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

As I'm in continuation in the debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, I realise I've only a short amount of time left, so I just want to reiterate that I am absolutely committed to working with my democratically elected colleagues to listen to our communities and to support frontline, evidence based solutions to address closing the gap, to close this city-country divide and to ensure that we hopefully can drive change from the ground up. What I am not committed to doing is supporting the establishment of a bureaucracy that can only have a governance board based on an identity.

A lot of people say it's not about race. If it's not about race, what is it about? If it's not about heritage, what then is it about? I believe that we are all equal, whether you are a First Australian, whether you are a colonial Australian or whether you are a new Australian. What is the common factor there? The common factor is that we are all Australians. To ensure that we close the gap and to ensure we make services available to rural, regional and remote Australians from all walks of life, I will continue to work my hardest and I will continue to listen to the voices of all of those people and do my best in this place with my colleagues to affect change.

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

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I expressed my view about this legislation, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, and the brain-snapping folly that will occur if the Yes campaign wins the upcoming referendum. Martin Luther King's dream was that his children would 'not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character'. I share that dream. Although I doubt that he imagined we'd be discussing this same principle nearly 60 years later.

The Voice would result in constitutionally enshrining deferential treatment based on skin colour and heritage. I cannot endorse racism, and I will not do so. It's difficult to discuss the 'no' case in relation to the Voice and its operations without being labelled racist. This has been Mr Albanese's deliberate policy. He's hoping to mislead voters into thinking this is a modest proposal, merely a goodwill gesture that needs very little thinking and should be supported because it's simply good manners and will not change much or anything at all. He's taken a leaf out of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's playbook. Mr Albanese is telling us, 'Don't you worry about that'—the details—'Just do as I say.' Mr Albanese is telling a great mistruth.

The Voice, if established, will become a huge new institution with vast powers enshrined indefinitely into the Constitution based on race. It will change governance to Australia's detriment. There's no doubt that past governments failed to address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's needs. This is despite billions of dollars successive governments have wasted lining the pockets of white and black bureaucrats, academics, activists, lawyers, consultants and all those whose incomes are based on the white and black Aboriginal gravy train siphoning off the money that rarely filters through to those who should benefit from assistance.

The government is already seeking mass endorsement of the 'yes' campaign. It's calling in support from those already dependent on government funding. Sports organisations, the arts and big business are all dependent on government funding grants and contracts. They aren't exactly independent but bribed. We'll hear from more of those organisations in the lead up to the referendum.

While it's interesting to look at the elites supporting the 'yes' case, we need to consider what real Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people want. I've travelled with my staff to Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory and across Queensland. I've visited every Cape York community twice and in some cases three times—and to Torres Strait communities. I've listened to residents, and one thing that has struck me is the fact that there is little knowledge or even interest in this Voice. There is little interest or respect for the so-called Closing the Gap. A counsellor in the Torres Strait community of Badu summed it up accurately, saying that many in the Aboriginal industry do not want to close the gap; they want to perpetuate the gap to keep milking taxpayer funds.

There's no common understanding as to what the Voice is or what it might offer residents in terms of improving people's lives. Opinions differed from community to community. They differed from family group to family group. In fact, on most issues there's little commonality of views. There's no single Voice that could represent the differing views of each separate Aboriginal and islander community. I remain deeply concerned about the unworkability of what's proposed.

Mr Albanese, when deflecting questions recently on how the Voice would work in practice, has constantly directed questioners to read the lengthy Calma and Langton final report on the Voice. It's not a policy, merely recommended. The report says there'd be a need for 24 full-time roving commissioners and a secretariat. With 35 districts, there's a need for local Aboriginal Voice to Parliament groups and committees. On each issue, these committees would seek to develop one opinion. There would be the likely risk of people in Tasmania giving their view on an issue for Torres Strait Islanders. The report did not say all representatives would be elected democratically. Retired High Court judge Ian Callinan has been vocal in opposing the Voice, questioning how it might not be truly representative of Aboriginal Australians and run the risk that the Voice might be made up of a hand-picked Canberra cadre. He noted practical difficulties with drafting the constitutional amendments that would need High Court interpretations. This Voice push is not from the grassroots; it's coming from city elites, academics and others on the white and black Aboriginal industry gravy train. The Voice faces the real risk of a noisy minority of activist groups hijacking and driving it.

Across Australia are more than 3,000 Indigenous corporations and more than 12,700 registered charities with purposes including assisting Aboriginal Australians. Since 2018 more than 19,000 grants have been made, totalling more than $11.5 billion for Aboriginal purposes. All of this money has been directed towards the needs of a group representing less than four per cent of Australia's population. For example, Noel Pearson's Cape York Institute collected more than $50 million. He supports the Voice. The recent budget included $781 million for the National Indigenous Australians Agency, to be added to an already announced expenditure of $1.36 billion. Look around the communities. Where has this jaw-dropping amount of money gone? What has it done to lift the lives of remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? Previously, I raised in this Senate the sorry plight of Aboriginal people on Mornington Island, Australia's third world disgrace. Has their life benefited from the jaw-dropping amount of wasted money? Clearly, no.

A core issue for me is there is the historic suppression of Aboriginal Australians under governments that continue to patronise and reinforce a victim mentality through misplaced paternalistic care, so-called care—control masquerading as care. This remains a national disgrace. The solution is not creating a powerful unaccountable body to satisfy a small group of activists with vested interests in maintaining an ever growing white and black Aboriginal industry.

There is not one word from the government on the cost of setting up the Voice. There is not one word from the government on the proposed annual costs. Why is this so, asked a famous and much loved and admired TV scientist. The Prime Minister does not want us to know the answer, as it would be a figure so large that no-one in their right mind would agree to such expenditure for yet another new bureaucracy, when many Australians are already wondering if they can afford to put a meal on the table for their family. Billions are already being spent. Billions more will be spent to run the Voice. Whoops, don't tell the voters!

A previous body created to assist and represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders' needs was ATSIC, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—and look how that experiment went. ATSIC's abuse of Aboriginals and the related corrupt waste of taxpayer money led to ATSIC being abolished. It would be almost impossible to abolish the new version of ATSIC, which is the Voice, enshrined in the Constitution—how handy for the corrupt white and black Aboriginal industry, as the Voice, like ATSIC, would be a never-ending cash cow for those in the know, perpetuating bureaucrats, agency heads and board members living off taxpayer funds—parasites.

Let's not forget the bloodsucking white and black lawyers, activists and academics, who are dipping their snouts in a new public funds trough. Is the Voice really necessary? Is it needed? The government says it's needed to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people an opportunity for input into government. Currently there are already 11 members of parliament of Aboriginal heritage. Are they not doing the job of raising issues on behalf of Aboriginal Australians? If not, what sort of job are they doing? What about the National Indigenous Australians Agency? Isn't its job to highlight to government areas of need? Will the Voice replace this body? The Prime Minister suggested that governance of the Voice would come under the jurisdiction of the future National Anti-Corruption Commission. This has been challenged. Retired senior judge Anthony Whealy said that further legislation would be required to extend the commission's jurisdiction to cover the Voice, as it would not be covered under the current legislation setting up the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

This brings us to the issue of jurisdiction. The High Court would decide disputes about the Voice, because it would be created under an entirely new ninth chapter of the Constitution. The High Court is the only body having the role to interpret the Constitution—a whole ninth chapter added to the current eight chapters, with details in wording hidden. The High Court schedule could fill up rapidly with cases of this nature and slow down the judicial process. The Voice would be able to make representations to parliament and to the executive on matters relating to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. That's almost everything. There's little restriction on the sorts of issues that the Voice could raise, and the advisory role is not only to parliament; it's to the executive government. That means that the potential for excessive involvement of the court system may necessitate expanding the High Court to consider Voice disputes and interpretation.

This leads to another criticism of the proposed Voice. At what stage can the Voice advise the parliament or the executive? Must the government consult with the Voice on all proposed legislation or the development of policy? Is the onus on the Voice to make representations about an issue with the government or the executive? The Aboriginal industry says it is to advise both. The Prime Minister has been unwilling to answer any of these vital questions. Will activists rely on the Voice to slow down government processes to the extent of blocking legislation and holding the government to legal ransom unless demands are met? That seems to be the activists' intent. The Prime Minister's comments that the Voice would be subject to the parliament are clearly wrong. Any law that was designed to rein back Voice activities may fail, as the power of the Voice is so broad that it is nigh impossible to minimise such power.

Any law that is passed related to the Voice must be subject to the Constitution. Surely that is a recipe for confusion and parliamentary disaster. The Voice does not practically solve any of the current issues facing remote Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders. These problems of people living in remote areas, Aboriginal or not, are already well known, yet solutions have not yet been offered. Allocation of vast sums of money, resources and programs have not worked. We've been told that the Voice is proposed to be advisory only, with no power to provide programs, resources or grants. How is that supposed to assist Aboriginals in need? The concept of native title was supposed to support Aboriginal Australians yet has failed miserably. Aboriginals living in a community are not able to own their own homes, are locked into rent cycles and unable to borrow to advance themselves, because they cannot use land under native title as security for a business or home loan or other loan. They're locked into a system that keeps them from improving their lives and livelihoods or working towards buying their own home.

Native title freezes Aboriginal people out of the economy and keeps them from advancing personally. No-one should be surprised that the native title legislation's preamble is littered with references to the Voice's roots, the globalist United Nations. The Voice will further entrench Aboriginal disadvantage, promote victim mentality and sow further division.

One of the nastiest sides of this debate has been the coercive approach that 'yes' campaigners have taken, pitching any opposition to the 'yes' campaign as racist. Even within the Aboriginal community, where there are clear differences of levels of support, derogatory name calling and put-downs are the response from 'yes' campaign leaders such as Noel Pearson. He has derided Senator Nampijinpa Price and other leaders taking a strong 'no' stance. It's interesting that in rural areas, where Aboriginals are most in need, the 'no' vote is way out front—much higher than the 'yes' vote. Aboriginals see little value for them in the 'yes' campaign. The 'yes' campaign support is in fact falling and remains strongest in cities, with support from the wealthy and the elites who have fallen for the cheap rhetoric of lies from government and lies from elite academia. Sadly, young people are being sold a pup, third hand, through a deceitful government media blitz providing huge sums to others to run a deceitful 'yes' campaign on behalf of the government.

What I dislike most of all is the fundamental flaw in this government's whole referendum push, and that is the out-and-out racism underpinning the whole Voice concept. It is the insertion of a whole new chapter into our Constitution, as the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Ms Lorraine Finlay, recently highlighted by saying:

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

The proposed Voice will give Aboriginal people special rights. Only the members of the Voice will have a constitutional right to influence the parliament and the executive. No other Australian person or body would have that constitutional right to influence the parliament or executive based on race—not one. This is pure racism. If one goal of the Voice is to create harmony and reconciliation, this is doomed to failure, irrespective of the referendum outcome. This issue is so divisive that, whatever the result, a wedge will have been driven between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members of our Australian society, a wedge based on race, thanks to the Labor government. Australians should all have the same rights. If this referendum succeeds, that will not be the case in Australia, because one group, Aboriginal Australians, will have additional constitutional rights that other Australians will not have. That is racist and it is wrong.

We all share two identities. We are all human and we are all Australians. Our nation is the world's only nation whose people voted for the national Constitution. Our Commonwealth Constitution is the people's Constitution. Giving the government's dishonest proposal an open slate—a blank slate—for changes made by politicians will degrade it to a politician's Constitution. We have had enough of politicians in this country. In answering a question last week, the Prime Minister acknowledged the public has turned against the Voice. He then confirmed that if the people reject his racist Voice proposal he will legislate it. He will defy the will of the people.

Lastly, what is the point of a voice when the problem is not Australians speaking up; the problem is politicians not listening. It is the arrogance, the deceit, the unwillingness to listen. I will vote no.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is unfortunate that I follow a speech that indicates a 'no' vote, because I want to say to the chamber, and to those that may be listening or reading our contributions at a later time, that I will be voting yes. I want to also acknowledge the many speakers who have contributed on this history-making bill and who have indicated that they will be voting yes.

