Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to be able to continue my remarks from earlier on this very, very important piece of legislation which is, as I said before, a once-in-a-generation choice that Australians are going to be making.

Before I was interrupted I was commenting on what it is about this debate that concerns me most and how things have been happening in the media, in the public domain and, indeed, even in this chamber. The concern I hold is the reaction to those who seek further information, who question what it is we are now contemplating, who seek to understand to some level of depth what this proposal is all about. For example, people who express a concern about what might happen or who offer a different opinion, be it legal or otherwise, are labelled as racist, as irrelevant and, most recently, as peddlers of disinformation or misinformation. Even in this debate I've heard one colleague describe the Leader of the Opposition—who has, as I've already outlined in this contribution, been more than reasonable about how best to conduct this in a unifying and bipartisan way—as shameful. To me, it is a really dangerous step in a debate when we are labelling our opponents as something other than what they actually are and imputing motive to their comments.

Similarly, we've heard colleagues—proponents of this idea of Voice and the associated constitutional enshrinement of that Voice—say inclusivity and reconciliation should not be seen as a threat. If we look at those words and consider what exactly has been proposed here, I'm not sure who is seeing those things as a threat. To suggest that is what senators in this place or members of the public believe to be a threat or a concern serves to conflate issues. It doesn't actually go to the heart of the issues that are being raised as concerns by members of this place, the other place or, indeed, the Australian public.

Is what we are debating here, the referendum question that Australians will be contemplating this year, going to deliver those things—reconciliation and inclusivity? To my mind the answer is no, it will not be addressing those issues. It will not be providing those elements that have been referred to as the outcomes of a voice being enshrined in the Constitution by proponents of it. It will not deliver those things. We all know that reconciliation as a concept has two key parts to it: one, on the part of one party, is repentance and a desire for forgiveness; the other, on the part of the other party, is a willingness to forgive and move on. I fear that in this debate we will not be seeing at least one of those elements appear, no matter what we do at this referendum. Will it change things? I suspect not.

Respect is a very important trait when it comes to Australian society. In discourse on issues, whatever they might be—and this should be no exception—having respect for multiple views and, of course, the reasons and the lived experiences underpinning those views is incredibly important. We know in this debate that there are a range of views on this issue, on the best way forward and on the proposal before us. As I've already mentioned, as a member of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 2018, which did its work some five years ago, I know there are a great many views out there that are divergent in nature. Receiving 18 different proposals for constitutional recognition from submitters as part of the work of that committee indicates just how varied the views are about how best we get to where we want to go.

What Australians do at this referendum is going to be critically important. The reason for that, of course, is that what we decide upon, particularly if the answer is 'yes', is going to be permanent. Once this is enshrined in the Constitution, it cannot be undone. The effect of this body is unspecified and unknown, and whatever that outcome is—whatever shape it takes—will be part of our future. That can't be undone. As Senator Scarr said in his contribution last night, there's no detail to inform Australians of exactly what it is, ultimately, that we will be putting in place.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill has 303 words.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Scarr said, the bill has 303 words. This is an alteration to our Constitution that we are giving the green light to here—if, of course, the referendum succeeds. Three hundred and three words are not detail enough to satisfy the questions and concerns of not just the opposition but a great many Australians who actually want to be treated with respect in this debate.

To that end, what will this Voice do? It is a key question I have been asking as this debate has been conducted in the community. Is it going to fix the problems that we know exist in Indigenous Australian communities? Is it going to resolve those issues that have dogged parts of our community for so long? Is it going to address fetal alcohol spectrum disorder? Will it address incarceration rates? Is it going to improve education outcomes? Will it improve health outcomes? Will it increase life expectancy? If the answer is 'yes' to any of those things, I think Australians deserve a clear demonstration of exactly how what is being proposed here takes us to that end point. If that is the case then it's a very easy sales pitch. My fear, though, is that none of the above will happen.

In preparing for my contribution here, I've been reading a book by Peter Sutton entitled The Politics of Suffering. It's a book which is quite interesting, I have to say, in terms of contemplating the matters we are considering as a parliament. The foreword, interestingly enough, is written by Professor Marcia Langton. In his book, Mr Sutton says:

We have long been told that the emotional and physical health of Indigenous people will not improve until their social justice and property justice and treaty needs and formal Reconciliation needs and compensation needs have been met, and, by implication, that the heart of the people's problems and solutions lies in politics and law. By definition, those who deliver the people from extraordinary levels of rage, fear, anxiety, neglect, malnutrition, infection, diabetes, renal failure, sexual abuse, assault and homicide will thus allegedly be politicians, barristers and political activists.

This unscientific mumbo jumbo beggars belief. It relies on a kind of magical cause-and-effect relationship, as if a treaty between 'races' will keep children safe in their beds at night.

Mr Sutton, of course, notes that pragmatism, rather than ideology, is central to resolution of these issues, and I tend to agree with his assessment.

Of course, there is that other 'fear campaign', as it's being labelled: what does it mean for the operation of government? It's that question around what it, in effect, means when it comes to the issue of advice to the executive. What implications are there for the business of government—the ordinary function of the administration of the Commonwealth of Australia—if advice is not taken and followed? The answer is that we don't know. There are many varied legal opinions out there, and the only people that can actually deliberate upon this, of course, are going to be judges of the High Court of Australia. That is something that I think people cannot walk past. There is no clear answer on that.

While I am on this, I will refer to evidence provided by the late David Jackson AM, KC, who, in his submission to the inquiry on the matter we are deliberating upon now, says at paragraph 7:

Greater potential difficulty is provided by the phrase "subject to this Constitution" in proposed s 129(3). That usage would ordinarily cause no difficulty, but one provision which would be likely to fall within it would be the proposed s 129(2). If a law made pursuant to s 129(3) had the effect that the Voice (however constituted under s 129(3)) was not empowered to make a representation of the nature referred to in s 129(2), the relevant provisions enacted pursuant to s 129(2) would be invalid.

I think it is important to not ignore that as we consider the question before us.

To the issue of judges, I think what happened in New South Wales in recent times—where one colleague from the other place, Mr Conaghan, the member for Cowper, made his contribution to the parliament and received correspondence from a justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Ian Harrison—indicates that these judges, who will be deliberating on the very questions that have come up in the committee work, are one of two things: either judges are human beings with emotions and opinion or, perhaps even worse, judges can at times be activists for a particular cause. Either way, it is important to note that there is an element of risk associated with this that we cannot just ignore and walk past.

In the remaining time I have, I want to turn to the final issue I take with this, and that is this basic principle that most of us, if not all of us, ascribe to, which is that we all have equality before the law—be it ascribing to article 7 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, of course, points to the fact that, no matter what colour, creed, religion or any other attribute you might have, you are and should be equal before the law. We've signed up to that. So it makes me wonder why we are going down this path and encouraging Australians to vote yes to something that will, in effect, in my view, remove that equality before the law. We are creating a special entity that will confer special rights and privileges on a particular group in our society because of their racial heritage.

As I said before, Australians are being asked to make perhaps the biggest decision that they will need to make in this generation. I am simply asking Australians to stop and to think about the implications of the decision before them. Research the questions being thrown out there. Don't dismiss them as irrelevant, out of touch, racist or disinformation. See what it means for the future of the country, for your children, for your neighbours, and make your decision on that basis. I know I will be voting no in the referendum, but I will support Australians having their say. (Time expired)

Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to show my support for this important bill before us today, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. This support begins with the acknowledgement of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri elders and knowledge-holders who have paved the way for those here now, those following proudly in their footsteps and those yet to come as custodians and owners of country. I also acknowledge Whadjuk country as my home base, where I live and care for and maintain continuing reciprocal relationships with all who share this land. Sovereignty has never been ceded. It always was and always will be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land. I recognise the resilience and strength of all First Nations people of Australia and appreciate their knowledge-sharing and stories that influence the lives of many new Australians like me.

Time and time again, we hear the acknowledgement of country. We all understand that it is an integral part of our identity as Australians. We recognise the richness of over 60,000 years of history, culture and knowledge that have shaped us into the nation we are today. For too long the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been relegated to the fringes of our political discourse. Their rich culture, deep wisdom and unique perspectives have been overshadowed or dismissed, perpetuating a cycle of marginalisation and inequality. But it is time for us to break free from this cycle and forge a new path founded on mutual respect, understanding and unity.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart stands as a testament to the resilience and determination of First Nations people. It embodies their collective aspirations for a fairer and more inclusive Australia, one that recognises their values and their unique place in our shared history. It calls for a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament, a mechanism that will empower Indigenous communities to have a say in the laws and policies that affect them directly. As a senator and representative of the people, it is my duty to listen to and amplify the voices of those who have been unheard for far too long. The Uluru statement resonates with me on a personal level. It speaks to the core beliefs of justice, equality and the power of genuine reconciliation. It reminds us that our nation's true strength lies in embracing the diversity of our people, nurturing our collective heritage and learning from one another. It was Senator Patrick Dodson, the father of reconciliation, who said:

Australians must understand their own philosophies of equity and honour and mateship and live up to those. And that has to fly across the board. Fear should be the failure to create a united nation within our nation: one that has moved its goalposts a bit to accommodate the First Nations' aspirations.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a powerful call to action. It represents the voices of First Nations people across Australia and outlines three key messages: voice, truth and treaty. The first step is holding a referendum to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Constitution as an advisory body that will ensure Indigenous perspectives are heard and considered in decision-making processes that impact their lives and create real, practical change.

