First Nations people?

First Nations people have been here in this country for 65,000 years, and I'm proud to have that culture, the oldest living culture, running through my veins. I'm proud to be part of the first party to endorse the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full and I am proud to be the first Aboriginal woman here, in the nation's parliament, representing Western Australia. I am proud to speak in support of this bill for constitutional recognition for First Nations people and to create a voice to the nation's parliament. In my great-grandmother's traditional language, I want finish with this phrase: Nganhu garrimanah malga brily marlbayiminah—we stand strong together and we will rise. Woolah! Thank you.

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank Senator Cox for speaking in language in this place. I want to start by acknowledging the traditional owners of country and pay my respects to elders past and present. I want to acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people and the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people's continuous connection to this place. I want to acknowledge all traditional owners of our nation, and I want to say very clearly in this place that this always was and always will be Aboriginal land.

Today, Lake Mungo is a vast and dry landscape in south-west New South Wales, 700 kilometres north of Melbourne and a couple of hours north of my home town of Swan Hill. Forty-two thousand years ago the lake was actually a lake, filled with water and a part of the Willandra Lakes system. Mungo Woman and Mungo Man lived and died on these shores. When their remains were unearthed in the 1960s and 1970s, Lake Mungo became the site of international attention. Today they remain some of the earliest modern remains found in the world. Mungo Lady, cremated more than 40,000 years ago, is the oldest known cremation in the world, representing very clear evidence of spirituality. Mungo Man had been covered with red ochre and buried. These are culturally significant and sacred sites. This is also my country. Mungo Man and Mungo Woman are my ancestors.

I'm a proud Mutthi Mutthi and Wamba Wamba woman with links to country all along the Murray River, and I stand here today on the shoulders of giants. I think of my grandparents and the incredible women in my life who have raised me and enabled me to stand here today. I'm the first Aboriginal Labor senator for Victoria and the youngest First Nation woman elected to our federal parliament. I am proud to stand in this chamber today to speak in support of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 legislation.

The successful passage of this legislation will see First Nations Australians recognised as the First Peoples of this nation and let us take our rightful place in the Australian Constitution. It will enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians to have a say in and be consulted on matters that impact our communities. The opportunity afforded to us this year, through the referendum, has been hard fought. First Nations communities across Australia have been working towards the establishment of a Voice for very many years. Now First Nations leaders from across the country have invited Australians, through the Uluru Statement from the Heart, to walk with us. In 1967 we were counted. In 2023 we invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future. We're asking to be seen. We're asking to be listened to. We're asking to have a say on matters that affect us, to begin moving forward as a nation and addressing the gaps for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We're asking for a Voice.

It is about creating practical and lasting change that will lead to better policies and improve the lives of First Nations people in areas like health, education and housing. The Closing the Gap report continues to publish statistics which show that current policies and initiatives are not leading to better outcomes for First Nations communities in areas like social welfare, education, health, child protection, social justice—and I could go on and on and on—and it is damning of this country.

In the 2023 implementation report, the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children assessed as developmentally on track in all five domains of the Australian Early Development Census has dropped. It has dropped. The target for healthy birth weights for babies has gone from being on track to not on track. This is not an abstract conversation to me. These are not just numbers on a page. These conversations are about my family, they're about my community, they're about my aunties, my uncles, my nieces and my nephews. These conversations are about my sons. This is their lives. This is my life.

There have been 47 parliaments since Federation. There have been 51 prime ministers and 22 ministers for Indigenous Australians in various forms. There have been countless chances, moments, committees, organisations, election commitments and budget announcements—countless moments that have been missed. And we still don't have parity. We are still not equal in our own country—and we are far, far from it.

To say that our current efforts, policies, programs—whatever you want to look at—are not leading to successful outcomes would be putting it politely. As Aunty Pat Anderson from the referendum committee has said, everyday First Nations Australians don't have the megaphones of politicians. So we need to give all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals and communities a Voice. No more status quo—it is not good enough in 2023. A constitutionally enshrined Voice will give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians an opportunity to change our lives for the better. It will give us a say in the matters that affect our communities.

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the strength of my community, the strength of mob. We've been voiceless for too long. Across the five public hearings of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, we heard from First Nations people and their organisations. We heard from legal experts, journalists and trade unionists about this strength and resilience of First Nations communities. We heard a very, very strong desire for a new approach. We heard of a potential for community engagement in the Voice and the positive impacts it could have for community, and how it ties to existing structures in First Nations communities.

Aunty Pat Anderson spoke of her personal experiences over many years: 'Every time there's a change of government, minister or head of department, we all have to come back to Canberra and justify. We have to explain who we are. Often we have to bring a map to show where we're coming from. We talk to the government of the day and explain who we are and why we need to maintain the level of funding that we already have to run our organisations, our families, and explain what our needs are—every time there's a change.' As she said, 'We keep running on the spot here.' She also said: 'A lot of money—you know better than me—is spent on us. It doesn't get down to where the real needs are. That's why we need to talk to the government of the day as well as to parliament. That's why we need a voice.'