The bill before us, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, is an extremely important step on the pathway to recognition and ongoing consultation. That's what it is: recognition and consultation. I often wonder why those that oppose the Voice are so frightened of recognition and consultation. It just means listening. Why are they? Everything that I've heard so far from those that oppose, including the previous contribution, does not adequately address these concerns. Yes, they seek to provide misinformation and disinformation to the wider community, to those people that are considering how they may vote in the forthcoming referendum, and to scare them into a position of voting no. If you have to scare people to support your position, you really need to have a good, long, hard look at yourself. This bill proposes an alteration to the Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by establishing a voice to make representations to parliament and to the executive government on matters that relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Right now, our Constitution doesn't refer to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people once—not even once.

Simply, this alteration is about two things, as I've said: consultation—meaning listening; it is not a hard thing, not a big thing, to ask for—and recognition. As a nation we need to grasp this opportunity with both hands; that's my view. It is an opportunity which will work to address the structural and systematic problems that continue to produce devastating outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I don't think there's a person in the chamber that would suggest that the current outcomes that are being produced by government policy are working. I don't think there would be a person that could stand up here and suggest that what we've been doing in the past has worked.

We have a thing or two to learn, I believe, from our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities—65,000 years of knowledge passed down from generation to generation through songlines, all of which have been dismissed and ignored far too long. The generosity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in sharing their culture, their songlines, their stories—as an Australian nation, we should feel privileged that they have reached out to do that. I defy anyone that goes to an Aboriginal community, goes to an Aboriginal ceremony, to not feel touched by what First Nations people are imparting. If you don't feel touched and blessed—that is a big thing for me, because I'm not a religious person.

I was up at the NT, and I was having a discussion with—

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

Wonderful place!

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Beautiful place, lovely place—far too hot for any Tasmanians! We were having a discussion with the Larrakia nation community organisation. The way they talked about their culture and discussed it—this is a real community. You can't be anything but touched and feel profoundly influenced if you have the opportunity to hear and listen to Indigenous people. I found it quite incredibly moving. I think we should be incredibly proud of that history, where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have had the longest living connection to land, sea and sky compared to anywhere else in the world.

Some senators may claim that this is an idea that has been formulated by the Labor Party—far from it. The idea of constitutional recognition through a voice to parliament follows consultation with over 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, representing their communities, at numerous dialogues across the country. Once completed, the representatives from the dialogues met at Uluru and formulated what we now know as the Uluru Statement from the Heart. What we are doing is listening, like all good governments should. We're listening to what that Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for: constitutional recognition through a voice to parliament. We are all better off when we stop and listen to those around us, to the people who will be impacted by it the most, and to use the knowledge that they harbour to make decisions that will make real lasting changes to communities.

For too long, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have had haphazard representation, if there has been any representation at all, because they've been dependent on election cycles and the government of the day. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have always organised themselves in an attempt to effect political and social change for them and their communities; however, without a structure set out in the Constitution it has been far too easy for governments to dismiss the calls of such groups. The Voice will change this. The Voice is simply about listening. The Voice will be there, no matter the party in government, no matter the politics of the day. The Voice will remain. The need to listen will remain. I really find it hard to understand how you can be frightened of listening.

Finally, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will have a consistent and representative advisory body. I'll be out there campaigning for a voice to parliament alongside so many Australians, many of whom will be campaigning for the first time and many of whom who will be voting in their first referendum, like my kids. My kids have never voted in a referendum. I've never seen two children more excited about being out there and having an opportunity to vote yes, and I'm so proud of them to have come to that decision themselves. They understand we need to do something different. They understand the extraordinary need to recognise the First Peoples of this nation. They understand that you need to listen. They embrace it. And I hope, I believe, Australians will embrace it; I do.

I know that Tasmanians will stand up, show up and vote yes for constitutional recognition and a voice to parliament. I commend Premier Rockliff and former premier Gutwein on their strong stance in their support for the 'yes' case and their support for a voice to parliament. As I've said, I know that Tasmanians have it in them to be on the right side of history.

I'm looking forward to celebrating when the day comes that Australia is a more mature and a more representative country. In the words of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese:

We approach these tasks and the work of constitutional change, with humility and with hope.

Humility: because over 200 years of broken promises and betrayals, failures and false starts demand nothing less.

Humility because—so many times—the gap between the words and deeds of governments has been as wide as this great continent.

But also hope.

Hope in your abilities as advocates and campaigners, as champions for this cause.

And hope because I believe the tide is running our way. I believe the momentum is with us, as never before.

I believe the country is ready for this reform.

I believe there is room in Australian hearts for the Statement from the Heart.

In conclusion, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney; the Assistant Minister from Indigenous Australians, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy; and, of course, the forefather of constitutional recognition, Senator Pat Dodson. Your commitment and leadership to make a real difference to the lives of First Nations people is second to none. Again, I will be voting yes. I hope that the referendum is successful and that we can move forward together. Now is a time for our country to come together.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I want to make three points at the outset: I have always supported this concept, I support this bill and I will be voting yes in this referendum. I think this concept is ultimately about providing agency to community members to make decisions about their own communities but also to make decisions about national policy which affects a group of people in a unique way. I think that is a very Liberal concept.

Effectively this bill is about putting an amendment, now, to the Australian people on our Constitution. It is not the exact form of words that I would have chosen, but I believe that the Constitution and our system of government will be better for having this amendment included. So I'll be voting for this bill, as will the bulk of my party. I believe that voting yes is the right thing to do for our country, and I think it will be a positive change for all Australians.

I have never believed that it is in the best interests of our country to defeat a referendum on reconciliation. I addressed this issue in my first speech to the Senate in 2019 and on numerous occasions over the past few years. I said at the time that it was important to build consensus. This must be a unifying project because the Australian Constitution belongs to all Australians. At the time, I established five principles which I believe would be critical to the success of any referendum. Those principles were:

Any proposal must (1) capture broad support of the Indigenous community; (2) focus on community level improvements; (3) maintain the supremacy of parliament; (4) maintain the value of equality; and (5) strengthen national unity.

I think at this stage it is clear that there are questions over principles (3) and (5), but I want to address the issues before coming to some of the detail.

The first issue is recognition. I believe in recognition because the Constitution is incomplete, and I think we should be looking at this referendum as a way to build on 1967. The process that led to 1967 was very much linked to the debates of today. There were two changes that were made in 1967. One was about the census, and the other one, which was the most substantive of the two, was to vest a new power in the Commonwealth Constitution to allow the Commonwealth laws for Indigenous people, which had previously been the preserve of the states. The intention was that this new lawmaking power, effectively a race based power, would be used for good, and it was not used heavily in its first couple of decades. It was used more later, though, and there were currently 15 different laws on the books which were made under this race power for Indigenous people. Land rights, heritage protection, corporations, education, native title, the Stolen Generations redress scheme—it's a lengthy list. We have no good system to manage these laws; when they're made, they're made without the input of the people they're made for. That's why I have always believed that the current system is fundamentally illiberal.

On the Voice: as I mentioned, I do support the Voice. I believe that the local voice has always been the central component. I formed that view by travelling extensively around New South Wales, which has the largest Indigenous community in this country, through towns like Nowra, Kempsey, Walgett, Bourke and Brewarrina. The view that I often hear expressed is that people are frustrated with the way that services are delivered in these rural and regional places. There's a sentiment that bureaucrats change and processes change, and so there's no good way to provide input to policymakers. Therefore there's a loss of continuity and a loss of traction that happens. Of course, we hear the big lie that this would be the introduction of race into the system, but the policies that are run by the states—like Aboriginal medical services, for example, which are very important policies in these towns I speak of—are race based policies. I just mentioned 15 different race based laws that we have here on the books in Canberra at a national level, so the fundamental principle at the local level that you would want to have structured and consistent input from local people on how policies are deployed I think is compelling.

At the national level, I have already listed the various laws that we make. But when we decide to amend the Native Title Act, what process do we go through to assure ourselves that the decisions we're going to make on behalf of the people who are subject to special laws are in their interests? I would say that the process we go through is very poor, and I think that we could do many worse things than get more information from the subjects of special, race based laws. There is a lot of misinformation out there. As I said, we have race based policy at the state level, which is predominant, and we have race based laws at the national level. We have a country that has had race at its heart for 250 years. To argue that this is the introduction of race today is fundamentally untrue.

Of course, though, it isn't really about race when the no advocates make this case. These laws and policies exist, not because of race but because they recognise the unique relationship that the first people of Australia have with this land, and always will have. That is about the first people; it isn't about race. I have tried to build common, or centre, ground over the last few years, and I've tried to work with colleagues in my own party and in Liberal conservative circles. I had hoped that there would have been a lot more common ground at this juncture, but I have to say that over the past 12 months very little progress has been made. But there hasn't been a process to provide for the building out of that common ground. I think we've been long on politics and short on consensus building.

So the model that we have in this bill is a detailed model. It is a bigger and more substantial change than I have argued for in the past. I always had the view that a complex model would put a referendum at risk, and I argued as much in a Sydney Institute speech back in June 2021. At the time, I argued for an amendment which read something like, 'The Commonwealth shall make provision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be heard by the Commonwealth regarding proposed laws and other matters with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, and the parliament may make laws to give effect to this provision.' That was the sort of simple but empowering amendment that I thought would have the most chance of winning some more of the common ground that I think is going to be essential.

The government decided not to go for a simple amendment. We had an opportunity, finally, to review this amendment as part of the joint select committee. To cut to the chase, I made recommendations in the joint select committee report that we should add seven additional words, which were, 'and the legal effect of its representations', into the constitutional amendment. During the hearings, I exhausted this idea with people, like Anne Twomey and George Williams, who are eminent legal and constitutional scholars and professors, and they all indicated that the addition of those words would not be offensive to the concept, may provide assurance and would be worth doing.

None of this was done, none of this was adopted, for reasons which are unclear to me. But I would have thought that that would have assured people that parliamentary supremacy was going to be maintained, which is the concern that some people have. I think that was a lost opportunity. I made some remarks yesterday about the joint select committee, and I think that will be viewed, regrettably, as a missed opportunity to build some common ground, or centre ground, before we go to this referendum. I regret to say that even the people that went to the trouble of writing reports in this committee have not had a response from the government, so we simply don't know what the government's view is about those seven additional words, for example.

I would have thought that the best way to have handled this—and I made these points at the time—would have been to have established a parliamentary committee in 2022 which could have made recommendations to the parliament as a committee. Instead what we received was a government bill, a policy of the government, which, I think—I'm trying to be as generous as I can be here, but I don't believe there was any real intent when the joint select committee was set up to do its job. It was given five weeks to review a constitutional amendment and made one recommendation. I think that was a very regrettable process which has not helped us at all.

As I say, I think there has been far too much politics here, and, for reasons which are unclear to me, the government has rebuffed efforts to build consensus. It's now up to the government to convince people why they should vote yes. Perhaps the only question, really, is whether the referendum should succeed in its current form. I think the government has one last chance before we vote on this bill to improve the bill, but that is now a matter for the government. This is, obviously, a very disappointing starting point for this referendum, but I do wish the campaigners well. I hope that all sides can maintain the dignity which the Australian people would expect of them.

I'm accountable to this chamber, and I want to report that I have done my best to try and build that middle ground, or common ground, here. I've tried to address the concerns that my own political party has had. I'd hoped that the middle ground was going to be larger at this point. I have to say that it feels invisible. I support the passage of this bill, and I will help write a 'yes' case should I be asked to. That will be my substantive contribution on this issue. I am not a commentator, nor am I a professional campaigner.

If the government does proceed with this model, it is up to the government to convince the Australian people to vote yes. My vote will be for yes, and I will be encouraging other people to do the same. It is very important that people over the age of 18 enrol now to vote. Everyone's vote has the same weight. The status quo has not been good enough, and that is why this issue is so important. Unfortunately, this has been treated more like a routine political issue than a constitutional reform. Ultimately, though, the government still has time to improve this bill and to build some more common ground. I hope they do, and, for the record, I will be voting yes. My view has always been that defeating a referendum on reconciliation cannot be in the nation's interests and cannot be in the interests of Indigenous people. Thank you.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to start by acknowledging the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, who are the traditional custodians of the land on which the Australian parliament meets. I'd also like to acknowledge the Yuggera and Turrbal peoples of Meanjin, my home town of Brisbane where I live and work. I'd also like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of hundreds of nations around Australia, their elders past and present and their connections to the land, waters and skies. This country was invaded, and the First Peoples were violently dispossessed of their land. The sovereignty of First Nations people was never ceded. Successive governments at federal, state and local levels have perpetrated grave injustices since the initial invasion, and those injustices are ongoing.