In my first speech I said I would embrace the slogan 'Nothing about us without us', and this should apply to First Nations people. The voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people need to be heard when it comes to matters that impact their lives.

Senator Dodson has also reminded us that without Indigenous participation closing the gap is 'going to be doomed to fail'. Data released by the Productivity Commission yesterday indicated that only four out of 19 Closing the Gap targets are on track. Although there have been slight improvements, the lack of progress is frustrating. And I agree with Minister Burney's statements that 'The gap is not closing fast enough,' and 'The Voice will create structural change that will ensure that grassroots voices are heard in Canberra.' By establishing an advisory body that informs parliament on matters that directly affect First Nations communities, their wellbeing and their future will be taking a significant step towards reconciliation, healing the wounds of the past and building a stronger and more inclusive Australia.

Through the history of Australia since Federation, horrific violence against First Nations people has been disguised, covered up or ignored by governments. But there is unfinished business that the Uluru Statement from the Heart seeks to address. In 1967, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were counted. In 2017, they sought to be heard. And, in 2023, the Australian people will vote on a voice. Influential voices across parties, across borders and across the nation have worked tirelessly in advocating for this simple yet very powerful step. From Ken Wyatt to Nova Peris, from Professor Marcia Langton to Thomas Mayo, from the corporations to sporting codes, from grassroots organisations to neighbours on the same street, the invitation from Uluru was to the people of Australia. It will be a people's referendum, and, if it's successful, our nation will be stronger. If not now, then when?

This government is committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and this bill before the Senate is the first formal step to honour our commitment and is a mark of our respect for the First Nations people of Australia.

It's important that we talk about the Voice, what it will be and the principles it will follow, because it is for people to decide—one, the Voice will give recognition to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution; (2) the Voice will give independent advice to the parliament and government; (3) members of the Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities; (4) the Voice will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities, gender balanced and include youth, and be chosen from each of the states, territories and Torres Strait Islands; (5) the Voice would consult with grassroots communities and regional entities; (6) it will also be accountable and transparent and work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures; (7) the Voice will not have a veto power.

Let us remember that recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the custodians of Australia is not an act of charity; it is an act of justice. We must acknowledge their enduring connection to the land, their vibrant cultures, their significant contributions and their ongoing struggles. By embracing the key messages of the Uluru Statement from the Heart we have an opportunity to create a future where all Australians can walk together in unity.

In order for us to truly understand the impact of the Voice campaign, let me share with you the story of Narelle Henry. Narelle, a proud Noongar yorga woman who devoted her life to advocating for Indigenous rights and recognition, has seen first hand the struggles faced by her people and the urgent need for change. Narelle's story represents the countless stories of resilience and determination within the Indigenous community. For Narelle, the Voice campaign means empowerment. It means giving a Voice to those who have been silenced for far too long. It means recognising the wisdom, knowledge and unique perspective that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people bring to the table. The Voice campaign is about equality, respect and creating a future where every Australian—and I mean every Australian—has an equal opportunity to thrive.

In showing support, Narelle is not alone. Last month 120 cultural organisations signed a joint resolution in support of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, and every day more and more grassroots organisations are standing with First Nations people and supporting the referendum. The joint resolution rightly describes the Voice as modest, practical and fair. The groups who have signed are from diverse backgrounds, including Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Greek, Vietnamese, Filipino, Sikh, Irish, Iranian, Sri Lankan, Italian, Indian and Chinese community groups. This demonstrates how unifying the Voice will be.

At some point, we were all immigrants to this country or another. As a 28-year-old immigrant born in Afghanistan but calling Australia home and having the privilege of serving as a senator for Western Australia, I couldn't be more grateful to First Nations people for sharing their boodja.

Migration is a deeply personal and transformative experience. It involves leaving behind one's own homeland, culture and often loved ones in pursuit of a better life and new opportunities. It requires courage, resilience and the ability to adapt to new surroundings. These aspects of migration mirror the experiences of First Nations people who have faced displacement, loss and the enduring struggle of recognition and justice. As immigrants, we have experienced first-hand the transformative power of being embraced by Australia and given the opportunity to contribute to its growth and prosperity. Let us extend that same embrace to First Nations people to ensure their voices are heard, their cultures are celebrated and their rightful place as custodians of this land is recognised in the Constitution.

This reminds me of a recent conversation I had with one of the prominent imams in Perth, Shaykh Salmaan Parkar, who declared his support by stating: 'I think enshrining the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in parliament is a powerful and necessary move. It unlocks empowerment, rectifies historical injustices, strengthens democracy, promotes cultural competence and unites our nation.'

I am so proud of the support from immigrant communities who use their diversity to promote harmony and inclusion, who use their collective power to advocate for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, and who understand that closing the gap is everyone's responsibility. Seeing grassroots communities come together to support the Voice gives me so much hope. I know Australians have room in their hearts for the Voice. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Kerrynne Liddle (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Child Protection and the Prevention of Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So many voices but not enough listening—ironically, isn't that why this all got started? I will vote yes to assist the passage of this bill. I remain, however, against the constitutional amendment being put to the Australian people. This is perhaps one of the most important bills we will likely debate in this place. The amendment is not just a simple tweak; it's a whole new section within the nation's founding document. The 'yes' narrative suggests that this amendment is a pathway to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and it comes with aspiration and great promise. Those opposite, Voice architects and Voice advocates have acted as if changes to the Constitution about Indigenous matters are somehow only for Indigenous people. The Constitution, however, belongs to everyone, every Australian equally.

I've stayed true to my first speech in this place; I have listened—not to the loudest, not to the most resourced, not to the most organised, but to all the voices. I share with you the contribution of respected voices, respectful voices, culturally authorised voices and existing elected local voices. Only a week ago, senior custodians of Uluru-Kata Tjuta, the vast Anangu-Pitjantjatjara-Yankunytjatjara lands straddling the NT, WA and South Australia trusted me, their elected representative, to speak their own torment. They described deception, suspicions, scepticism and disappointment with the Voice concept, the Voice conversation and the conduct in the path of the bill to this place. This was their very deep concern for all Australians, whatever the result. They wanted to talk straight. They wanted to correct the record. They asked that I use my voice to amplify their voice. They found a way, the right way, to get their voice heard in Canberra. It is my responsibility as their elected member to represent constituents in this place respectfully, regardless of race, wealth, age, religion, gender or sexuality.

Rightly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples hold a special place in our nation as descendants of the world's oldest culture. With up to 70,000 years of connection, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have special rights and interests in many matters that directly affect them—and they should. I also agree that, with special rights and interests in matters that affect them, they should be consulted, because that approach will likely lead to better creation, administration and delivery of policy for them. This proposal, however, is an over-reach, and the reason for permanency of the Voice in the Constitution is simply not good enough.

Mr Murray George, Mr Clem Toby, Mr Owen Burton and Mr Trevor Adamson have thought deeply about the local and national implications of going so public. They have not been driven by money or popularity, and there is no malice. There is just speaking their truth. They want you to know they feel great sadness. They feel deceived, disrespected and ignored. They are gutted that their most sacred place continues to be used for political and promotional purpose. They don't see their hopes and dreams delivered by the Voice, but they know Australians want and can do better. In cities, towns, pubs and clubs and in polite and not-so-polite conversations, they know the debate, the rhetoric and the hysteria will continue, yet at referendum they will be voting no.

Uluru is so much more than a magnificent 500-million-year-old sandstone monolith. It is their spiritual and cultural heart. It is their centre of everything. In the Anangu-Pitjantjatjara language, there is only one Uluru—just one. It is not a canvas. It is not a statement. It is not an artefact. It is not a political tool or campaign tool, nor does it speak of a point in time or come with a date. Unless you have been listening carefully, you can't possibly have learnt this. That brings me to their other issue, representation. Tension about the much publicised Statement from the Heart has been simmering since its creation—yes, since its emergence in 2017. What has turned up the temperature is the recent return of the 'yes' campaign for Uluru for a well-publicised anniversary event and the frenzied use of the word 'Uluru' as this campaign escalates. Uluru is not an airport. That's why the nearby airport is called Ayers Rock Airport. Uluru is not a tourism resort. That's why the nearby resort is called Yulara. The statement itself and the proposition it speaks to is, in their own words, divisive.