Former Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt presented analysis of legislation considered in 2022 and the degree to which Aboriginal organisations or communities were consulted on legislation that was directly relevant to their circumstances. In that year alone, in the consideration of religious discrimination legislation, the National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill and the Family Law Amendment (Federal Family Violence Orders) Bill, Mr Wyatt noted that no Aboriginal organisations provided input into these bills—zero. He also said that the government amendments to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Streamlined Participation Requirements and Other Measures) Bill had some 20 organisations listed, but not one of them was Indigenous, yet they have profound impacts on Indigenous families and communities.

While I feel optimistic that, by and large, Australians support reconciliation and they support giving First Nations people a fair go, I know that the next few months will be hard. Sadly, the public debate about the referendum has been quite ugly, and I fear it's going to get worse. Words have been used as a powerful weapon against First Nations communities for a very, very long time. For our mob, racism and hate have already been on the rise and on full display for all to see while we discuss enshrining a First Nations Voice in our Constitution. These are the words that are heard by my nieces and nephews, my cousins, my aunties and uncles. These words have real-world impacts.

But words can also be used to unite us: a proposed law to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve of this proposed alteration? Writing three simple letters, saying yes to these words, will mean Australians will have taken the next step towards bettering the lives of First Nations people. It will mean a more united country, united by the desire for progress and a more equal and fair country for everyone. A First Nations Voice to parliament is an opportunity for the Australian people to walk with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people towards a better future for all Australians. My great hope is that we will wake up the day after the referendum as a better nation.

I want to thank all who have shown support so far—multicultural communities, organisations, the trade unions, sporting organisations, everyday Australians and individuals. Thank you for your solidarity. I want to encourage you to be loud and proud in your support for the Voice, because First Nations people will be watching. Together, we can ensure every Australian can be proud of the society we have built together. In the words of the Uluru Statement from the Heart:

We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.

We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.

While this bill seeks to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, it's not just about us. This is about who we are as a country. This is about my children and it's about your children. It's about our children inheriting a better country than each of us has grown up in. That's what's at stake. As a parent, you know that it is ingrained in you to want everything for your children—a better life and a better future than what you had. Supporting the referendum is an opportunity to give them that. My very strong message to this place is: don't let them down.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope that during this debate it can be as respectful as what we have heard already today on both sides. This year, Australians will be asked to vote to amend the Constitution to enshrine an Indigenous Voice to parliament. From the outset, let me make it clear that I do support Australians having their say via a referendum. I, and my Nationals colleagues, supported the referendum bill earlier this year to ensure that Australians can have their say, but I will be voting against this bill before us, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, because I do not support the proposal that is being put to the Australian people.

This proposal is not the simple recognition that I believe is actually supported by most Australians. This proposal goes way beyond that. Despite what the Yes 23 television adverts will tell you, do not be fooled. This proposal presents a risky and permanent change to our Constitution.

My opposition to this bill is not to say that I want Indigenous Australians to be voiceless—quite the opposite. As I member of the Nationals, most of my colleagues represent electorates with the largest percentages of Indigenous populations. We know and we see the city-country divide. We know the gap, and we know that we need to address issues in regional Australia to help close the gap for Indigenous Australians as well as other regional Australians. We need to look at regional health, government services, infrastructure and community wellbeing in some of our most remote and isolated communities.

As I travel around my home state of New South Wales and beyond, where I see good outcomes, where I see true effort in closing the gap, is where I see local government and councils sitting down with representatives of their Indigenous communities and together working through measures that are fit for purpose in their home towns. My own council, the Edward River Council, have worked hard to establish constructive relationships with the local land council and our local Indigenous knowledge centre. Together they are working on sharing knowledge, sharing understanding and providing opportunity for the whole community. At the other end of the state, Moree council have commenced a similar process, and they are working very hard to find solutions together. That is the sort of voice, the sort of understanding and the sort of progress that I believe works. Some tell me that these examples justify a constitutionally enshrined national voice, but I'm not convinced, because what I know is that what they have identified as positive action in Moree is completely different to what is being undertaken in Deniliquin. I also know that these relationships are fluid and flexible, whereas changing our Constitution for such a body is rigid, permanent and risky, and I am not alone in holding these concerns.

Indigenous community leaders in Dubbo, from separate political backgrounds, were speaking to the local newspaper, the Dubbo Daily Liberal, earlier this year, expressing their concerns about the Voice. Gamilaraay man Peter Gibbs, who I know personally, is also CEO of the local Regional Enterprise Development Institute and has devoted his life, through that organisation, to establishing and finding employment and enterprise opportunities for Indigenous people right across western New South Wales. He believes our current system of democracy is working. It has seen 11 MPs elected to this parliament from across the political spectrum. Mr Gibbs told the paper:

Do we honestly believe that [the] voice will get one kid to school, get someone into a job, protect one domestic violence victim, one child out of care or another young person out of the judicial system?