The legacy of colonisation lives in the lingering gap between First Nations and non-Indigenous Australians, a gap that's laid bare each year in the Closing the Gap report, a gap which is closing far, far too slowly. First Nations people are locked up and thrown in jail at a higher rate than any other group of people in the world. They are more likely to be incarcerated as children, and they are more likely to die in prison. First Nations communities have poorer health outcomes, higher unemployment and are more susceptible to the housing crisis. First Nations children are still being taken from their families. Cultural sites are destroyed for mining projects with barely a slap on the wrist. Consultation with traditional owners over resource projects remains tokenistic and exploitative, and destructive projects like the Adani Carmichael mine, fracking in the Beetaloo basin and highway expansions at Deebing Creek and Djaki Kundu press ahead despite the opposition of those who speak for country, all for the profits of big corporations.

Systemic racism is embedded into the fabric of our laws, social policies, policing and media in this country and impacts every aspect of First Nations people's lives. First Nations communities have said all of this loud and clear for decades, for centuries—frontier resistance, tent embassies, Invasion Day rallies, the Bringing Them Home Committee and countless other advisory bodies. They've used their voice; we just haven't listened. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was an attempt to reckon with our past and to create a better future. It states:

These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.

What the Uluru statement calls for is bold but ultimately simple: '…to empower our people and to take a rightful place in our own country.' Giving First Nations people, those who have survived, power over their lives so that their children can flourish, their culture can flourish and they can thrive—all this should be non-negotiable.

I am proud to be the Greens spokesperson on women, and in that role I am keenly aware of the injustices that First Nations women face. I want to pay tribute to the First Nations women in this chamber, some of whom are participating in this debate tonight. First Nations women, as I hope we all know, are nearly more than eight times more likely to be killed and 27 times more likely to be hospitalised by domestic and family violence. They are more likely to be misidentified as a perpetrator in a domestic assault. The inquiry into missing and murdered First Nations women, initiated by Senator Cox and Senator Thorpe, has revealed the shocking dismissal and underinvestigation of the abuse of First Nations women. I am pleased that the government has finally acknowledged the need for a dedicated First Nations action plan and a national plan to end violence against women developed by and for First Nations women. First Nations women know how to address the cycles of violence they experience and have been calling for action—we just haven't been listening.

That's what is at stake when we are considering the Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. It is an opportunity to start the process of redressing centuries of injustice and to finally start listening to the voices of First Nations people.

Critically, a Voice to Parliament is only one element of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, an invitation to deliver truth-telling, treaty and Voice. As the first party to endorse the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, the Greens support progressing all of these elements. We support a Voice to Parliament, but it's but one of the three elements of the Uluru statement. They are intended as a package, to build the scaffolding for a stronger Australia. A successful Voice referendum later this year could be the start of change for First Nations people as we move towards truth-telling, treaty-making and self-determination. We have an opportunity to change things for the better with First Nations people throughout this nation—not just for First Nations people but for all of us. The Greens know that there will be no justice in this country without truth or treaty. Strong First Nations networks within the Greens, at both a national level and in my home state of Queensland, have made it clear that we must begin to tell the truth about the history of violence and dispossession that lies at the heart of this country. We must negotiate treaties with First Nations people so that we can forge a better shared future.

The Greens are committed to working with the government to advance First Nations justice while listening to the concerns of First Nations people. We've called for progress of all of truth, treaty and Voice, but the government has chosen to proceed with Voice first. In that context, we want the Voice referendum to succeed, to lay the foundation for progress on each element of the Uluru statement. We want and we see Voice as the pathway to truth and treaty. The government must not take its eye off the whole package. Since the welcome commitment of $5.8 million to a makarrata commission in the October budget, there hasn't been real progress on truth-telling or treaty-making. With a successful Voice referendum, the pressure to act on that commitment must grow.

Truth, treaty and Voice offer a historic opportunity to move towards First Nations justice and healing, to create a better Australia. So I am disappointed, but sadly not surprised, to see many parts of the coalition and others in this place seeking to derail the Voice referendum. They do that knowing full well that they're standing against advancing First Nations justice, they're standing against recognising and respecting the First Peoples of this nation and their culture. Rather than the path of listening, hearing and learning, they resort to the tired old path of racist rhetoric and dog whistling that has stood in the way of justice for so long. They're playing to fear and division and outdated conservative notions, appealing to those who have benefited from the colonial legacy and who see justice and equality as a threat. Thankfully the rest of the world has moved on. This country has moved on. We are ready to listen and to respect and to grow together. Unlike those in the opposition and One Nation, whose only trick is division, the community sees an enshrined Voice to Parliament for the opportunity that it is. Will the Voice alone fix a history of dispossession? Will it immediately lower the rates of violence or get kids out of prison? No, not on its own, but a successful 'yes' vote will show that we are capable of moving forward with purpose. And the Voice will inform the decisions that come next. It will ready us for truth-telling and treaty-making, to finally have the hard conversations that need to be had and to actually act in response, to implement the recommendations of the black deaths in custody report and the Bringing them home report and to actually close the gap, on all metrics.

As the Greens spokesperson on democracy, I also want to take the opportunity to say that this referendum is itself an opportunity to improve enfranchisement, particularly for First Nations communities. This opportunity should not be squandered, and I once again call on the government to introduce on-the-day enrolment, to remove restrictions on voting for prisoners, to increase remote polling programs and to allow phone voting for those in remote communities, to maximise the number of people who can have a say on this nation-building reform.

Lastly and most importantly, I want to thank the elders and custodians who have spoken to me about Voice. I thank the Australian Greens and Queensland Greens First Nations networks, whose representatives have met with me over the past year to discuss the risks and rewards of the Voice and their dedication to truth and treaty. I deeply respect your views and I hope that we can continue to work together in this ongoing fight for First Nations justice. We have much work to do in this country. Let's make sure the Voice is the pathway to truth and treaty, and let's move forward with hope in our hearts for genuine reconciliation and healing together.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Six weeks after the Uluru Statement from the Heart was delivered, I was in the very privileged position of attending the Garma festival in north-east Arnhem Land. I was very lucky to watch the debate unfold, following the Uluru statement, amongst the many thousands of delegates who attended that conference. What was plain to me as I watched this unfold was that there was a tidal wave of change. While there was enormous debate, as a person who's watched trade union conferences, labour movement conferences and parliamentary debates for most of my adult life, I watched people like Marcia Langton, Pat Anderson, Noel Pearson and Dr Yunupingu argue through these issues at that remarkable festival, and I think, if Uluru was the place where this statement was delivered, the Garma festival was actually really important in building the case amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australia that this was a really important reform—that this was a reform worth committing to and a reform worth putting the best part of a decade into, for change for Aboriginal people.

I remember the late Dr Yunupingu gave a blistering presentation, including a welcome to the then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull. Yunupingu, of course, from his earliest days had been making arguments for his people, providing leadership to his people, in north-east Arnhem Land but also right across Australia. He was a confidant and an advisor to Prime Minister after Prime Minister. He was utterly clear that this was the reform—voice, treaty and truth—that was required to advance the position of First Nations people in Australia. That man contributed so much for Australia. 'Makarrata,' he said—'coming together after a struggle.' That is what the Uluru statement is about—voice, treaty and truth.

You can draw a consistent line through my political party's, the Labor Party's, response from then to now. Then opposition leader Bill Shorten said at Garma that Labor would support a referendum on a voice to parliament. Following the 2019 election, Anthony Albanese said Labor would back the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, and I watched with enormous pride as the new Prime Minister of Australia in his election night speech pledged not just the Labor Party's support but the government's full support, unequivocal support, for the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full—voice, treaty and truth—and committed the government in its first term to a constitutional referendum to effect that change.

It's a simple proposition, a generous proposition, that we as a country should not let slip away. It is a short and simple proposition. I think I heard one of my friends from the other side here make the argument that it was too short—that it only had 300-something words. Well, the Gettysburg address had 277 words. It will be that important in our national history if we can only achieve this referendum in 2023.

It is the right thing for First Nations Australians. But on top of that it is the right thing for Australia, for a stronger and more confident nation, comfortable with the truth of our history, not prisoners of our past but owning our own past, facing the future together, confident in the knowledge that First Nations have a secure place in our future. We can't be a confident nation if we shirk or deny our history. Part of this history was struggle. There were hundreds of nations across our great continent, on islands and in waterways, for more than 60,000 years, passing down through thousands of generations stories, wisdom, art, agriculture, community and kinship, with songlines across our land.

Our 60,000 years of history is one of our greatest national assets. It should be a source of pride, it should be a source of strength and it should be something that we teach our children at every opportunity. The truth is that 60,000 years of history was shattered by European colonisation. That is the truth. That can't be undone. We are a great nation, sure, but we must see the past as it is and put things right. Voice, treaty and truth are the pathways that have been set out for us. As Dr Yunupingu said: 'Makarrata is coming together after a struggle.' The truth is that 'struggle' is a very generous way indeed of describing what happened. Utter brutality is a much more accurate way of describing much of that history.

I think it's worth Australians reading Peter FitzSimons's account in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age,over last weekend, of the Myall Creek massacre, an event that happened not too far from where I grew up. It's worth reading that account. Everybody should read it. If you're not much of a reader, listen to Troy Cassar-Daley singing 'Shadows on the Hill'—one of my favourite country songs from one of my favourite country artists—again, about a massacre that occurred not very far from where I went to school. These things are true stories. They are things that we need to understand in terms of our history. As I say, we cannot confidently approach our future if we don't have a proper understanding of our past. That is something we should approach with some confidence.

I listened with interest to Senator Bragg's contribution just half an hour ago, and it struck me that there is much in terms of conservative politics and progressive politics that we can all agree upon: the role of institutions, the importance of constitutional arrangements, the importance of following the law and the importance of treating each other decently. It struck me that there is a very strong conservative case for 'yes', and I respect that there is a conservative case for 'no'. I understand that. But what I do ask is that when the cases are put that they are put honestly and truthfully and carefully and, if I might say it like this, that they are put with love for our fellow Australians, not with an intention to divide, not with an intention to belittle and not with an intention to make things worse.

I've listened to Senator Price and Mr Mundine, who lead the official 'no' campaign, say that Aboriginal people don't support the Voice, that it's only academics and lawyers, that Canberra supports the Voice, as if there are no Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academics and lawyers. It's actually untrue. In every survey that has been undertaken on this issue, more than 80 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders support the Voice. And we should listen to them. Senator Price and Mr Mundine claimed that the Uluru Statement was conceived by just 250 hand-picked delegates, but they miss or fail to mention that the process was designed and led by First Nations people and that delegates achieved broad consensus in a deliberative process that was a remarkable achievement for such a complex set of problems.

If Senator Price and Mr Mundine had their way we would just go back to the way that parliaments too many times have dealt with requests for Indigenous recognition essentially to ignore them, to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians a form of recognition that they don't want and haven't asked for—in fact, have expressly rejected—and ignore the demand, expressed with such clarity and moral purpose, for a constitutionally guaranteed Voice to Parliament. This is constitutional catastrophising at its worse—a scare campaign with little basis in reality. What the constitutional debate will require, once this debate finally leaves this parliament and is handed to the people of Australia, is a discourse that's less about partisan politics and more about genuinely listening to each other.

I have to say that I was deeply concerned about what I saw happen in the area that I grew up in in Tamworth when the 'no' campaign came to Tamworth. Some of the things that were said were utterly divisive, utterly cruel, utterly dishonest and completely unnecessary. The first Gomeroi person elected to Tamworth Regional Council, Marc Sutherland, attended that event as an observer. He said he was disappointed that the group chose Tamworth to launch the campaign and described the language used by the speakers at that rally as really dehumanising. He said the Aboriginal community have made it really clear that that kind of language, like 'real blacks' or 'true blacks', and describing Aboriginal people as 'them' or 'those people' is dehumanising and othering. It's that foundation of language that leads to this supposed superiority. When this debate gets out of this parliament we have to ensure that the debate is conducted respectfully, with decency and with the right values—with Australian values. That's what I want to see, and that's what my colleagues want to see.