In the words of Murray George: 'That canvas now is causing a lot of problems for us. If I could only get my hands on it I would burn it.' The Statement from the Heart has been used and is being used to transmit a message of support that they argue, actually, misrepresents them. Three of these men went to the referendum dialogues in 2017 because they wanted to hear what was happening and they were honoured, truly honoured, as they always are, to have been asked to perform a traditional dance on their country. They recall signing an attendance register but they say that is where their association with the Voice ended. In the words of Mr Trevor Adamson: 'We didn't sign that we were happy for this to go ahead. There was no way we agreed.' I've also heard from women surprised to see their signatures on the statement, unhappy that their attendance and consultation is likely to be interpreted as consent. But they were not prepared to come out publicly.

In my home state of South Australia, the first state to go forward with a state based voice, I had many complaints about its public consultation process before that bill was passed. In South Australia, Aboriginal people have, for some 10 years, been recognised eloquently in the state constitution, and earlier this year the state Labor government legislated its state voice. We've been told a majority of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community will vote 'yes', but the evidence is simply not there. A number circa ten thousand, maybe even tens of thousands, could be quoted to affirm this position. Compare that, though, with ABS data that puts the Indigenous population at just under one million. The 270-plus page report to consider models by eminent Professors Calma and Langton received nearly 3,000 submissions of which only four per cent were Indigenous. The reality is that it will be 96 per cent of the Australian population who will determine what is best for four per cent of the population, and, in this process to date, most of the four per cent have not even been asked. Like all Australians, they simply don't have the detail, just a bunch of principles.

As an objector, I'm simply dismissed as a wrecker, mischievous and a Chicken Little, while others are caught in a redneck celebrity vortex or are bedwetters. But at least I can tell you how I really feel. At least I recognise that there are alternative views from mine. I dismiss as absolutely absurd actions that seek to control and decided and embarrass people on whether anyone can have a voice about the Voice. Think for a minute of the corporate sporting clubs, organisations and companies eager to have publicly jumped on board to be seen as part of the vibe, and yet they don't even get a vote. So it is the Prime Minister has chosen, with unexplained urgency and with a still confused public, to go to referendum later this year. Maybe now is the right time or some truth-telling.

In May 2023, the Prime Minister declared this as a modest request, but, more recently, he said it is modest no more. So, Prime Minister, tell the Australian public: which is it? Put simply, the proposition is constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians through an institutional mechanism called the Voice. Voice and constitutional recognition are not the same thing. The Prime Minister could have legislated for his version of voice and embedded recognition in the Constitution, but he chose not to. There was no room, no appetite, for compromise from Voice proponents, and the Prime Minister just did what they said. The proposition before us divides us. It introduces to the Australian Constitution greater access for advocacy of our parliaments and our institutions for one group of Australians over others exclusively.

The Constitution provides the legal framework for how Australia is governed. Australians have, historically, been cautious about this, and we should be. That's because it matters for certainty and stability of government and its executive, and that should matter to each and every one of us. Since its creation in 1901, Australians have been asked 19 times to alter our founding document and only eight times have we voted to amend it. This time is not the right reason: it is not the right question, it is not the right words and it is not the right solution. So, publicly, I say no. And in the privacy of a ballot box, I will also say no.

The Liberal Party has no objection to recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution, but not in the way this legislation does it. The Liberal Party, like all Australians, wants to see an improvement in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, but disagrees that this is the pathway to that. The Liberal Party agrees that we can, and should, all do better in listening and hearing the words and voices of people on matters that affect them, and so we focus on local and regional voices. The proposition, the parliamentary processes and the communication of this matter are flawed, and designed to confuse, cajole and guilt Australians in order to deliver a 'yes' result.

I am told by those wise enough to have participated then, and on review of the available data, that despite what the 'yes' campaign might want you to believe, this is not anything like the 1967 referendum. Back then, a 90.7 per cent vote delivered a 'yes' result in every single state and territory. That, not this, is nation-building. In 2023, fuelled by a prime minister whose personal, professional and political investment in this has been on very public display, we're heading to a referendum with around a 50 per cent split. We're currently on a path, it seems, to a result that will be a nation divided, no matter what side gets the necessary vote.

You've heard enough about the joint select committee's Liberal dissenting report. It's just unfortunate that we haven't had a constitutional convention to air some of these issues. There's no defensible reason for a rushed process. It was hamstrung by detail. There were differing—yes, conflicting—views amongst eminent legal experts. There was uncertainty and risk associated with, if adopted, unquantifiable risk and, if adopted, this would be permanent. Under the title 'Recommendations', there was just one:

The Committee recommends that the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Taurus Straight Islander Voice) 2023 be passed unamended.

I say that less accountability is not good for us for us politicians, or for program providers and bureaucrats—and no to the deferral of responsibility for all the solutions and the change to voice.

In the world of Indigenous affairs, the words 'consulted, engaged, codesigned, collaboration' are increasingly commonplace. There are many commissioners, ambassadors, advocates, working groups, conventions and expert panels, and the task of providing advice to governments is their role. How does Voice replicate, interact or overlap? There are 11 federal parliamentarians and 15 state and territory parliamentarians who identify as Indigenous. They're from all political parties—noting that Labor and Greens don't have a monopoly on acting in the best interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. On the threat that an Australian 'no' vote will spell the death of reconciliation: that is simply not true. Reconciliation is everyone's responsibility; the work of reconciliation won't end regardless of the result, says its CEO.

The Prime Minister could have done this differently; he could go back to the original proposition to legislate for Voice. He could refocus on the issues that matter most to Australians and the day-to-day reality of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who are impacted by issues of poverty, geography, responsibility and poor service delivery, and, as such, who are doing it harder than most. We now know that Uluru traditional owners, Mr Toby, Mr George, Mr Adamson and Mr Burton, draw on knowledge of land, law, culture, community and wisdom to conclude they will vote no. I am guided by my vote and my values of lean government, a bureaucracy of minimal interference, equality of opportunity and pursuit of opportunity for all Australians equally. I will vote no, knowing that this conversation has proven to me that, regardless of the vote, everyday Australians know we that we should have a renewed commitment that we must all do better. (Time expired)

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this bill, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. Since being elected to this parliament almost seven years ago, I don't think there's been an issue that I have thought more about or had more conversations with colleagues, the community and First Nations people about than the Voice to Parliament. I want to mention Minister Burney, who's always been happy to talk and answer questions about this, and my senatorial colleagues Senator Stewart, Senator McCarthy and Senator Dodson, and their strength and advocacy as well. It's also enabled me to get to know Professor Megan Davis and Eddie Synot, who have dedicated a lot of their time, effort and energy to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and also Dean Parkin, who I have met on a number of occasions.

For me, the Uluru Statement from the Heart coincided with not long after I was elected to parliament, so it's been a constant of my time in the Senate. I've always been interested in and followed its development since that time both in the parliament and through my party. I believe there is an historical and moral argument that justifies the Voice, but I think that's been well argued by many of my colleagues and others. I instead plan to focus on the practical, as, for me, that is the most important part of what this Voice will achieve.

As I said, I've always been interested in how the Voice will work and what practical difference it can make. When I've been travelling, what I observe is: 'What can the Voice do for the people in Napranum, Hope Vale, the Torres Strait Islands or Lockhart River? What can it do to help the growing number of Indigenous and First Nations people who call South-East Queensland home?' I think it's the fastest-growing area of the country for First Nations people. Since forming government and taking on some new responsibilities, it's enabled me to broaden my experience and understanding of the challenge facing First Nations people, like the glaring disadvantages in education results.

I spent a few days last week travelling around the Barkly region of the Northern Territory. I visited Tennant Creek, Ali Curung, An Bladder Witch and Arlparra. I was there to discuss the federal government's role in the Barkly Regional Deal. That deal was developed by the previous government after a tragic and horrific event that occurred. The response was a deal between three levels of government—the federal government, the Northern Territory government and the local council. It did not formally seek agreement from traditional owner groups. It has required a lot of hard work since to get that engagement from communities across the region. With what I observed at Tennant Creek, Ali Curung, An Bladder Witch and Arlparra, I can't help but conclude we would be making faster progress if these communities had a voice—and, yes, a permanent one, and one enshrined in the Constitution. This is what, for me, makes my experiences that I keep coming back to. It's how I see the ultimate question that will be resolved by this referendum.

There are two options that are going to be available to you: recognition in the Voice so we can make a meaningful and practical difference to the lives of First Nations Australians; or the status quo, which equals more of the same. That is what is going to be on offer. The overwhelming majority of those opposing this bill are the same people who have been in power for the last decade. There is no substantial progress. I'm not suggesting that they weren't well-intentioned—governments of all persuasions have been well-intentioned—but improvements have not been made. Report after report, Closing the Gap statement after Closing the Gap statement, day after day, little progress, more words. Something has to change. Well-intentioned governments aren't achieving.

I consider myself very practical. I think about the Voice in a practical way. The federal government is spending money to improve educational outcomes for First Nations Australians, to improve health outcomes for First Nations Australians, to reduce Indigenous incarceration. We are spending money in remote communities, like I observed last week. I could go on and on. Well-intentioned governments are going to continue to do this, but how can we expect a better outcome unless we do something different? The reality is: we can't. I believe the Voice can make a difference. It can make these well-intentioned governments more effective, improving outcomes and, at the end of the day, making for better government. All of Australia will benefit from this.