By the same token, community worker and Wiradjuri and Gamilaraay elder Frank Doolan said money for the Voice would be better spent providing social housing and employment or improving health outcomes. That too is key because the Voice is not a cost-free exercise. We're only hearing about the Voice and the vibe and doing the decent thing, but when we ask, 'What is the cost?' we get blank. Already the National Indigenous Australians Agency receives over $4 billion a year, with over 1,400 staff. The Prime Minister has promised that the Voice, if established, will have a full secretariat and the resources needed to ensure it is supported and can do research and the like. There has never been a discussion about what the recurrent expenditure will be, how many extra Canberra based Public Service jobs will be created or how the Voice will interact with the existing agencies, including the NIAA, or any of the existing Indigenous bodies, like the Coalition of Peaks, a body that already represents over 80 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community organisations and was formed, according to its own website, to change the way the Australian government works with Indigenous people.

As it stands, Indigenous Australians are not voiceless. Prime ministers have, for years, established Indigenous advisory committees. There is the entire department, the NIAA, with offices right across the country, with the stated vision that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are heard, recognised and empowered. So, with all these voices, why aren't we seeing solutions? I think the answer to that is clearly that we haven't been listening. But, as Mr Gibbs says, 'A new bureaucracy will not change that.'

Another friend of mine, also from Dubbo and also a very proud Indigenous man, Michael Cooper, says the proposed Voice is not reconciliation. He tells me, 'From my experience in this space, I have grave fears it will be too bureaucratic and not actually help to improve the lives of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Australians in regional Australia.' But he does fear the divisiveness. He says there is a large group of Aboriginal conservatives across western New South Wales who are fearful of being shouted down. He says he has already witnessed gaslighting of people who express concerns about the Voice by proponents.

Now, I have met with supporters of the Voice, too, and I have had deep and respectful conversations with those I have met with face-to-face—unlike the anonymous keyboard warriors. And I will continue to meet with and speak to all sides of this debate, because I think that's important. What I have asked each of the proponents I have met with is: what does a voice look like to you? The answer I get each and every time is different. It could be elected or see elected representation, regional or national. Even when they have read the Calma-Langton report that we are told will form the baseline, interpretations of what that looks like vary. Some say the Voice will be much like any other advocacy group such as the National Farmers Federation or the business chamber of Australia. Wrong; those groups are not written into our Constitution. Yes, they make representations to government but they're not constitutionally enshrined.

In an online video, constitutional law expert and Voice proponent Professor Anne Twomey explains that a voice will enable Indigenous people to make submissions to parliament, as she says, 'as anyone can'. This begs the question: if anyone can make a submission to parliament, why do we need to change our Constitution? Indeed, as its website says, the Coalition of Peaks already makes representations, as do others.

The Prime Minister says the Voice represents a modest change. He claims it's the decent thing to do and it will only look at issues of direct relevance to Indigenous people. Then he goes to an Indigenous conference and says, 'Why would you accept a modest change?' Voice proponents and detractors alike also have a different interpretation of the proposed amendment we are now voting on today, drafted by the Prime Minister's handpicked referendum working group. Working group member Professor Megan Davis says, once established, politicians won't be able to, in her words, 'shut the Voice up', claiming it will not be limited to matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Professor Davis says it can speak on a broad range of issues including the conduct of elections, the criminal justice system, financial policy or defence. Similarly, PricewaterhouseCoopers' Indigenous consulting body published a report called Who is speaking? Who is listening? In that report they say the national Voice could provide advice on policies and strategies such as free trade agreements and national energy policies or even on how the government should respond to royal commissions.

It's this broad scope that concerns people like human rights commissioner Lorraine Finlay, who said the Voice:

… substantially increases the risks of bureaucratic complexity, legal uncertainty and judicial activism.

Ms Finlay goes on to say the draft wording:

… inserts race into the Australian Constitution in a way that undermines the foundational human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination …

This, to me, is the crux of the matter. I believe in our system of democracy. I believe, just like Mr Gibbs, that people who are motivated and supported to stand for an elected role, be it local government, state or federal parliament, should be able to do so and should be judged on their personal qualities rather than their race. As an Indigenous colleague, who I deeply respect, said to me when he was appointed chair of a government agency community consultative committee, 'I am not an Indigenous chair; I am chair because I know and understand the issue. I am also Indigenous, but so what?' I am absolutely committed to working with my democratically elected colleagues to listen to our communities—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As it is 1.30, I will go to senators' statements. Senator Davey, you will be in continuation.