In one of the towns in regional New South Wales, in Bourke, the Maranguka Justice Reinvestment Project shows what a voice can achieve at the local community level. That project is remarkable. It has had incredible results, with re-offending dropping significantly, a 72 per cent reduction in the number of people under 25 arrested for driving without a licence, a 39 per cent reduction in drug offences and a 35 per cent reduction in driving offences. These are real achievements when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are given a voice. We want to bring to Canberra the spirit of that—the capacity to make that argument—in Bourke. That's what this is all about.

Minister Burney was right when she said that this referendum won't be decided by politicians or lawyers but will be determined by the Australian people. This bill is one more step along that process. Of course it will provide for future constitutional referenda as they come up and as they are determined by the Australian government.

The final thing I want to say is that we have democratic rights in this country and we also have duties. I think in the context of this constitutional debate we all have a duty to inform ourselves. If you're listening to this debate and you have not read the Uluru Statement from the Heart, you should read it. It's short. It's one of the best pieces of writing you will ever read. Read it. Understand what is being put. Understand what the arguments are here. Understand what it means for Australia. It's not just going to be good in social justice and democratic terms for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians but it is going to be good for making Australia a stronger country.

The final duty of course is to enrol to vote. If you are a young person, particularly a young person in the country, you should enrol to vote. If you're a young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person in a community outside of the city, you should enrol to vote. Let's make sure there is a strong expression of community sentiment and a strong expression for social justice. I look forward very much to the passage of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 through the parliament.

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

I too rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. The proposal contained in this bill to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in our Constitution is not a proposal that I can support. However, I will support the passage of this piece of legislation because I, like the Liberal Party, will not stand in the way of Australians having their say on this really important issue. One of the key differences between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party is that we place far greater trust in the democratic institutions of our country, which is why we are concerned by the idea of transferring authority out of the hands of the people who have been elected to these institutions and hand it over to the courts, to people who do not represent the people of Australia. So, whilst we do support people having their say, we do not support the permanent change to our Constitution, because Labor's Voice is four things. It's risky, it's unknown, it's divisive and, above all, it will be permanent.

Australia's Constitution is our most important legal document. Every word can be open to interpretation. Therefore, enshrining this Voice in the Constitution means that everything that happens thereafter in relation to this power is open to legal challenge and interpretation by the unelected High Court of Australia. Legal experts themselves can't even agree on how any High Court will interpret such a constitutional change. In fact, no-one can say for certain what a future High Court will decide at all. The only certainty is that this Voice will open a legal can of worms.

As Ian Callinan AC KC, former High Court judge, said, 'I would foresee a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation arising out of the Voice.' No-one knows what a future High Court will decide, not even the experts. It's a matter of public record that even the government's own Constitutional Expert Group could not reach agreement on this very issue and that the Solicitor-General has conceded there is room for argument. That's why the way that Labor have worded the change also means that their proposed model is a voice not just to parliament but to all areas of executive government. That gives them unlimited scope, from the Reserve Bank to Centrelink or, in the words of a constitutional law professor, 'from submarines to parking tickets'.

Former Justice of the High Court Robert French has even commented that the immense range of matters in which Labor's Voice model may apply means that the Voice would really make government unworkable. In effect, this change fundamentally undermines our Westminster system of democracy and, at the same time, provides immense uncertainty about the future machinations of government. The Prime Minister's Voice will wrap government administration and decision-making in a whole new level of complexity, and we know that more bureaucracy slows things down and that this change has the potential to render the government inert. A dysfunctional government is not in the best interests of Australia or Australians.

Australia hasn't changed its Constitution by referendum since 1977. This is a massive decision. It is certainly not a modest one, which is why it is so concerning that Labor refuses to reveal any of the details before the Australian people go to the ballot box to cast their vote. The Prime Minister is asking Australians to vote on a voice without knowing how that voice will operate. In other words, he's asking Australians to sign up to a permanent change to our Constitution with some vague notion that the details will be revealed after the referendum. To reiterate the key point here: we currently have no firm details about how Canberra and Labor's Voice will work. Essentially Labor is putting the cart before the horse and, in doing so, treating Australians with great contempt. Australians deserve all the details before they vote on a permanent change to our Constitution. They should not be asked to sign a blank cheque. So my message to the Australian people is: if you're not sure how the Voice is going to work—if you don't know—say 'no'.

Another significant danger with Labor's proposed Canberra Voice is the destruction of the concept of equality of citizenship. I truly believe that the Constitution belongs to every Australian and that every Australian should be treated equally within the powers of our Constitution. But enshrining a body for only one group of Australians in our Constitution, as the Prime Minister is proposing, means permanently dividing Australia by race. The simple proposition of whether we are willing to divide our country in this way is something that we must examine closely. I don't believe that that's what Australians want. Importantly, we know that many Indigenous Australians don't want this split. At its core, the Voice is divisive.

It will be a permanent, publicly funded group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people which has additional rights that will be embedded in our Constitution. Those rights will be to make representations to the parliament and executive government in relation to absolutely everything. This sends a message to Indigenous communities that they are different from everyone else and they will be treated differently forever, because, if this change gets up, it will be permanent. The Voice will be forever a symbol of division rather than an instrument of unity. And we should be bringing Australians together, not dividing them, as Mr Albanese seems intent on doing.

Most importantly, dividing our country along the lines of race will not help the most marginalised members of our Indigenous communities. We all want better outcomes in this area. The coalition absolutely strongly supports this critical objective. But we know that enshrining a top-down, elitist Canberra voice isn't the solution. It will do nothing to help Indigenous community members on the ground who want to build a better life for themselves and their families. We know that having a Canberra based voice rather than regional voices seriously risks the need of rural, regional, and remote communities been completely overlooked. Despite with the Albanese government seems to believe, Canberra doesn't know what is better for those who are actually on the ground in regional, rural and remote communities.

As a senator from rural South Australia, I understand firsthand how these challenges are often felt very differently in rural, regional and remote communities. Solutions often need to be addressed with flexibility and with innovative solutions that recognise the individual and unique challenges of these communities. To borrow a phrase from somebody else: 'If you've seen one rural town, you've seen one rural town.' Each and every one of our rural communities is unique and needs different solutions. But the Albanese government continues to prove that it only understands a one-size-fits-all, city-centric model which they continue to use as their approach to policymaking and decision-making. They don't understand the needs of rural, regional and remote Australia, and they've proved it again with the construct of this Canberra voice.

But the dangers become more concerning when you consider the fact that labour's proposed voice, once enshrined in the Constitution, will be there permanently. It cannot be easily undone once it's enshrined. Interpretations cannot be overruled once the High Court makes a decision. Australians will be forever tied to the negative consequences of the Prime Minister's voice. When it becomes evident that it is not resulting in better outcomes for Indigenous communities, when it becomes clear that the Canberra based body is not effectively representing the interests of the unique rural, regional and remote communities across Australia, it will remain as a permanent feature of our government, our Constitution and our democracy. That is why we on this side of the chamber are so concerned by the way the Prime Minister is trying to portray this decision as no big deal, a modest change and something that should just be waved through almost on the vibe. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are talking about a fundamental and complex change in the way that we will be governed in Australia. This is a very big deal, and to pretend otherwise is not only disrespectful to Australians but disrespectful to our democracy. This will change our country and the way it is governed forever.

But there is a better way forward. Both parties of government recognise the need for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. We recognise that there is a place in this country, too, for bodies to serve as voices for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. But they should not be a top-down, elitist voice out of Canberra. We believe in the importance of having local regional voices, as was recommended by the co-design process led by professors Tom Calma and Marcia Langton. These would be bodies embedded in local communities and regions, established at a grassroots level and recognised by legislation. They are the potential engine room for real change on the ground because they would be tailored to the needs of each and every one of our unique communities. Importantly, they would recognise the unique differences between rural, regional and remote communities and those in metropolitan areas. We know that the concerns of Aboriginal communities in the Central Desert are vastly different from those that are facing Cape York. It's disappointing that Labor has chosen to reject this alternative approach in favour of a risky, untested one that will be locked permanently into our Constitution. Labor believes that Canberra knows best about what local communities want, but the Coalition understands that remote communities know what's best for them.

To summarise, it is clear that those opposite are only going to provide greater uncertainty. We have a prime minister's Canberra voice that will contain significant risk, as well as uncertainty about how the High Court will interpret it, and, if carried at the referendum, it will be permanent. For these reasons, I, like most of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, do not consider that the proposal in this bill should be adopted. But I and my party have made our position clear: we support the Australian people having their say.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I know we acknowledge country in the morning, at the start of the Senate, but it does seem fitting to acknowledge that we are on Ngunnawal country, an incredible part of the world that has been looked after for tens of thousands of years. As an immigrant to this country, having moved here 20 years ago with my family, I am incredibly grateful for the opportunities that it has afforded me and will always be grateful for that and seek to contribute.

Having grown up in Zimbabwe, a country that by the time I was born had undergone independence, was grappling with decolonisation—at times, in a messy way—but was trying to find a way forward, I've been struck again and again by the generosity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people here. They're still welcoming people to their country after the brutal history of colonisation, knowing that we're one of the only developed countries—if not the only one—without a treaty and that we still do not have recognition of Australia's First Peoples. There is a strong argument that we are not responsible for the things that happened—you're not responsible for the things that your ancestors did—but what we are responsible for is the kind of future that we're building, and I really believe that the centre of that, given our history, has to be reconciliation. This does require change. I agree that if it ain't broke don't fix it, but we need to face up to the fact that it is broken. Decades of governments on both sides of politics have grappled as best as they've known how to try and deal with entrenched disadvantage in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and we still see the gap reported every year.

This is a huge moment in our history. We are at the point where we have decided as a country that we will go to a referendum to vote on whether we believe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, Australia's First Peoples, should be recognised in our Constitution and whether or not those same people across the country should have a say on the laws that affect them. It seems a straightforward proposal to me. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was the result of one of the biggest consultations and deliberative democratic processes in our history. It is a powerful statement and it is a generous offer to Australians: to find a way forward together, to walk together in a way that allows First Nations people to have a say on things that affect them so that we can start to deal with the issues that we talk a lot about here in the Senate. To quote the Uluru Statement from the Heart:

With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia's nationhood.

This is a step on the road to reconciliation. This combines the deeply symbolic act of a nation changing its constitution as well as the very practical way of beginning to deal with the entrenched disadvantage we see in communities across the country, by consulting. People know their problems better than anyone else. When you listen to people, when you consult, you get better outcomes. We hear so many senators having a go about the lack of consultation on this or that piece of legislation. This is an opportunity to ensure that we do have that consultation when it comes to an issue that we have failed to address.

On the point of making representations, it's been disappointing, after the committee process where it seemed so clear to me that there was overwhelming evidence from constitutional lawyers and experts that this was sound wording. As I've seen many times, the government is not obliged to take advice, but certainly a lot has been made of that.

From consulting with Ngunnawal people here in the ACT, and with other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, there is a deep desire to see this referendum succeed in terms of what it will mean for our country. We have to acknowledge how tough this debate is for many people, and we'd really like to call out some of the misinformation that we have seen thrown around: the fearmongering. This is an opportunity to make the case for an Australia that is committed to addressing this challenge. Ngunnawal elder Aunty Violet Sheridan said: 'We need to make change. We need to make a difference. Think about the next generation and the next generation. I want my great grandchildren to walk beside their friends and not let them see that there's a difference between us. We are proud Aboriginal people, proud First Nations people, but we are also proud Australians. So let's work into the future to make a difference. Please support this yes vote because it will make a difference to my people. I'm 68 years old. My eldest granddaughter is 27. Will she be 68 when her granddaughter is standing beside her, and nothing has changed?'

I'm hoping the Voice will empower communities and that the government will sit down and listen. This year, as a country, we have a chance to be part of building something together. I commend this bill and urge my Senate colleagues to be part of a new future that we can chart together. We know that the decision on the Voice will be up to the parliament, so the claims of lack of detail are disingenuous. This is about ensuring that we don't see what's happened to the other seven Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations that fell at political whims. This is about ensuring that we are committed to listening. What the Voice looks like will be up to the parliament, as it should be. And that will hopefully change as we learn better ways to actually consult.