I want to talk briefly about the campaign, because in my time here it's often been reflected that these big debates and big decisions in this chamber and in the broader community bring out the best of our civic discourse. There are already significant signs that this won't be the case with this debate, in this chamber and in the broader campaign. I like to think I understand campaigning and politics and understand that there are situations when campaigning takes on a brutal element. I hope that is not the case with this campaign, but I fear otherwise. I consider the selfless work of those First Nations Australians who undertook significant and meaningful consultation in the lead-up to the Uluru Statement from the Heart—the consensus-building, the patience in the face of a snail-paced government, and consistent advocacy from them. They deserve to be treated with respect.

I understand that people are entitled to vote no and campaign for no. But I believe that this debate and the upcoming campaign deserve the best version of our civil discourse. Imagine understanding the history of the Voice and the dedication, passion and patience from those who've advocated for it and what they have done, and being aware that only four of the 19 Closing the Gap targets are on track, yet coming into this debate in this chamber and the broader community with slogans that truly belong in a substandard student union campaign. I'm not going to repeat them, but I would say this. If you don't know, find out more. You know whose voice it is: it's a First Nations voice that will make us a better country.

I am confident that the majority of the Australian population think we can do better for First Nations Australians. The reality with this debate is that only one side is advocating for better prospects for First Nations people that Australians can embrace. For me it's simple: status quo, or improved outcomes. I am confident that the Australian people want improved outcomes. I support this bill and look forward to voting yes later this year.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like many in this place—indeed, like most Australians—I support constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians. In respect of the big changes our country has made: as Thomas Paine said, 'Time makes more converts than reason.' We have been discussing constitutional recognition for a long time. That is why I think Australians are ready, even eager, to achieve it. It's right that our foundational legal document reflects Australia's first culture and people. Australians have had more than enough time to consider and to agree with this—and the vast majority do. For many years this has also been the coalition's position and indeed the Labor Party's position also. It has broad community support, for the simple reason that acknowledging our history and Indigenous Australia's role in it is a simple statement of truth that should be reflected in our nation's birth certificate.

So, it's right that we should seek, as former prime minister Tony Abbott said, to correct the great silence in our Constitution. This is not performative. As Julia Gillard said:

The Australian Constitution is the foundation document of our system of government, but it fails to recognise the special place of our first Australians.

In considering this, many have noted that the best way to ensure the success of a change to our Constitution, even one with significant support, is to have bipartisan consensus. This has always been our approach, because it is the proven successful method of changing our Constitution. Even Kevin Rudd conceded that the history of Australian referendums is that if you don't get bipartisan support they will go down. Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd all acknowledged the need and the method to achieving this necessary change, and I challenge anyone to find another thing that all three of those former prime ministers agree on.

Any government must consider the task of taking the majority of people in a majority of states with them on a journey of change. However, the bill before us in the Senate today has not been the product of such a process. Instead we have a prime minister, his minister and a government that are more interested in their own success than the success of constitutional recognition. Labor has deliberately left the path of bipartisanship on this issue, and this will lead to a poor outcome. They've done this by adding to the question of constitutional recognition another issue that does not have bipartisan support and an idea that is yet to receive consensus among Australians—a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament and to the executive government. In doing so, they have been insincere in their actions and reaching in their rhetoric.

We can see this insincerity and the lack of bipartisanship in their actions. First, they didn't consult before releasing the wording. Then they refused to provide voters with any of the traditional information on the question to help them cast their vote, in the form of a referendum pamphlet—something that, thank heavens, the coalition has ensured has been restored. Finally, they reduced themselves and this debate by name-calling—in particular, the Prime Minister to Julian Leeser, a man who has championed this cause over a lifetime of work. Telling him to have courage was a particularly low ebb. My colleague Mr Leeser has dedicated much of his career to this issue, and, true to the class and dignity of his character, he kept the aim of constitutional recognition, not his own interests, at the heart of his response. He said:

In this referendum, the prime minister should be building bridges not throwing stones …

All of us should consider the sincerity of the argument when the Prime Minister makes it in such a way. This isn't how you construct a sincere process, let alone a successful one. The Labor Party and no-one else have, by their own actions, by their choices, secured a poorer outcome in this referendum process. They are in fact risking constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians and they are risking progress on the fundamental cause of reconciliation.

The question as it has been proposed by the government, without any concession or consideration, and the bill that is before us conflate two issues. The first is constitutional recognition; the second is a constitutionally enshrined voice. They have asked us to put to the Australian people that it is a two-for-one deal, take it or leave it. Now, it would be fine if this gamble placed at risk only their own political fate, but it doesn't. It gambles with our nation's foundational document, it gambles with the hopes of so many Indigenous Australians who are seeking recognition and it gambles with the future of our country's relationship with its past.

As a Liberal and as a parliamentarian, I was elected to make sure that we provide the best legal framework our government can provide for our country, and I know that we as senators all take this duty very seriously. But this duty is highlighted to its zenith when considering the amendments to our foundational legal document.

This is not a simple bill that will be considered easily on a Thursday afternoon with little debate, the consequences of which will be significant but perhaps not simply regulatory. This is a bill that asks us to question whether or not we would be happy for the generations who come after us to live with its consequences and whether our predecessors envisaged these changes in the formation of one of the most successful and prosperous constitutional democracies in the world. We may call ourselves 'the lucky country', but it's testament to our character of understatement that we do so, because our success has not been achieved by dumb luck and our future will not be secured by it.

On those measures alone, I would say that the referendum question, as it's drafted, is a bad law. But the process of how this question has come to our chamber reinforces that—a process that has been run by a government that has said, 'Just close your eyes and trust us.' I say no. The Australian people expect more from us than just a blind gamble on their future and a roll of the dice on the past. They expect us to consider this question with regard to the severity and significance of the action that we are taking, not just with a punter's wink and grin.

I can appreciate the passion and the emotion of those who believe that a voice to parliament is an answer to a problem we have long sought to solve. However, I expect that my position will be similar to many Australians'. My heart says, 'Yes, grasp the opportunity for constitutional recognition'—long in the waiting and quick in the taking—but in the end my head and my gut say no, because, no matter what the potential benefits, I can't support a poor proposition and I can't vote for this bad question that will create a bad law.

We all want constitutional recognition, but, to do that, Labor is asking us to change our foundational legal document—with a bad law to get there. As my colleague Julian Leeser said, 'An all-or-nothing approach could deliver nothing.' This could deliver absolutely nothing. However, in considering what the 'all' could look like, we do not even have the detail. For this reason alone we know that it's a bad law from a bad process. For my part, I believe that this is a bad law for three very simple reasons.

Firstly, it's a bad law because simple questions on its operation can't be answered, such as: Will the Voice be able to make representations to the Reserve Bank or to the Fair Work Commission? Will it be able to make representations on the appointment of judges by the executive? Will it be able to make representations before we declare war or before we sign a trade deal? And, without the core recommendation of the Calma-Langton report for local or regional voices, who will the national Voice be taking advice from? Even the questions of who will be eligible to serve as part of the Voice and will they be paid haven't been answered. To this extent, I know it would make a bad law, because, if you can't tell me how it will work, why should I vote for it?

From time to time this place does pass bad laws—because we're not all-knowing or as wise as we like to think we are—but when that happens we can pass other laws that correct those errors; we amend laws to fix problems. However, in this case it's entirely different because changing our Constitution is not that simple. So this is a bad law because none of the unforeseen consequences will be able to be changed, for, if the referendum question is successful and we need to alter it, the fix won't be as simple as just passing a law through parliament; it will require a whole other referendum.

The concepts of a new chapter in our Constitution, a new institution and a new mechanic—the Voice to Parliament—are not at all simple. There is a real and present risk of how these schemes will operate with the rest of our Constitution and how our system of government operates. As I said, this change is not simple. It's not a bill that, when unforeseen circumstances present themselves, we can simply revisit and come back to this place to change the law. This risk is heightened when government refuses to explain how it will work, so, to that extent, I know it is a bad law because you can't tell me how it will work and I can't change it later. So how can I possibly vote for it?

Finally, this change will not simply alter the tax system or change the way we defend the country; it proposes fundamental changes to the way in which our country governs itself and the institutions that make up our democratic system. For all its faults—and it does have a few—our country is the envy of many. In 2021, Australia claimed four of the world's top 10 most liveable cities. We're ranked second for our healthcare security in the Global Health Security Index and third for our healthcare system in the Commonwealth Fund. On the OECD Better Life Index, Australia ranks first for civics engagement; second for education, housing and health; fifth for environment; and sixth for income. Our life expectancy is higher than the OECD average. Our sense of community is higher than the OECD average, as are our educational outcomes for girls and the number of citizens who complete secondary school.

Our Constitution, stable liberal democracy, institutions, rule of law and Westminster system of government have all contributed to the progress and prosperity of our country for over 100 years. This is a bad law because it will fundamentally change the institutions that have created and protected one of the most stable constitutional democracies in the world—Australia.

If you can't tell me how it will work, if I can't change it later and if it risks what we have, why would I vote for it? How could I vote for it? The Liberals will vote to ensure that the Australian people get an opportunity to have their say—don't worry about that. They'll have their say in this referendum and they'll have their say on this proposed question.

It's just such a shame that Labor has established and run this process it has. I am genuinely worried that it will risk the constitutional recognition that we need in this country and it will risk the process of reconciliation. Australians will have a say in this referendum, but it will be an empty referendum—empty on the promise for proper process, empty on the promise of detail of the change, empty on the promise of a better future for Indigenous Australians and empty on the promise of constitutional recognition. Its emptiness will only be contrasted with the arrogance of this government in pursuit of its own glory; its Prime Minister's inability to compromise and to find consensus; and the Labor Party's obsession with politics over progress.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I put my hand up for the Senate because I saw problems in my Territory and across the country and I wanted to put the work in to help the marginalised people they were impacting—particularly the Indigenous issues that activists, academics and elites have no interest in actually solving. But today I do not rise to speak about those issues. Today I am forced to speak about what is at its core a multi-year distraction from this government's complete lack of a plan and complete inaction in addressing those real issues. Today I rise to speak about Labor's Voice. Over the last few days I have sat this place and heard empty platitude after empty platitude, virtue signal after virtue signal, paying of respect for First Nations Australians, cries for reconciliation and of course acknowledgement after acknowledgement.

The term 'first nations' was appropriated from countries like Canada where it has been used in reference to native Canadians. It is out of context here. When used in Australia it only fuels the story of division and suggests classes of Australians exist—from those who are descendants of Aboriginal Australians to those who arrived later, whether they be early settlers, convict descendants or migrants, both historical and recent. Through their Voice the Albanese government now seeks to constitutionally enshrine that class division in our nation's founding document. I am asked regularly by everyday Australians who are not of Aboriginal descent where they are supposed to fit in if the referendum is successful. Australians who have been here for generations, Australians who have left their families in other parts of the world and even Australians who have escaped their war-torn country of birth to call this great country home are left wondering if they are somehow less Australian.

Aboriginal Australia is now venerated, romanticised, revered and consistently acknowledged ad nauseam. Reconciliation isn't romanticising culture and Aboriginal spirituality, but that is what I have witnessed throughout this debate. Reconciliation shouldn't be making demands from the non-Indigenous community as if they are responsible for the lives of Aboriginal Australians to no end. Reconciliation is about creating understanding and sharing in practical terms where both sides contribute meaningfully in good faith for the betterment of all. Guilt politics is not reconciliation. Name calling, gaslighting and bullying Australians into submission is not reconciliation.

I've said it before and I'll say it again—I've had a gutful of being acknowledged. I know only too well that these acknowledgements have nothing to do with me or any other Aboriginal person being recognised. They are nothing more than a display of virtue- and clout-seeking by the acknowledger.

The Voice has been pitched to the Australian people as a generous gift or offering from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Australia to the rest of the country. Plainly, obviously and unquestionably this statement is false. Let's talk about the Uluru Statement from the Heart for a moment because I'm sorry, Senator Wong, but your invitation to participate in the Uluru Statement from the Heart has come far too late. The Uluru statement was the result of a closed process of activists and academics and signed by just 250 unelected people after just 12 regional consultations. So, 12 consultations with 1,200 hand-picked—invite only—unelected individuals who participated in the Uluru Dialogue. But there were 811,528 of us who were not invited to attend. And of that 250 who did, we've learned today from my colleague Senator Liddle that some signatories, Anangu elders themselves, didn't even know exactly what they were signing.

One of the very reasons I chose to stand to be elected to this parliament was because I have witnessed the exploitation of culture and Aboriginal people, people whose first language is not English, being exploited for political purposes. That is exactly what is going on here. When activists, academics and elites descended on Uluru they were exploiting a landmark of significance to only a few, including my own Walpiri people.

If this is about respecting culture then let's talk about spirituality and culture, shall we? My great-grandfather marla jukurrpa was a senior law man for the marla Dreaming of the rufous hare-wallaby men. This Dreaming story travels from Walpiri country, south all the way to the base of Uluru. We Walpiri have a direct spiritual connection to Uluru, unlike people across from me here and major Voice proponents like Noel Pearson, Marcia Langton and Megan Davis. The Anangu and the Walpiri are connected as kin through marla jukurrpa. But a Walpiri signatory to the Uluru Statement from the Heart does not exist.

No-one across this chamber has a clue about real spiritual connections. These platitudes, statements of grandeur and so-called respect are purely for the purpose of exploitation. They have exploited Uluru by attempting to make it symbolic of all Indigenous Australians. There are nearly one million Indigenous Australians from more than 300 individual language groups, each with their own similar but unique customs, traditions and beliefs; each with their own significant landmarks and stories. No single person, no single party, no government department and no so-called advisory body could hope to speak on behalf of all of them, nor hope to adequately represent the broad range of opinions, beliefs and values held by such a large and diverse population. This is why we have our one person, one vote system.

Individuals have the right to put their own hand up for election or to vote for the candidate they believe best represents their views. Under that system, based on fairness and equality, there are 11 Indigenous voices which the Australian people have democratically elected to this parliament. Those 11 voices did not get here because they are Indigenous, but because of their views and hard work. No matter what you might hear from certain media elites who believe some of us are simply the diversity pick, those 11 voices come from five different parties and an Independent; they come from five states and a territory; they come from different walks of life and different backgrounds; they are individuals.

As the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, I speak today on behalf of the Indigenous Australians who have no faith in this government, no faith in the Voice proposal and no faith in those who advocate for it. I speak on behalf of the Aboriginal Australians being robbed of their rights by land councils and other so-called advocacy groups while this Labor government watches on in silence. I'm here to amplify the voices this Labor government is already failing to notice, actively silencing or simply ignoring. Those voices know that this proposal is little more than a power grab, a Trojan horse of nice-sounding ideas that threaten to undermine the values of equality and fairness that Australians hold so dear; a proposal that is dangerous, divisive and costly; it's full of unknowns and, worst of all, it will be permanent. It's dangerous because it undermines our 'one person, one vote' system, giving the privilege of an extra say to one group of people.

There are those who, incredibly, claim that a constitutionally enshrined mandate for a race based body to be heard on any issue it wants, with the possibility of High Court legal challenges if it feels it isn't heard, is somehow not a special right for people of that race. But it is an extra say. It is an additional opportunity to be heard and listened to by the government that no other group has. Some claim that this is simply an advisory body, the same as many industries, businesses and organisations have, but there is no constitutional mandate for the government to listen to any other lobby group. All of them can be ignored, but the Voice can't be. As one advocate for the Voice said, 'You won't be able to shut the Voice up.' The government should not be obliged to listen to any one group—only to the people who have the opportunity to vote for a new representative every three years.

The Voice is a costly mistake at a time when Australians are hurting financially because of this government's failures. They now want to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on a referendum—not even the Voice body itself, which will come with another price tag. Right now, they're spending $360 million on a referendum to divide Australians. No-one can deny that the Voice is divisive. From the moment the suggestion was put forward and from the moment the Prime Minister announced his intention to hold a referendum, the process of division was underway. Make no mistake, this Voice has already divided Australians, and it is still dividing Australians every day. Without a single vote cast, this referendum has done more damage to the fabric of our nation than any other, and it will get worse.

It has to be one of the most audacious claims in the history of this place for Labor to say that creating a body to represent people of just one racial heritage is somehow 'unifying' for all Australians. It's absurd to give one racial group a right held by no others and then claim that this is actually bringing us all together. This proposal is so divisive that even the 'yes' campaigners are divided against themselves. Australians do not want to be split, segregated and categorised by race. They want to be one together, not two divided.

Of course, this Labor government and 'yes' campaigners say we need to take race out of this debate. Yes—after suggesting a race based constitutional amendment, they are now demanding that those who oppose it don't make it about race. They tell us to keep the debate about the proposal itself. But what is the proposal? What do we actually know? We know that it would make an advisory body for one racial group. We know that it would have the power to make representations to government. We know that experts, even many who were in favour of the Voice, have warned that the wording this Labor government is moving forward with could lead to legal challenges and hold-ups that could bring government to a grinding halt.

We also know that this government refuses to give any details about how the Voice would be implemented. They won't tell us how it would work, who would serve on it or how they would be selected. 'They're going to pick people from their own communities in their own cultural way.' Okay. How many people would be on it and how much more would it cost the taxpayer? Time and time again, Australians have asked in good faith for more detail, and each time we're told to blindly trust this government. We're being asked to sign a blank cheque and trust them to spend it right, but, between their lies and inaction, this government has given us absolutely no reason to in fact trust them. If Australians decide to trust this government and agree to their Voice, it will be a permanent change. It will be a mistake, and it cannot be undone.