We should be proud, as a country, to have the oldest continuing cultures in the world. We're facing some very big challenges here in Australia when it comes to climate change—the ecological crisis that we're seeing. As a country, we need Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous wisdom more than ever. In this debate we have an opportunity not only to recognise Australia's First Peoples but also to actually truly begin to listen. It really doesn't seem like you often get to speak on something that can truly change our country not in a matter of days or weeks but over years and years and years. We have an opportunity to start to address the many issues that we talk about here and the many more issues that we don't even know about. I thank the Senate for this opportunity, and I would encourage Senate colleagues on all sides to keep the debate grounded in fact. Remember that there are a lot of people watching this debate, and this affects their lives. This affects the experiences that they are having in their communities.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the debate this evening and over recent days on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, much has been said about the amendment before us, the nature of it and the detail within it. I don't intend to use my time this evening to go through that. What I want to say tonight to everyone in this chamber and beyond is that history is calling us now. History is calling us, and we have an opportunity to make it. We have an opportunity ahead to respond to a generous offer that came out of one of the most extensive consultations we have seen in this country—a generous offer to walk together towards a more united and reconciled future. We have an opportunity before us to be part of a story that will mark a step change in the way our country chooses to heal itself, and we need healing. If we're all honest with each other, we know we need healing.

The Voice won't always be easy to listen to. It will lead to some uncomfortable truths. That's the whole point here, because if the things we know we need to do to fix the challenges before us that we're all aware of after year after year of Closing the gap reports which have told us these truths—the work to fix those challenges—were easy, then it would have already been done, because I don't think there's been any shortage of goodwill in these chambers or in government. There's been no shortage of good intent or good people. But it hasn't been enough. We all know that. We all know that that goodwill, that intent and every investment that has been made haven't been enough. It's always easy to talk yourself out of acting and out of change. There are plenty of reasons we can all find in life to not do something, particularly something hard. Change takes courage, and we need to have some courage here because we know what the risks are, indeed what the consequences are, of not acting.

We know what inaction looks like. It looks like continuing to let Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children down in the worst possible ways. It looks like far too many Aboriginal people incarcerated, far more than the rest of the population. It looks like our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters dying almost a decade before the rest of the population. And it looks like everything else we read year after year in the Closing the Gap reports. We can no longer accept this. In good conscience, we cannot accept this.

I genuinely believe that in their hearts Australians want to move forward together towards a more united future, a more reconciled future, because we know that our past has darkness within it. But our future can be lit up with lights. We can do that if we choose to walk together on a different journey on a different path. We can do that if we open our hearts and minds, if we respond to the deeply generous call of the Uluru Statement from the Heart to Voice, to treaty and to truth. This bill starts us on that path. I commend this bill. I support Voice, treaty and truth, and I want to use this opportunity to encourage every Australian, as they come to a decision later this year on the referendum, to be guided by open hearts and open minds.

Together we can do better. We can do better to right the wrongs of a history past. We can do better to take a different path towards a more reconciled and unified future. But we cannot do that without a step change. There is a generous offer on the table to do different—open hearts, open minds, hand in hand—to light up a different and better future for this nation but only if there is change. I commend the bill.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. When this debate concludes, I will be voting for the bill, not because I support this constitutional change; I don't. I think it is constitutionally dangerous and wrong in principle to treat Australians differently in our foundational document. But it is right that the Australian people should have their say, and I don't wish to stand in the way of that.

This has sadly become a divisive and contentious debate. It did not need to be this way. There were other pathways available to the government, if they chose them, pathways that could have led to consensus and bipartisanship and virtually guaranteed success for the referendum. I'm not just talking about constitutional recognition, which polls show has overwhelming support, and for which Peter Dutton has offered bipartisan backing on behalf of the Liberal Party, because, although permanently enshrining a Voice to parliament and the executive is where this debate is ending, that is not where it started.

It is useful to consider the recent history of this issue that some advocates appear to no longer want to talk about. It was not that long ago that many of today's most prominent Voice supporters were passionately arguing for a very different change to our Constitution, and they were right to do so. At Federation, the framers of the Constitution decided to include a race power, section 51(xxvi). Reading the debates from the 1890s at Federation conventions is discomfiting to say the least. Many of the people who are celebrated for helping to bring the Federation into being expressed views that would be an anathema to every Australian today. Edmund Barton, our first PM, said, at the 1898 convention in Melbourne, that our new nation needed a race power so that it could 'regulate the affairs of the people of coloured or inferior races'. Alfred Deakin, our second Prime Minister, responded 'Here, here' to another delegate, who said that the policy agreed at the 1888 conference restricting Chinese immigration did not go far enough.

In its initial form, this power did not apply to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. The target of this provision was clearly migrants, especially migrants from Asia, who were subject to extensive discrimination by the states relating to their employment as miners during the gold rush. As Professor William explains:

Aboriginal people were not subject to this section. However, this was not because they were to be protected, but because it was thought that the Aboriginal issues were a matter for the States and not the federal government.

That changed in 1967, when Australians agreed to amend the Constitution to permit the Commonwealth to make laws relating to Indigenous Australians. The sentence 'other than the Aboriginal race in any state' was deleted from the Constitution, and the race power enabled the federal parliament to enact laws relating to Indigenous Australians for the first time. While the sentiment of the 1967 referendum was clearly not discriminatory, that was the intent of the framers when they included a race power in the Constitution at Federation, and now Indigenous Australians were subject to it.

This was considered by the High Court in the Kartinyeri case in 1998, which related to the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act. The law was upheld despite a challenge arguing that the race power could be used to the detriment of Indigenous Australians. As Professor Anne Twomey argues:

If one accepts that in 1901 the power to make laws with respect to the 'people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws' included the power to make laws that discriminated adversely against those people, then the textual amendment in 1967 did not, on its face, limit that power to one to make beneficial laws.

It's clear, then, that the race power as it stands today can be used to discriminate against Australians of any race, including Indigenous Australians. It is not the only reference to race in our Constitution. Section 25 set out the consequences if a state excludes people from the right to vote based on their race. It's hardly surprising that many Australians have argued that we must fix this. Chief among them have been many of today's most prominent advocates for a voice. Professors Marcia Langton and Megan Davis, writing in 2012, said:

Two provisions that have had racist consequences remain. The race power and Section 25 are remnants of the racist sentiment of the Constitution developed in the 1890s at the end of the colonial period.

They also said:

… we should recommend that Australians be asked to agree to remove Sections 51(xxvi) and 25 from our Constitution because of their outdated racism.

In 2012, the then co-chairs of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians, Mark Leibler and our now Senate colleague Patrick Dodson, wrote in their report:

It became clear to the Panel during the course of its work that Australians have increasingly rejected the concept of 'race' as having any place in the Constitution.

Their panel recommended that the race power be removed. Noel Pearson in the Quarterly Essay in 2014 argued:

The Race Power, section 51(xxvi), allows the Commonwealth to pass special laws for so-called races in Australia, whether positive or adverse. It therefore empowers parliament to infringe our liberty on the arbitrary and unjust basis of race.

He went on to say:

How can a liberal democratic constitution still allow race-based laws against its citizens? How can it still contemplate barring citizens from voting on account of race? The truth is the founding fathers abandoned liberal democratic principles with respect to race. It was an error reflecting the thinking of the time, but it needs to be rectified.

The Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, chaired by our former colleagues Ken Wyatt and Nova Peris, in 2015 recommended that section 25 and section 51(xxvi) be repealed because:

… the committee believes that the continued presence of these sections is at odds with a modern Australia and does not represent Australian values.

The popularity of this change to the Constitution waned after 2015 and it was not a feature of the Uluru Statement from the Heart or the work of the Referendum Council afterwards. It is true that there are reasons to be cautious, as both Professor Williams and Professor Twomey have warned. There are today laws and programs of the Commonwealth that are beneficial to Indigenous Australians that may hinge on the race power, such as native title, but surely we are capable of thinking of other ways of preserving these without keeping a provision in the Constitution which we would all clearly agree is racist. How many of us, if we were involved in drafting a new constitution for Australia today, would support the inclusion of a race power? While we would all hope that no future parliament would use it to adversely discriminate against Australians of any race, the only way to guarantee they can't is to remove it.

There are those, including my friend Senator Bragg, who thoughtfully argue that it is the existence of the race power which justifies the creation of the Voice. If there is a special power to make laws according to some people's race, they should at least be consulted on it, they argue. But surely we can do better than that. Surely, if we agree that it is wrong in principle to treat people differently based on characteristics which they cannot control, like their race or their heritage or their ethnicity or their ancestry, the best thing to do is to stop doing so, not to double down on it. Even after this referendum takes place, even if it is successful, our Constitution will still contain an anachronistic, outdated and offensive reference to race that rightly outraged many of the Voice's most prominent advocates less than a decade ago.

This is not a view that I have come to recently. I have long believed and publicly argued for many years that in our modern, pluralistic liberal democracy there should be no place for race in our foundational document. Although I am a constitutional conservative and I do believe our Constitution has served our democracy remarkably well since Federation, this is one change that I would enthusiastically support and campaign for.

While there is enormous goodwill among Australians for the advancement of their fellow Indigenous Australians, the goodwill for this referendum proposal is clearly fading fast. It is already dividing us. The more Australians learn about it, the less they like it. They doubt that it will deliver the practical changes that we all recognise are necessary to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. They are increasingly concerned about the constitutional risk posed to our Westminster system of government. It is not too late for the Albanese government to change course.

The Prime Minister has warned us of the consequences if this referendum were to fail. Now that polling demonstrates that it might, if he truly believes his own warnings, he should act. He could go back to the drawing board and seek bipartisan consensus for constitutional change which is genuinely unifying. It could correct the wrongs of the past and give Australians a Constitution that we can all be proud of. I hope he seizes on that opportunity before it's too late.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. This bill seeks to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia and to provide for the establishment of a new constitutional entity called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. This will be put to a referendum of the Australian people.

First, I want to put some facts on the table. Australia is a settler-colonial society built on the dispossession, murder and ongoing abuse of First Nations people. It is built into and ingrained into systems and structures of this country. As a migrant, I have an obligation to break the cycle and build an antiracist society. We stand on ground that belongs to someone else and was taken from them forcefully and violently. I will be voting yes to the Voice, but it should be the start of driving the structural changes and genuine self-determination rightfully demanded by First Nations people, not another unfulfilled promise. The Voice is important, but it is definitely not enough.

I can see why some First Nations people are nervous when they see some of this country's most gruesome groups supporting it—Woodside, Rio Tinto and the Minerals Council of Australia. I understand why people are wondering what the agenda of these big mining corporations is. Their very business model is built on the destruction of Aboriginal heritage, as they dig up climate-destroying fossil fuels as if there is no tomorrow.

Ultimately, here's the thing. First Nations people have been speaking out, resisting and fighting for justice for a very long time, but they have not been listened to. The colonial structures and the systems of discrimination and racism are all stacked against them. So it is time to listen, but, much more importantly, it is time to act. I hope the Voice can be the start of that action.

Many First Nations people—people I deeply respect—have questioned the ability of a representative body that has no teeth to be able to create the big changes needed to make the difference. Will it be another body that will be ignored by the government and paid lip service to? Will it be a body that makes people feel they've done something without actually changing a thing? These are very valid questions.

There are other First Nations people who I have spoken to who have told me the Voice will move us forward as a nation, that it will start to address past and present injustices, that they have been waiting for some positive change for a very long time and that they need this.

The Voice can be the start of change, but the Labor government must show that they are pushing all elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Voice is just one of the three pillars; truth and treaty need to be progressed. The groundwork for treaty needs to be laid right now. I want to see more focus from this government on treaty and truth-telling during this term. These have the most transformative potential to redress the injustices of the past and to build a future where First Nations people have their rights, their self-determination and their sovereignty.

What excuse, really, does the Labor government have for not implementing all the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody or the recommendations of the Bringing them home report? There is no reason why all this cannot happen in parallel.

Australia has a colonial past and a bloody, racist history that is tainted with dispossession and violence, but this truth has been stifled for far too long. If we want to heal this country, we need to reckon with the truth about who we are and how we came to be. We do need to reckon with the fact that the race power in the Constitution was very clearly intended to allow the Commonwealth parliament to enact racially discriminatory laws and has its basis in disgusting views of white supremacy. There are no two ways about it. It is undeniably racist. We need to reckon with the fact that among the first pieces of legislation ever introduced to Australia's federal parliament was the Immigration Restriction Act which formed the basis of the White Australia policy. The sentiments of the White Australia policy continue to inform our nation's deplorable treatment of First Nations peoples, refugees and asylum seekers.

Given that sordid history, it is pretty disgraceful that the Liberals, their leadership especially, have been perpetuating this myth that the Voice will create two classes of citizens, with First Nations people being at an advantage. This really makes my blood boil. Look back in history and it's right there in black and white, literally. The two classes of citizens were created when the colonialists forced their way in and ripped land away from the sovereign owners. The two classes of citizens were created when the race power was enacted. The two classes of citizens were there when the White Australia policy was agreed to by the federal parliament. That's what divided this continent, and the Liberals continue on with their dog whistling again and again. They are the ones who want this division to keep going. That's what some of them are best at, appealing to the worst in humanity.

We need to recognise that this violence, oppression and discrimination against First Nations people has never actually ceased. It continues to this day in the settler colonial systems and the structures of our country. The depth and breadth of prejudice against First Nations people is still rooted in law enforcement, in societal attitudes and in institutional systems. It will take significant and ongoing political will and commitment of resources from successive governments to achieve real and lasting change. Truth, Treaty, Voice, have to go hand in hand.

Treaty is a peace agreement. It's how colonial nations like Australia move forward. Shamefully, though, Australia is one of the only Commonwealth countries without a treaty with First Nations people. Treaty was promised by Bob Hawke's Labor government in the eighties, and yet First Nations people are still waiting and fighting for treaty.

There is broad community support and momentum for change; we know that. Labor should use this moment to make a tangible difference in the lives of First Nations people by progressing truth and treaty at a national level, just as Labor governments have already started to do at state and territory levels. Now is the time for federal Labor to show courage, to show leadership and to show ambition. Let's finally remove the shackles of colonialism, move to treaty with First Nations people and cut ties with the monarchy, to become a republic. And let's remember, no matter where we are in this country, we are on stolen land. Sovereignty was never ceded. This is, always was and always will be Aboriginal land.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To assist the smooth running of the chamber, I indicate that I intend to keep my remarks quite brief.

On the streets of Sydney, in the years before the outbreak of the Second World War, few women, let alone Indigenous women, had much of a voice. Pearl Gibbs was one of the few who did, speaking in public and political forums like Speakers' Corner in the Domain. She was born in La Perouse and she had moved as a young woman to western New South Wales. However, in 1936 new legislation expanded the power of the Aborigines Protection Board, and she experienced most directly the coercive and controlling powers of that institution and its impact on her and on the communities in which she lived. So, in the late 1930s, she returned to Sydney and she devoted herself to activism. She worked in the Aborigines Progressive Association and she spoke publicly about the need for change. In 1938, in one of her many speeches, she said this: 'Ladies and gentlemen, I am an Australian. I have lived here all my life. I love my country and I love its people. I wish something more for them than riches and prosperity. I wish for their greatness and nobility. A country needs be great that is just.'

Like Pearl Gibbs, I am a proud Australian. The truth is that Pearl Gibbs had more reason than most to understand that loving this country does not mean pretending that it is perfect or maintaining a wilful blindness to its past. My firm belief is this: to be a proud Australian means to see this country with open eyes; to love this country is to devote yourself with courage and decency and tireless work to make it better. And Pearl Gibbs did that. She worked all of her life for recognition and justice for First Nations people. She was part of the campaign that saw success in the 1967 referendum, and that is part of her legacy—her legacy of courage and patriotism.

The referendum that will be enabled by the passage of this legislation is as much about our history as it is about our future. In recognising the past, we can declare today and into the future that we are united in our determination to build a common community on the land that we all share.

Thousands of histories are woven together in this community: migrants from around the world who turned to Australia for a better life, those sent here against their will and, of course, our First Nations people, who have loved this land since time immemorial. No matter how we arrived, all of us share this same continent and we share a common future, and the richness of our diverse histories only enhances that future that is within our grasp.

From all walks of life, patriotic Australians have worked to make this country better, to unite people, to advance and defend democracy, to improve our standard of living, to protect the land that we love. Together we are building on this continent a society for which there is much to be proud and which few match—an open, vibrant, successful, multicultural democracy with a continent to ourselves, a home unparalleled in natural beauty and the oldest-living culture in the world. For those of us who want to see the Australian nation fulfil the aspirations, the decency and the courage of our citizens, our work is unfinished and there is much to do—not least in improving the material conditions of First Nations people.

Pearl Gibbs was right: justice begets greatness but greatness requires justice. And, for First Nations people, justice requires recognition. Through this referendum, I am confident we will take the chance to demonstrate the greatness of this country found in the courage and the quiet decency of our fellow Australians.

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak against the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. In the explanatory memorandum of the bill, one of the stated reasons for the amendment to establish an Indigenous voice to parliament is 'in recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia'. Labor says the Voice is about recognition. The suggestion is that anyone who disagrees with them simply doesn't respect Indigenous Australians or doesn't want to acknowledge the unique hardships that Aboriginal Australians have endured—something that Australia, it must be said, has already done to a great extent. This is standard practice for those opposite. They rely not on facts, evidence or arguments to prosecute the case, but on vague sentimental rhetoric designed to guilt-trip people into agreeing with them. And if you don't support amending our Constitution, they tell us, then you must oppose recognition, meaning there is something deficient about your character. This is a shallow tactic. Many Australians, including many Aboriginal Australians, oppose the Voice precisely because they care about Aboriginal people and their communities, which I will get to later on.

Simply put, the 'yes' case is little more than a national guilt trip. Indeed, the way the Voice debate has played out is now indicative of how political discourse has deteriorated in this country as arguments become less about truth and the common good of Australians—and constitutional amendment surely affects all of us—and more about virtue-signalling identity politics and empty rhetoric that disguises the intentions beneath.

Speaking of rhetoric, the proposed wording of the constitutional amendment which Australians will vote on is as follows:

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

  (i) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

  (ii) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

  (iii) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

Let's run through these three points sequentially. First, the constitutionally enshrined body that would be established by the upcoming referendum would be a permanent feature of the Australian government and of society, if the referendum passes. Unless a future government were willing to hold another referendum to remove the Voice—which is going to be very difficult task—the Voice would be here to stay. Let me be clear: what Labor hopes to achieve is to permanently entrench an Indigenous bureaucracy into our Constitution. They could, if they wished, simply create another bureaucracy to accomplish whatever it is it was imagined the Voice would do, which remains a mystery. In fact, the South Australian state parliament has already established a state voice, proving that constitutional amendment is unnecessary for achieving the Voice's stated goals. But the purpose of this constitutional amendment is not to achieve meaningful outcomes for Aboriginal people but to ensure that this Canberra based bureaucracy is permanent. Even if one supports the creation of this body, it's clear that constitutional amendment is unnecessary and dangerous, as I'll explain shortly.

This raises the question of why the Voice's permanence is so important to Labor. Does Labor already have some ideas in mind regarding what they wish to accomplish with the Voice? For example, consider Western Australia's recently passed Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2021 which will come into effect from 1 July. The act's stated purpose is:

… about valuing and protecting Aboriginal cultural heritage and managing activities that may harm that heritage.

That sounds lovely, but what does it really achieve? The answer is all kinds of arbitrary and tedious bureaucratic impositions on farmers regarding what they are and are not allowed to do on their property. The act creates an extensive set of everyday farming activities that WA farmers will now require permits for from the newly established Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Council. One WA farming website described it in this way:

Everyday Farming acts like Scarifying, Seeding, Delving, Deep Ripping, Shed Building, Drainage work, Fencing, and even pulling out a dead tree stump will require a permit to do so. Any ground disturbance to a depth of 50mm is included.

It is reported that it will cost the state government $77 million to implement over the next four years. To allocate the permits, a series of Local Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Service … offices will be established across the state.

This is bureaucratic overreach at its most absurd and frustrating, and all in the name of protecting heritage. The WA government is attacking farmers under the guise of local Aboriginal issues. This is a taste of the kind of thing that will be imposed on farmers from a federal level if Labor's permanent Voice is enshrined in our Constitution. I guess we'll just have to wait and see as we haven't really been told by Labor what the Voice is meant to achieve or what it's even meant to focus on.

There's no reason why this body even needs to be constitutionally enshrined, unless Labor already knows that the Australian people would reject the Voice if they actually understood what it was there to do. There are existing Indigenous bureaucracies, such as the National Indigenous Australians Agency as well as non-governmental bodies such as Reconciliation Australia, whose stated mission is to close the gap. Why, then, does the Voice require constitutionally afforded protection? It makes no sense unless the government has other intentions.

Second, we're told:

… the Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples …

To quote Warren Mundine, I don't know of any issues that don't affect Aboriginal people. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are citizens of this country, so every law, every part of the Constitution affects Indigenous people. It's a great point. So what exactly is the criteria for whether a matter is relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? The proposed amendment might as well read, 'The Voice may make representations to parliament and the executive government of the Commonwealth on absolutely anything.' Every law, policy point and action of government in this nation relates to Indigenous Australians because they are citizens of this country and Australian citizens.

Again, what are we to expect from the Voice? Given that all matters relate to Aboriginal and Indigenous Australians in some way, the scope of its function of making representations is unclear. Will members of the Voice be making representations to the Treasurer on economic policy or managing inflation? Will they be making representations to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy on the importance of renewables and shutting down fossil fuel projects? Will it make representations to the Minister for Education about the need to cease teaching students about Australia's colonial history? Will we simply have no idea? It's almost as if Labor is seeking to create a permanent body that will be able to influence and control the parliament and government on every issue in the name of Aboriginal affairs.

As Peter Dutton has rightly written:

… no issue—the economy, national security, infrastructure, health, education and more—would be beyond its scope.

Now, supporters of the Voice might well respond to that by saying that if the Voice's members were to do so, then it would lose all credibility. I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that it would continue to exist on taxpayer funds because it has been permanently entrenched in our Constitution. This would mean we have a body we cannot get rid of if things were to go bad.

The worst-case scenario is that we would have created a permanent bureaucracy that will pester government and the parliament on every single matter, wasting taxpayer funds, disrupting the parliamentary process, doing nothing more to help Aboriginal people and working towards agendas that we currently know nothing about. And given the woeful history of organisations like ATSIC—the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—which drifted along from 1990 to 2005, I'm inclined to believe the latter is more likely and that the Voice is a Trojan horse for Labor's other plans. Indeed, the Voice does seem to be little more than ATSIC 2.0, back with a vengeance, seeking to be bricked into our Constitution. You may recall that ATSIC was riddled with misuse of taxpayer funds and other scandals as its former head continued to be embroiled in legal troubles.

When it came to selecting those board members, Indigenous Australians were asked to elect people from regional councils, who then elected ATSIC's national board of commissioners. Few Indigenous people voted in those regional elections, meaning that ATSIC was controlled by a relatively small group of people. One 1993 report on ATSIC stated: 'Of the few Indigenous people who did vote, many voted for their own families.' So the people elected came from the biggest families, and so a small select group of voters elected a small select group of representatives to have control over enormous amounts of money. It sounds rather like the 35 local and regional voices being proposed to represent districts across the country who would then elect the 24 members of the national Voice. One can easily see how the Voice, like ATSIC, will end up being controlled by a small group of people rather than genuinely representing Aboriginal people.

The third point is:

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

The Australian people are expected to vote on something that is subject to change and which they aren't being told the details of beforehand. We are being asked to support embedding an Indigenous bureaucracy into our Constitution so it's permanent, yet its composition, functions, powers and procedures—in other words, literally every aspect of it—are subject to change. One can only speculate about what this will look like, given every aspect of it is subject to change. Suffice it to say that Australians simply don't have enough information to cast an informed vote. What they are voting for today will almost certainly look radically different from what they well imagine. If you don't know, vote no. It is as simple as that. And it's clear that nobody, including the Prime Minister, knows where this will end and what this Voice will end up being.