We must remember that governments have gotten things wrong before. We have created and shut down bodies and organisations that were unable to do what they promised to do. Now they're asking us to put one with no detail in the Constitution forever. The Constitution is our nation's rule book. It should not be messed with. It should not be permanently altered without serious consideration or a detailed proposal. But that's what Australians are being asked to do. The Voice is built on lies, and the worst lie is that marginalised Aboriginal Australians have no agency and that they can only succeed, can only move on from our nation's historical injustices, through a transfer of power to the elite of an industry that has thrived on their disadvantage.

The Voice is just the first step in forever altering our nation. The Labor government has committed to the Uluru statement in full, which means truth telling and treaty. Truth telling—an attempt to rewrite Australia's history. Treaties—deals being made with Indigenous groups to hand over resources and hundreds of millions of dollars or more. The Voice is just the beginning. The Voice is the trojan horse to usher in even more radical changes to our country, and we can't allow that to happen. We can't allow our democracy to be undermined, we can't allow Australians to be divided and we can't allow this government to continue its multiyear-long distraction from the real issues that are going on unaddressed.

That's why I'll be voting no to the Voice and urging all Australians to say no too. We have real issues, real problems that need real solutions, and we need them now. The Voice is no way to it. That's why I'm voting no.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I think I drew the short straw in speaking after Senator Nampijinpa Price. I'll see what I can do.

I was watching one of my favourite movies a couple of weeks ago. It's called Bridge of Spies, and it is about a lawyer, James B Donovan, who's defending a Russian spy at the height of the Cold War. He's in a conversation with someone from the CIA—James B Donovan being Irish American and the CIA guy being of German heritage, actually. Think about that in the late fifties or early sixties, at the height of the Cold War. The movie is about the prisoner swap of Rudolf Abel, who was a Russian spy caught by the Americans, and Gary Powers, who was shot down over the USSR in a spy plane. There's a question asked in the scene: 'What makes us Americans?; James B Donovan says: 'It's the rulebook. It's the Constitution.' In this process, you could ask exactly the same question about where we are. What is it that makes us Australians, a nation built of peoples from all over the world and built on the foundation of an Indigenous culture that has been here for 60,000 years? The rulebook, our Constitution, is what brings us all together to make us Australians. In my view, the current rulebook has an inadequacy: it doesn't recognise Indigenous Australians. It should.

But the problem that I have with the process that we're going through now—and Senator Nampijinpa Price has put it very eloquently, and so have many of my colleagues—is that we haven't had a process that's been inclusive. We've had one that has been divisive. If we want our rulebook, what makes us Australians—when everything comes back to it, that's the thing that makes us Australians and that's the thing that tells our story and describes us—we need to make sure we're all on the one page. We can't be split down the middle. We can't be split fifty-fifty. The thing is that at the moment we've got a bloody good rulebook, and I think Australians recognise that. When we're going to change it, we ought to do that carefully. We ought to consider it properly. I get the process of giving Indigenous Australians a say in telling us what they might want. But this is about bringing us all together, and that's what this process hasn't done.

I wrote an opinion piece back in January that didn't see the light of day through the various news outlets. I wrote back then, and the same exists now, that the Prime Minister made no attempt to work with anyone around the proposed Constitutional wording. He presented it at Garma. He didn't tell the opposition leader that he was going to do it; he just did it. He has criticised anybody, particularly the opposition, for saying we didn't suggest any changes. And, of course, the whole process has descended into a very, very ugly set-up of name-calling. That's not the way to bring the country together. That is not going to bring our country together.

When our Constitution was written, Indigenous Australians weren't part of the discussion. We need to correct that, but we need a process to do that that brings us all together in a genuine way. This process hasn't done that. In fact it has descended into name-calling. I'm glad that Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Liddle are still in the chamber, given what they've been subjected to. Even though I have a slightly different view of the world to them, they're my mates. The conversation hasn't been held with respect. The name-calling that has come from those who are supposedly Indigenous Australian leaders has been absolutely disgraceful. There've been attacks on both of my colleagues here from the likes of Noel Pearson, the Prime Minister, Marcia Langton, too many others and those on the other side.

Is this what the Voice looks like? That's what it's starting to sound like to me. It's not a genuine process. If we're going to do something as important as changing our rulebook, our storybook, it has to be done properly. There was no Constitutional convention—just a parliamentary inquiry process where it was stitched up before it was started. It was a zombie process. The outcome was pretty much predicted because the Prime Minister set the numbers up to get the outcome that he wanted. It's not a genuine process. Getting the witnesses you want, asking the questions you want and getting the chance to ask the questions you want—none of that was provided through the parliamentary process. How is that genuine? How is that bringing the country together?

Then, of course, when you have genuine people like our good friend Mr Julian Leeser, from the other chamber, he gets set upon by the Prime Minister. It's an absolute disgrace. Even during the debate today the suggestion that those who don't support the bill as it stands don't want better outcomes for Indigenous Australians is absolutely and outright offensive. I've heard that just this afternoon. Are you suggesting that Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Liddle don't want better outcomes for Indigenous Australians? Seriously! Give me a break. They're the ones who are out there raising those issues. Senator Liddle found a family living on a concrete slab under a tarpaulin and they'd been there two years waiting for housing. They're the ones out there doing the real things and raising the real issues while those opposite stop us and try to stop us from talking about these issues.

Unfortunately for them, reports that have come out of ORIC in estimates recently and, even more concerningly, a number of ANAO reports that have been published in the last two or three weeks, revealed the things that we were concerned about, and that we wanted this place to look into and to start to deal with. We've been told we couldn't do it: 'Don't do it. Don't touch that now. We don't want to impact on the Voice.' These are the real issues affecting Indigenous Australians that need to be dealt with, and they should have been underway already, but those opposite voted against it. They wouldn't let us deal with some of the real issues, so don't come into this place and suggest that those who are not supporting the legislation don't want better outcomes for Indigenous Australians. Because I don't know anyone in this place who has that view, or that there is any scale of things in that nature.

The reason that a number of us put a motion into this place to do that work was because we were concerned. We wanted to make sure that if there was something wrong, we could make recommendations to the government to fix it. It wasn't partisan; it was about trying to fix some of the real and genuine problems that my colleagues are finding in their communities right now and wanting to express right now. It is an absolute disgrace and it is offensive that anyone would come into this place and suggest that if you don't support the legislation you don't support better outcomes for Indigenous Australians because it is simply not true.

I said before that I have a slightly different perspective of the world to, I think, most of my colleagues in the chamber, to be honest, on this side because I am supportive of a process, and I would have liked to have played a genuine part in that. But the way that the government has run this, this winner-take-all approach from the Prime Minister, where everything is set up for him to get the outcome that he wants, not an outcome that will bring Australians together, has prevented that. It has prevented that.

I give notice that I will be moving the same amendments that my colleague Mr Leeser moved in the House of Representatives because I think the question is flawed. It hasn't been through a proper process. The government wasn't interested in the opinions of the coalition members during the parliamentary inquiry. They weren't interested in the opinions of those who gave evidence expressing concerns about the question, so they can't tell us that it was a genuine process and that they really wanted to bring Australians together as part of what they are looking to do in support of Indigenous Australians. It was never a genuine process; it was always a zombie process from the start. I say that reluctantly, respecting this place and effectively reflecting on a committee of the parliament. It never really had any other intent but to provide an outcome that supported what the Prime Minister wanted.

I want to make a point that I think the question is flawed and that is why I will be moving Mr Leeser's amendments. I know they won't be successful, because my own party is not supportive. I understand why. But unlike Mr Leeser, at the end of the process, I won't be supporting the question because I believe it is flawed. I want to make the point that the way that the Prime Minister has run this process has not brought us together. From a completely different perspective to the one that Senator Nampijinpa Price expressed just a moment ago, the Prime Minister has divided us, because the process of considering even the question wasn't inclusive, so I won't support the question at the second reading or the third reading, because I want it to be on the record and I want the Prime Minister to take the responsibility, as he should, for this flawed process. He will try to do what he always does and blame everybody else. That is what he will do. In fact, in my view, that is what he set this process up to do. He wants to point to us across the chamber and say, 'It's your fault it didn't get up.' If he had done as I indicated in the op-ed that I wrote back in January, when there was still plenty of time for him to have a process that was inclusive, the discussion we are having now could be very different, and the outcome could be very different.

As so many have said in this debate, in the circumstances where both sides of politics are not supporting a question on an Australian referendum, it has little chance. The Prime Minister, by the way that he has run this process, bears the responsibility for the division, for not allowing us to come together. It is his responsibility, and I reject any assertion to the contrary that it might be anyone else's fault. He is the leader of this country, and he should have been the one to put together a process that brought us together to support the improvement of circumstances for Indigenous Australians.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to begin my remarks by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land from which I speak today, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people. I thank them for the custodianship and care for this beautiful country, the Canberra region, which so many of us now call home. The mountain ranges, the limestone plans, the rivers that surround us here have been cared for continuously for tens of thousands of years by local First Nations people, connected closely to the cultural importance of this landscape. These are places I was lucky enough to grow up surrounded by, but I didn't know enough about First Nations people's connection to the land that I grew up in and around. It wasn't a focus in the education curriculum back then, and there weren't a lot of other ways to learn about Canberra's history before it became our nation's capital. This has slowly started to change, and I sincerely hope that recognition through our nation's Constitution, with a voice to parliament, will help continue to grow that knowledge and gift that knowledge for future generations.

I would also like to acknowledge Senator Pat Dodson, who can't be with us today in person, but who I know is with us in all of our hearts.

It was in 1993 that the Native Title Bill passed the Senate. It was debated for an historic 52 hours. When it passed at 11.58 pm on 22 December, the Senate broke into applause, cheering and laughter, according to recollections of Dr Rosemary Laing, the Clerk of the Senate at the time. Today is another milestone in the Senate's history. The proposed amendment to the Constitution will further cement and enhance the important work that has already come before us to recognise First Nations people's unique place in our history. Furthermore, these changes will give Australia's First Peoples a say in matters that directly affect them. For over 60,000 years, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have occupied the Australian continent. They represent the oldest continuous living culture in human history. They have been careful custodians of Australia's lands, waters and skies over a span of time that is so long and so deep as to be almost inconceivable.

I remember the day I first read the Uluru Statement from the Heart, when it was first publicly released in 2017 after that historic gathering at Uluru. A short, powerful, generous and heart-wrenching statement to help guide the way forward towards recognition and genuine reconciliation. I was stunned by the generosity contained within—recognition, consultation, a coming together of a country and an invitation to walk together. I was so taken by the generous nature of that statement. I was thinking, after all that had happened—the massacres, the diseases, the policies which had destroyed families and lives for generations; the disadvantage that continues in many parts of this country; the impacts on First Nations children, on culture, on language; the failed policies of government after government—and knowing all that, as we do, we see through the Uluru statement a hand extended. It is a pathway mapped out, searching to find a better way for all of us—for the country, for the future. It is a generous and determined invitation, determined not to lose the opportunity to start to correct the path we are currently on. The passage of this bill tonight will put us firmly on that path, an important step towards giving every Australian voter the chance to vote for a better future for this country. It won't surprise anyone in this chamber to know that I can't wait to vote yes to a referendum question that will finally recognise Australia's proud history, dating back more than 65,000 years. This should be formally included in our nation's Constitution, and the Voice will be the vehicle that ensures that recognition and respect is part of our national progress.

I am proud to be supporting this bill but I'm also humbled. Indigenous Australians have generously and graciously asked us to walk a path with them. This bill will give all Australians the opportunity to take a positive step towards reconciliation, recognition and, importantly listening to First Nations people about services and supports that work for them. This opportunity for a nation does not come along every day. It is rare, and it has been a hard fight for many involved over many, many years. This opportunity is special, and we must seize it.

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

I also rise this afternoon to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I come to this debate from a unique position. As a new senator in 2012, I led a small group of coalition senators to successfully argue against the Gillard Labor government's proposal to recognise local government in the Constitution, and just five years ago I witnessed the transformative power of acknowledgement when this parliament passed my private senator's bill to extend marriage to same-sex couples. It's from this position that I have carefully considered the proposal for a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament.

I make myself clear from the outset: I fully support constitutional reconciliation with Australia's First Nations people, and I now view it as one of our nation's greatest unresolved issues. In the months preceding this debate, every Australian I have encountered wants to see significantly improved outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and, like me, they are committed to practical initiatives that work towards delivering them. We are as a nation ready for some form of Indigenous constitutional recognition, but not one that includes this Voice to the parliament and the executive government. As a constitutional conservative I believe changing our nation's birth certificate requires a cautious and thorough approach, and any constitutional reform on any issue must be one that unites rather than dividing Australians, with full consideration of consequences and the full disclosure of details. Unfortunately, it's impossible to say that this is happening in relation to this referendum proposal.

There are many cherished values that unite Australia as one of the world's most successful multiracial and multiethnic societies. Foremost for me are the values of tolerance, fairness, egalitarianism and democracy. Contrast these four values with four concerns about the Voice, each at complete odds with the other. First, it is risky because of its legal ramifications, including capacity to challenge government decision-making in the High Court. Second, it is unknown because Labor will not provide key details to the Australian people before they are called to make a decision. Third, it is permanent, to remain in the Constitution forever, regardless of its complications or performance. And, fourth, it is divisive, something that goes against the fabric of our nation.

At its core, the Constitution is a legal document, our rulebook, and a primary consideration of any reform must be the legal consequences. Constitutional enshrinement as proposed here means authority is transferred to the High Court, away from our democratically elected parliament. Legal experts, including the government's Constitutional Expert Group, have not been able to reach a consensus on the legal effects of the Voice, including whether the proposal is constitutionally sound or immune to challenge in our courts. Renowned former High Court judge and president of the Samuel Griffith Society, Hon. Ian Callinan KC, expressed his apprehension, stating, 'I would foresee a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation arising out of the Voice.' He added that:

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

Justice Callinan went further, pointing out that the Voice proposes the risk of dysfunctional governance, querying, for example, who a representative to the executive would be made to and how it will be processed. Ian Callinan is a jurist I trust.

Another prominent Australian constitutional expert, the late Hon. David Jackson KC, observed that any attempt to restrict the Voice's power to make representations to parliament or the executive would be invalid. Even the Solicitor-General has acknowledged that there is room for argument on this matter. Liberal senators observed in their dissenting report to the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum:

If proposed s 129 is interpreted by the High Court in a way that imposes on the Executive either a duty to consult the Voice or consider its representations, this will have profoundly disruptive effects on the operation of government.

Former Justice of the Federal Court, Hon. Roger Giles KC, shared these concerns, noting that we cannot rely on assertions that the High Court wouldn't imply a duty to consult the Voice.

Our constitution, because of the clarity and protection it has provided for more than 120 years, has a precious legacy. Listening to these informed legal perspectives and to the uncertainty surrounding the working reality of the Voice, Australians cannot be asked in good faith to risk this precious legacy on something they know so little about. When it comes to the Voice, or any constitutional amendment, the details should come before the vote, not the other way around. Is it any wonder that Australians are increasingly suspicious of the unorthodox approach taken by the Albanese government? Among other things it refuses to make publicly available the advice provided on the Voice by the Solicitor-General. The reality is that Australians are being starved of the information needed to make a considered decision.

Here, I feel I can remind the Prime Minister of the hard-earned lessons of the same-sex marriage debate—lessons I fear that he and Labor have conveniently overlooked or chosen to ignore. First: it's rarely the first proposal that wins the day. The bill that successfully passed this parliament was not the first, but the 23rd bill dealing with marriage equality. The parliamentary process was genuinely multipartisan, culminating in a unanimous committee report and the presentation of a bill that crafted a single proposal out of many views. Unlike in this case, that proposal was not owned by one group at the expense of another. And full details of the legislation were released to the public three months before the plebiscite vote, ensuring Australians understood what they were voting for. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said:

What I am not going to do, …, is to go down the cul-de-sac of getting into every detail. Because that is not a recipe for success.

Repeated calls for detail have been dismissed as an attempt to derail the Voice, but what we're dealing with is a conscious policy of vagueness, aimed at encouraging Australians to write a blank constitutional cheque. In my experience, it is a grave error of judgement by any government to try to convince a public so historically reluctant to change its Constitution.

The Australian Constitution should be celebrated as much for its simplicity as for the nation it has guided. Generally invisible to us in our daily lives, it is the solid foundation on which our parliamentary and civic structures have been created. Only eight of 44 proposals for change have been successful, and only one under Labor—in 1946. It's a testament for the most part of the constitutional conservatism and good judgement of Australian voters. Constitutional change is deliberately difficult. The founding fathers sought to 'prevent change being made in haste or by stealth' and chose the referendum mechanism 'to encourage public discussion and to delay change until there is strong evidence that it is desirable, irresistible and inevitable'. Those intentions, as relevant now as they were 120 years ago, should not be forgotten, and I stress that the referendum mechanism makes it equally difficult to subsequently amend changes to the Constitution, which is why it's essential that any benefits of the Voice are carefully weighed against its long-term consequences.

A person's sex, prejudice or political affiliation should not impact them ability to shape their own future or to vote in accordance with their conscience. The Institute of Public Affairs publication One voice: racial equality in the Australian Constitution, describes the Voice proposal as 'an affront to the basic principle that every Australian gets the same say over the future of the country and that each Australian's voice matters equally'. It goes on to say:

… the Voice if established would risk fundamentally and permanently dividing Australians by their race. The idea that one group of Australians would have different—and separate—political and legal rights based on their racial or ethnic background undermines the most basic values Australians have stood and fought for over generations.

We should be proud that all Australians have the right to contest and win entry to this parliament and that their success or otherwise is based on the mandate of all Australians. That is why the parliament, enshrined in the Constitution, is the best vehicle to represent Australians and determine public policy. Parallels and differences are inevitably being drawn between the upcoming Voice referendum and that of 1967, which represented such a landmark victory for equality. In that referendum nearly 60 years ago, Australians voted to remove race references from the Constitution, an affirmation of the belief that race has no place in our founding document. And it shouldn't be overlooked that our Constitution has paved the way to record levels of Indigenous representation in the current parliament: eight senators, representing five different political parties, and three members of the House of Representatives, representing electorates as diverse as Sydney, northern New South Wales and the Northern Territory. Ours is a parliamentary democracy that works for every Australian.