As the Prime Minister has affirmed, the Voice is part of the government's implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which is an activist document that claims that so-called Indigenous sovereignty—whatever that actually means—co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown. Why is Labor throwing its weight behind a concept that there are two Australias: one Indigenous and one non-Indigenous? Does it mean that somehow we are going to end up with two separate nations? When you think about it, it is very strange that there many grassroots organisations covering a huge section of interest groups, from farmers to feminists, and they don't require constitutional amendment or millions of taxpayers' dollars to represent them in parliament. They roll up their sleeves, they organise members themselves and they get on with it. One wonders why this isn't the case with the Voice. I doubt, for example, we will be seeing a Balkan, Italian or Indian voice to parliament any time soon, and one wonders why. The idea that we need a permanent bureaucracy which only people of a certain ethnicity can be members of is dubious enough. However, it is made all the more so given that we don't know how the potential members will be established.

Earlier this year I asked the Attorney-General's Department to explain how legitimate Aboriginal status would be determined for eligibility into the Voice, and nobody, it seemed, could explain that to me and, seemingly, nobody ever can. Nobody seems to know what this is comprised of anymore. My guess is that that trend will continue if and when this proceeds.

The Prime Minister has stated that it would be a very brave government who disagreed with the Voice's recommendations. We know that this race based card is very, very powerful. We have to stop letting people abuse it in the tone of the debate and call them out for hypocrisy. Polling suggests that, as time passes, fewer people are supporting this, with support gradually waning over the last few years. I don't believe I've heard a single outcome being proposed by Labor or the Greens regarding the Voice. The entire 'yes' case has really been nothing more than sentimental rhetoric about recognition, representation, reconciliation and so on.

When it comes to closing the gap, we need to start asking serious questions about the root causes of the issues. I know my colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price has very worthwhile insights into such matters. I would suggest that those opposite take the time to listen to her voice in this debate sooner rather than later.

Whatever Labor's doing here, it won't achieve anything of value or importance for Indigenous people. I think we all know that. Deep down, Australians know that what is needed in our Indigenous communities is not the opinions of more highly paid bureaucrats but genuine, grassroots action carried out at the most personal and local levels. If Labor's referendum is successful, it would likely achieve the creation of a permanent leftist bureaucracy that would presumably be used to push other agendas in many years to come. The Voice, in my view, is a Trojan horse for Labor's big-government agenda. That's why I will be voting no not only to this bill in this place but also to the referendum, should it pass. I encourage my fellow Australians to do the same.

(Quorum formed)

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

I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. The majority of our country's history is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history—over 60,000 years of rich history—and it is our humanity and our duty that has brought us to this point in this chamber to pass this reform. The Constitutional amendment would recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of Australia in the Constitution through an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. This would fulfil the first request in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which the government is committed to implementing in full. This is not too much to ask, like some may have you believe. This is about acknowledging the oldest living culture in the world in the founding document of our country. The fact that this is not already the case is a blight on all past Australian governments, on our national identity and on our national discourse.

The constitutional amendment is:

Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

This constitutional alteration will allow for the establishment of an enduring voice that will make representations to the parliament and to the executive government about matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The alteration also provides a broad power to the parliament to legislate for the day-to-day operations of the Voice and the interactions with other entities and bodies. It would also empower the parliament to make laws specifically whether and when an executive government decision-maker has a legal obligation to consider the Voice's representations.

This bill is the product of robust and detailed commendation by the Referendum Working Group, the Constitutional Expert Group and within government. There has been a broad national conversation about recognition and enabling government all the tools to improve outcomes in Indigenous communities. As a government, we believe the Voice will hopefully best achieve such positive outcomes. The bill reflects the working group's advice to government.

In light of these very clear and simple facts about how a voice to parliament would operate, Mr Dutton's prejudiced posturing must be called out for what it is. His federal coalition opposition towards the referendum has been deliberately crafted to engineer anti-Indigenous fear, prejudice and division within our society for his own selfish political gain. His shameless use of right-wing populism and his emotionally charged rhetoric in a desperate attempt to scaremonger voters is not based in any factual reasoning and needs to be rejected by the Australian community. In the face of his dog whistling and concerted disinformation campaign about establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice, truth must never be sidelined, and it has to be restated.

Constitutionally recognising First Nations people does not take away rights from any other Australian. Let's be clear: no special rights are being granted based on race, because Australian Indigenous people are not defined by their race. Being the original inhabitants of the Australian continent before British colonialism, Australia's First Nations people and their culture have vibrantly thrived here for tens of thousands of years. We have recognised this clear reality since the 1992 Mabo decision from the High Court, and Mr Dutton should not try and should not be able to succeed in turning back the clock and cynically denying otherwise.

What a voice to parliament would instead do is allow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be heard on issues that are at the forefront of their communities, plain and simple. There's nothing to fear. With Indigenous Australians suffering from heartbreaking disparities in their health outcomes, basic economic wellbeing and a generational curse within our criminal justice system, something must change. That change must start with us, and this will only start with something as simple as listening.

Mr Dutton wants to have his smear campaign in this referendum both ways. Somehow, according to him, a Voice to Parliament is ineffectual and will fail to address priorities on the ground for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but, in the same breath, he casts the modest invitation from the Uluru Statement from the Heart as an all-powerful and villainous proposal that will encroach on all domestic and foreign political discourse. I think the previous speaker from that side of the chamber only reinforced that here tonight. We should all see this nonsensical fearmongering for what it is and reject it outright. Pure fearmongering should never succeed. We will never forget that this is the same Mr Dutton who cynically thought that boycotting former prime minister Kevin Rudd's Apology to the Stolen Generations would earn him political favour by appealing to our worst instincts. History was not on his side then, and Australians should not be on his side today.

A Voice is a form of constitutional recognition called for by over 250 First Nations delegates to the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The whole purpose of the Voice is to amplify the voice of First Nations peoples from communities and regions, on matters that affect them. Listening to the Voice when we make and legislate for change and develop policies will improve the lives of First Nations people, but it will also improve the lives of all Australians. It will help us to close the gap—the gap that we've been talking about for generations. We achieve better outcomes when we work in genuine partnership with First Nations communities. So we really have nothing to lose. We have nothing to fear. We must try, because First Nations deserve better. Australia deserves better.

Government after government have failed Indigenous communities, and this is the opportunity for change. The constitutional amendment ensures that the Voice will have an enduring, independent, representative body that cannot be taken away by politicians. It empowers the parliament to legislate about the day-to-day operations and functioning of the Voice, allowing it to evolve over time—again, nothing to fear. The design principles for the Voice which the Referendum Working Group developed and agreed will inform government's design of legislation to establish the Voice. Ultimately, it will be up to the Voice to decide when to make representations on matters that are important to First Nations peoples. The Voice will not need to wait for an invitation. Parliament and the executive government will also not need to wait for representations from the Voice before making laws or decisions. The Voice's representations would be advisory in nature. I think I need to emphasise that: the Voice's representations will be advisory in nature.

So, to all those naysayers and critics of the Voice, I make this very clear: the parliament and executive government will not be bound by the Voice's representations. The Voice will complement and enhance the existing structures of Australia's democratic system. This reform is fundamental to our nationhood and to progress on the opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be the best versions of themselves—to be what they want to be.

I want to acknowledge my colleague Senator Pat Dodson for his immense contribution in this place and to the people of Australia. He's walked a life journey embodying grace and forgiveness at the highest level. I urge this body and Australians of every stripe to follow Senator Dodson's example and walk on a journey towards lasting recognition with First Nations people. The unifying invitation of the Uluru Statement of the Heart to recognise Indigenous Australians in our Constitution by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament represents an unbending opportunity for every single Australian to walk along that path.

We've spoken and heard other comments from the contributions about closing the gap. First Nations people have a shorter life expectancy. First Nations people have the worst health outcomes of all Australians. First Nations people have a lower education attainment than most Australians, and they are overrepresented in our jails. So, quite clearly, what we have been doing for decades and decades has failed First Nations people. When we fail our First Nations people, we fail all Australians.

We are a multicultural country. My great, great grandfather and my great grandmothers had no choice in coming to this country. They, too, were migrants. We welcome with open arms refugees to this country. We welcome migrants like my husband's family to come and to afford them the opportunities to be the best people they can be. However, no matter how well-intentioned, we have not in the past been able to provide the policies and resources and we have failed to provide those same opportunities for our First Nations people.

We really, as I have said on a number of occasions, have nothing to fear by voting for change. I urge all Australians to consider whether they want a truly inclusive Australia. Take the time, I urge you, to consider the choice you have when you are asked to vote later this year. Again, I remind you, we have nothing to fear from voting yes. However, you can finally be able to be part of change, the change of righting the wrongs of the past by recognising our First Nations people in the Constitution.

I'm proud to be standing here in this chamber tonight with my fellow senators, my fellow First Nations representatives in this great chamber, to be part of a Labor government that is introducing history-making legislation. I'm very proud to be part of that change. When we vote on this bill, it is only the beginning that is so long overdue, but much more still needs to be done after we pass this legislation. Change is never easy, but we must have this change. We can do better and we must do better to give Voice, Treaty and Truth. I urge everyone in this place and my fellow Australians, when you get the opportunity to vote yes to the referendum be part of changing Australia for the better. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to also speak on this utmost significant bill, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I find it challenging on many levels to do so, because there have been very good words and it's been a very good debate, and I am aware that I identify as a European Caucasian male that has never walked in that path. But it's a confronting thing. There were a very good words and some very good things. Some of the things I will say are not what I would like to think of myself at times, but they are authentic, and I will say them.

In my view, this bill is dividing our nation and the best thing for it is it not be put. Whether the polls are right that say it is losing or the polls are right that say it is winning, they are all showing that there is an almost equal divide between the Yes and No camps. Twelve months ago when I came here, starry eyed and full of dreams, this was not where I wanted to be, and I think this bill sums up a lot of things that I think are going on down here.

There was strong support, I think, across the chamber for recognition. I think a recognition bill voted on by 90 per cent plus of Australians would have brought Australia together. I think it was a great opportunity to heal some wounds. If the Voice in itself was something that could fix many problems—all the problems—I think it would be a different conversation. But I think this is another step in not having answers to the many problems.

So we divide Australia. We either enshrine—and let's not say we're racist—some racism in Australia or we build resentment in Australia, and that is not a good thing. As I said, I would like to be better, but sometimes I feel the resentment. I've experienced it in regional towns, when this is the only country that I've ever lived on—the only country I've ever lived in—and up to five times a day I am welcomed to it. There is a saturation level where that becomes problematic for me. I will say that. When I sit in the chamber of the Australian parliament and there are three flags here and only one can ever accept me, that is confronting to me.

But I accept the problems that go on in regional communities. When we went out with the Nationals, we saw some truly horrific conditions and some truly horrific things. There are many problems that rural and remote Aboriginal communities face. It is not just dislocation from culture or a change in their life that has been forced on them but also geographical isolation from hope, and that is as much to blame as anything here. Everything that is said about lower life expectancy is true, and it's true what's said about lower outcomes in life and higher crime. I think I said in one of my first speeches here that, if I were so far from anywhere and I had money, time and nothing else, I certainly wouldn't be where I am today. I doubt I would have stayed out of prison, and I doubt I would have stayed out of pubs—I doubt all these things.

But many of the communities I've spoken to, many of the people I've spoken to, have spoken about this on-the-ground local action, these regional voices and money getting to the places it's needed, not industrial, city based action. If you're in the city, you have these things. You don't have the isolation, you have some opportunity and you have greater diversion and things. All those things exist; in the bush, they don't. We see that, and I want to fix that. I want to fix that for Aboriginal Australians not because they are Aboriginals but because they are Australians.

I will say that this referendum will go down the line of racism or resentment, and we are better than that as Australia, as a Senate and as a parliament. What disappoints me is that there were plenty of opportunities not to get here. There were plenty of opportunities to take everyone on this journey. The Voice could be legislated. I get the fact that it wouldn't be enshrined in the Constitution—I get that and understand that—but it could have been. We could have come together with recognition, and we could have shown that we are a better nation. We could have shown so many things.

But this is my authenticity. We've all heard some great words—they're better than I could deliver—but this is my problem. I will give some words, as I said to many people, next week about my first 12 months here and what I know, what I feel and what I see, and I think our parliament terms are too short. I think that we often take the sugar hit of the short-term fix, of the populistic end of the wedge—of all these things in policy. I've worked in campaigns. It was my job to get people elected, it was my job to bring the governments down and it was my job to put people up. I didn't think it would be my job here to do that, and I think I'm trying to act better than that here. I know I can do those things; I'm just trying not to do that here.

But here we are, and a decision was made not to have a constitutional convention where we could hash things out and find common ground. A decision was made to link the Voice to recognition. A decision was made to sit until the wee hours of, probably, Saturday morning to get this through. I'm told—maybe reliably, maybe not—that we are going to dispense with the roll call as is the norm for constitutional votes for the absolute majority.

This is not the way it should have been done. These journeys have to take people with us. On these journeys we have to take Australia with us, and we haven't. It's not the fault of anyone; it is the fault of everyone. We stand here today about to pass something that will make our nation worse. It may make the lives of some people better. I get that. I accept that. But there are also other ways to do that. There are better ways to do that.

When I go out there, I see programs that work. I see Blackrock industries, where they take Indigenous Australians who have served time and train them in skills and put them in the mines. They have a four per cent recidivism rate. It's great for people. This program has problems getting funding year on year. I see money going to projects that I'd class as whitefella guilt. We can't fix the problem, so we throw money at the problem. We know it won't make a great difference, but we do it so we can feel a little better. We don't address the real problems. We don't address these things.

In my maiden speech, I said that we live on an old land but we are young nation. We are making many, many mistakes as we grow. We can learn things from our First Nations people, if we do it together. This doesn't do that. I place great faith in the democratic institutions of our country. I am honoured to be here. I wanted to be here so that, when a big decision was made, I was in the room—and I feel I am doing that today. That is an upside. But on such an issue that has such grave concerns going forward, on such an issue that will divide us and won't make our nation as a whole better, it's a sad day. I am coming up to my first 12 months here and, as an overshare, due to my disappointment in what I've been able to achieve in my first 12 months I am going to see a psychologist for the first time since my divorce because I am feeling that I am part of something not achieving. That's a problem.

This change, despite what I hear the other side say—and I know we've all got our marching orders, but I am talking from the heart here—isn't fully disclosed. They have high expectations of what it could do, but there are risks. It is not risk free. More information may have made it better. More information may have given us a chance to flesh out what we truly agree on, which is more than we think, and make this better. But enshrining in the Constitution one group of people for any reason is wrong.

I get that I have had white privilege all my life. My family love me. I was supported. I get that 100 per cent. That's why I am where I am. At my high school in Newcastle, we had Kirinari lodge up the road and people coming to school from Lightning Ridge and Walgett in western New South Wales. There were great boys. Ashley Gordon, among the first signings for the Newcastle Knights, came through that program. I saw some of the problems that they experienced too. Among the sporting few at the time, they were in our basketball team. There were in our rugby league team. I got selected for zone largely because I had Ashley Gordon standing outside me and, whenever I passed him a dodgy pass, he went through a gap before I knew what had happened, so I looked good. But I saw the struggles. I saw walkabouts or them going missing. I saw huffing. I saw the stress that these guys were under and I saw their lives. I see that still in communities that we turn a blind eye to. Everyone talks about Alice Springs. Everyone talks about all these things. But, as I've said, if you have nothing to live for, why wouldn't you take those risks?

Because this is so unknown, the fear is real. People who talk to me in my community—I don't say 'fear mongering'; we always say there is nothing to fear but the unknown, and there is so much unknown in this. We have something in the Constitution that is permanent and something in the Constitution that isn't well disclosed, and I don't think anyone will stand up here and say it will fix all of our problems. It will fix some of them, and, to me, to risk the Constitution in that way is not a good thing.

I am far from a constitutional lawyer. I think law 101 was the best three years of my life at the University of Newcastle! There are dissenting views, as there are on every legal opinion. Enough money will get you the right opinion. When there is no consensus on matters of law, I would err on being safe over brave, and this does not do that. There are all of these things, and we have evidence from former justices of the High Court Robert French and Kenneth Hayne. They concur that implying a duty to consult across a wide range of matters would make government unworkable. I don't know how unworkable it would be, but it would be harder, and I don't know how effective it would be.

I come back to my core belief, my core position, on this. It's not the talking points of the government or the opposition or anything like that. We are here today talking about changes that hurt Australia. And the worst possible case for Australia, and I think unfortunately the most likely one now, is that this is put and this goes down. We're not talking about that here; we're talking about when what this does when it gets up. Just think of what it does to First Nations people and think of what it does to the country when it goes down.

These are political points now. By not disclosing or by not having the convention, by linking it together—not an A and B, here is recognition here is this—cognitively, it has been set up knowingly. I get that. It is a wedge for our side. I 100 per cent understand why it was done. If you were going to win 60 to 40, I get it. Well done. But that is not the case anymore. It is real, and we have to start looking at real things if this goes down. If anyone gets up and says that would be a great outcome for Australia, I would be amazed. It might be a great outcome for some politicians here or some politicians there, but it's not a good outcome for Australia.

I wish I had better words. I wish I didn't have to disclose some of my own weaknesses, as a person who has not walked in those shoes. But I cannot vote for this. I beg anyone listening from government to pull this bill. (Time expired)

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

Thank you, Senator Cadell. I'm going to give myself the call. I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, the traditional custodians of the place we now call Canberra. I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging and to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people watching this debate today. I recognise the strength, resilience and capacity of Australia's First People, and in that spirit of reconciliation and respect I look forward to working together to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, including a constitutionally enshrined voice to our national parliament. Towards the end of this year, all Australians will vote in a referendum to determine whether a voice to parliament can be enshrined in the Constitution.

The framework for a voice to parliament is not an invention of this government and nor is it a new ask. The process for constitutional recognition was agreed across the parliament and created by a co-design process. The final outcome of that process was a meeting at Uluru of 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates, who met and agreed on the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I want to start by quoting from a piece of the Uluru Statement:

Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are alienated from their families at unprecedented rates … And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers …

These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.

Upon his election last year, Prime Minister Albanese and the entire government accepted this generous invitation, the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and we have committed to implementing that statement in full.

The Voice proposal is about two things: firstly, to recognise the unique status of our First Nations peoples as the original owners and inhabitants of this land; and, secondly, to recognise that, after generations of being silenced and ignored in our country's founding document, specific measures are required to raise First Nations voices and ensure that they are consulted on issues that affect them. As Noel Pearson stated earlier this year in his first Boyer lecture:

Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians is not a project of identity politics, it is Australia's longest standing and unresolved project for justice, unity and inclusion.

As a Western Australian senator, I've held many meetings across the state. Many First Nations and community leaders have attended these forums. We've had full and frank discussions about what the Voice is and what it isn't. In these meetings I've heard the views of many, from cultural leaders and elders to young people, stolen generations and non-Indigenous people. Despite the many differences between groups who attended these meetings, common themes emerged, once again described so eloquently by Noel Pearson when he said:

Let me point out what is incontrovertible: Australia doesn't make sense without recognition. Until the First Peoples are afforded our rightful place, we are a nation missing its most vital heart.

One of the incredible women who has become part of this journey is Narelle Henry, a proud Noongar yorga living and working on Whadjuk country and General Manager of Ember Connect. She has shared her heartfelt endorsement to the Voice to Parliament. I want to add her words to the Hansard for this debate. Narelle said:

The outcome of this referendum will affect me, my daughters, my nieces, aunties and communities for the rest of our lives … I think about the outcome of the referendum every day. This will be just a day for most Australians, but for me and my family and so many of the people that I love and care about, we will wake up the next day forever changed by the outcome of the nation's decision.

If there is a negative outcome, I'm not sure that I could ever recover, but if it is positive, it means I can let the hope that occasionally creeps in stay a while and grow, with the knowledge that my daughters will not have to bear the weight of carrying a banner, like their mothers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers. That the Australian people have chosen collectively to make history, which means my babies can enjoy a life of choice, that they are seen and heard as equals on a land in which their ancestors nurtured for thousands of years … Your vote means a lot. My life and the lives of my loved ones will never be the same following the referendum.

I met a respected leader at a Mandurah forum earlier this year. She also described a terrified feeling for the day after the referendum. She asked me: 'What if we lose?' The hope and fear so touchingly voiced by Narelle and others is shared by First Nations people, and it stays with me every day. I have many First Nations people who are my dear friends. My granddaughter is Gidja, and her family were stolen from Warmun and, after two generations, are still piecing together their family history. All of my First Nations friends and my granddaughter have been victims of racism. I find WEH Stanner's remarks, in his 1968 Boyer Lecture as he describes racism, heart-wrenching. He said:

Australians hold and express strong views about us, the great proportion of which is negative and unfriendly. It has ever been thus. Worse in the past but still true today.

In his Boyer lecture, Noel Pearson makes a bold claim of which he is most convicted. He said:

… racism will diminish in this country when we succeed with recognition.

Daniel Morrison, my granddaughter Charlee's uncle, whose bloodlines flow from Noongar, Yamatji and Gija clans, came with us to Waroona to hear from locals and to answer their questions and concerns about the referendum. Daniel told the group he'd thought long and hard about what he wanted to impress upon the people on that day. In the end, he said it was what was most important to him, his moort, his family. Daniel comes from a long line of fierce advocates, leaders and role models, the experience of many First Nations people who have attended our forums. Daniel told us about his grandfather Arthur. He enlisted and fought for his country in World War II. He was captured and held as a prisoner of war for three years on the Burmese railway. These soldiers were Australian heroes and yet Arthur was never recognised as an Australian hero. On his return to Australia he was still unable to vote, still excluded from stepping inside the Perth CBD and still not able to have a beer in the same pub with the men that he had fought alongside. He spoke about these experiences publicly and never stopped fighting.

This notion that recognition is somehow new is false. Many First Peoples have laid out the processes to get to where we are today. Once again Daniel shared a very early Western Australian experience. In 1928, a deputation of leaders selected by the community met with Premier Philip Collier to voice their concerns about the Aborigines Act of 1905. This included Daniel's great-uncle, Uncle Wilfred Morrison, who was a member of that deputation.

As a non-Indigenous person, I know my role is to speak to as many people as I can to ensure a successful result in Western Australia and to use my platform to confront and challenge the misinformation being shared from the 'no' campaign and, sadly, by some parliamentarians in this parliament. I hope that every Australian is able to make an informed decision on how they will vote.

When asked about his concerns about the success of the Voice referendum earlier this week on the radio, Thomas Mayo—I'm sure he is well known to all of you here as he's a campaigner from the Uluru Statement from the Heart—said: 'I know there are lots of lies and misinformation out there from people that are interested in seeing us defeated. The false argument about a racial divide is just that: completely false. This is about an Indigenous people that were here for over 60,000 years before colonisation. This isn't about race. In fact, decisions are made about Indigenous people as if we were a different race. That has been happening for hundreds of years and now we are seeking simply to have input into decisions that are made about us. Then we want to be heard. It's a unifying thing. It's about listening. It's about ensuring that we finally let go of that burden from our past and hand over to the next generation a better future where we accept that we have such a wonderful and great culture that makes us unique as Australians, and this is our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage and culture.'

I want to make clear in my contribution, for the benefit of Australians watching, that this is not a political issue. In passing the constitutional alteration legislation, we are giving Australians the chance to change our Constitution, to stand on the shoulders of generations of change makers. That decision will sit with each and every Australian on the day that we go to vote on the referendum. I will be supporting the Voice because it's time to recognise 60,000 years of continuing culture and it's time to ensure that our First Nations people have a say in matters that affect them. I want to do justice to the voices of Narelle and her family, to Daniel and his family, and to my granddaughter, Charlee. I want them to have a future that is just as important and for them to be listened to in the same way that I am. The Voice, if successful, will allow us to continue our reconciliation journey as we face our past and look forward to a future. I hope that as a country we will vote 'yes' so that we can implement the generous invitation of the Uluru Statement of the Heart and move forward in a confident and unified way.

I'm very sad now. I rarely cry, and I cried earlier this week when Senator Patrick Dodson sent a message to us. I miss him deeply. He's a great warrior. He's called the 'father of reconciliation'. So I am dedicating this contribution to Senator Patrick Dodson, who said: 'Reconciliation means that we walk together towards a better future. My hope is that the Voice referendum this year will be Australia's greatest act of reconciliation. Let us deliver a successful referendum for a Voice that will be heard across the generations to come.'

Senate adjourned at 22:30