I am committed to working towards constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, but I'm opposed to the form proposed in this constitution alteration bill. There is significant work to be done. However, when I reflect on the milestones reached thus far on the journey to reconciliation and genuine recognition, I remain ambitious, encouraged and optimistic, and I am someone who welcomes that embrace of Indigenous consciousness that now sits much more easily across the whole country. But there is no shame in defeating a bad idea if there is a resolve to soldier on and find a better way—a better way born from genuine cooperation and one that will enjoy the widest possible community endorsement. I commit myself to that project if this referendum fails. Until then, I'm satisfied to continue to trust the voices of Kununurra, Derby, Halls Creek and Fitzroy Crossing over a voice in Canberra.

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

CETT () (): I too rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill. In my first speech to the Senate, I talked about the fact that I'd had a career in the Army as a pilot that spanned a couple of decades, that I'd had the privilege to travel throughout Australia, working in the bush, in our cities and the outback, and that I'd had the chance to see 'the best and the worst of life for Australia's first people in contemporary Australia'. That's why I support recognition for Australia's First Peoples. That's why I care about removing the barriers that stop individuals, families and communities living in safety and with every opportunity to achieve their potential. What I've seen firsthand, however, is that the circumstances and needs vary widely. There is not one ubiquitous problem and there is not one universal solution.

I believe I have a duty as an elected representative for all South Australians, regardless of race, to scrutinise proposals that come to this parliament, to evaluate the promised outcomes for likely efficacy and to look for potential unintended consequences. Again going back to my first speech, I highlighted that the largest part of my career was as an experimental test pilot. I said:

By definition, I am therefore an optimist …

I am also someone who's not afraid of change. But, as I said:

I am a conservative because, no matter how visionary the design, there are certain laws of physics that cannot be ignored and have guided design principles over the years for good reason. I am unafraid of change because we can always improve, but the risk must be measured because no system operates in isolation and unintended consequences can result in tragedy. The same can be said about public policy.

This principled and evidence based approach is relevant to how we consider Labor's model for the Voice, and it's certainly the approach I've taken. Today I wish to discuss this issue in the context of principles and issues which include recognition, equality under the law, representative democracy, the importance of the Constitution, the concept of never signing a blank cheque and the importance of understanding the efficacy of a proposed solution, its potential failure modes and unintended consequences.

Firstly, the key differences in this debate are not about recognition. All the major parties in this parliament support recognition of our First Australians. But recognition is just one part of the Canberra voice being proposed by the Albanese government. The Albanese government is asking Australians to support a referendum that would change the basis of law in Australia and is acknowledged by its proponents as just the beginning of a process that spans voice, treaty and truth without providing details on what that actually means, how it will work, who will be involved and how much it will cost.

It's also a proposal that's flawed in its claims, as detailed by my colleague Senator Liddle, an Indigenous woman who is a great representative for the people of South Australia. We also have deep concerns about the process. The Aboriginal elders who were recognised as having authority to speak for Uluru reached out to her, and they have highlighted that, like the Trojan horse, the Voice is not what it appears. In fact, the very process that has led us to this point has ignored the authority of their Indigenous voices and disrespected their culture, undermining promised outcomes of empowerment and representation that the Voice proponents claim it will deliver.

Secondly, there is the issue of equality under the law. Australia's is proud of its reputation as an egalitarian nation where everyone is equal before the law. Our national anthem says that we are 'one and free'. 'One' includes the most recent migrants, who we welcome as Australian citizens at ceremonies in communities around the country. It includes those families, like mine, that have been here for a number of generations. And it includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, whose ancestors arrived on this continent before Australia's modern history. But being 'one' means that we are all equal under the law. It is worth noting that, in this week when we have debated the Voice, we also mark 808 years since King John of England agreed to the Magna Carta, a royal charter that put limits on arbitrary rule and established the fundamental principle that nobody is above the law, not even the king. This concept of equality before the law underpins Australia's Constitution. It has been key to the development of our national character.

Labor's model for a Canberra voice actually divides Australia on the basis of race and creates inequality. Australian Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay, as someone with expertise in both constitutional and human rights law, has stated that the Voice:

… inserts race into the Australian constitution in a way that undermines the foundational human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination and creates constitutional uncertainty in terms of its interpretation and operation.

If Australians say 'yes' to Labor's proposed model for the Voice in this referendum, we will no longer be a nation where all citizens have equal rights under the law.

Thirdly, Australia is arguably the world's most successful representative democracy. Every Australian has the opportunity—indeed, I would say the responsibility—to have their say on who represents them in this national institution that makes the law. By extension, they have their say on who forms executive government. I welcome—indeed, I see it as a success of Australia's democracy—that we have 11 elected representatives in the parliament who are First Nations Australians. Those 11 members and senators, like all of us, though, are elected to represent every member of our community, regardless of race. But, importantly, they don't just advise; they have a voice in shaping laws for all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, and those of them who hold ministerial portfolios are given authority as members of Australia's executive government. Representative democracy is what actually delivers the outcome called for by so many for Indigenous Australians to be at the table making decisions rather than just advising others on how they would like decisions to be made. And the government has failed to explain how the Voice will differ to existing bodies that advise the government and aim to facilitate better outcomes to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians—for example, the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which has over 1,400 staff; it's led by an Indigenous CEO and in 2023-24 is overseeing a budget of $4.3 billion.

Fourth, Australia' Constitution is our most important legal document. Australia's long-term stability and success as a free plural democracy is underpinned by both the construct and the established legal interpretation of our Constitution. It's a foundational document that doesn't get changed often—for good reason. Previous changes, though, have been preceded by extensive deliberation and scrutiny to understand the potential efficacy and the potential for unintended consequences of the proposed change. The inquiry into the republic referendum, for example, had 12 hearings, and that inquiry followed a full constitutional convention that engaged delegates from around the country. In contrast, this parliament's joint select committee was allowed less than 28 hours for hearing.

To deliver long-term benefits to all Australians, like the 1967 referendum, changes should not just be well understood prior to adoption; they should unify rather than divide Australians. Labor's proposed Voice model isn't just to the parliament but to all areas of executive government. This establishes a new head of power within the Constitution with unlimited scope, from the Reserve Bank to Centrelink, or, in the words of Professor Greg Craven, a constitutional law expert, 'from submarines to parking tickets'. Legal experts don't agree on the consequences of this, and they're not sure how any High Court would interpret such a constitutional change. But bear in mind that, once the High Court has made such an interpretation, parliament can't simply overrule it.

Fifth: blank cheques. Learning from history is the reason we have cautionary phrases such as 'don't sign a blank cheque' and 'don't put the cart before the horse' and why we talk about a Trojan Horse as a way to sneak in an outcome that nobody was expecting when they opened the gate to what appeared to be an unexpected gift. The Albanese government is asking Australians to vote for what they claim is a modest proposal—but vote for it without knowing exactly how this Voice will operate.

Some Voice proponents, including members of this chamber, confirm that this would just be the first step to further undefine changes such as treaty and truth. The Greens leader, Mr Bandt, is quoted as confirming that the Greens would receive guarantees on sovereignty and funding to progress treaty and truth from the Labor government. Others say that the ambition of a Voice doesn't reach far enough, and they want radical changes, including even a new seventh state composed of defined territory in Australia made up of Aboriginal owned or native title lands as well as an elected assembly with powers of state governments and its own constitutions. Australians deserve all the details before they vote on a permanent change to our Constitution.

Finally, how do we understand efficacy and the potential for unintended consequences? As to efficacy, I make three points. Again, Professor Greg Craven, a constitutional lawyer who was one of the experts behind the original proposal for an Indigenous voice, has described Labor's Voice proposal as 'a con job which is fatally flawed'. He said that the reality is that you have a situation where any person who wants to create difficulty for a government over its decisions can now end up going to the High Court. It will be very, very difficult for government to operate, either because it will be constantly delayed and tied up in knots or, indeed, because the courts end up intervening directly in decisions.

Secondly, in an era when we recognise the importance of hope, embedding this new head of power in the Constitution says to some of the most marginalised in our nation that they are and will continue to be different from everyone else and they will need this permanent additional help forever. And, as highlighted by Senator Nampijinpa Price in question time today, this top-down, Canberra-centric approach does nothing to help Indigenous communities on the ground who want local solutions to build better lives for themselves and their families.

But, importantly, one of the great unknowns is: what happens in advance of the parliament and government departments making decisions that affect Indigenous Australians? Even lawyers and judges can't agree on what this may mean. So, if there's a constitutional right to give advice, to be consulted, that means that government has to reach out to people to consult and provide time and finance to actually help them understand if there's a case they want to make a representation on. If they don't do this, then constitutional rights will have been breached, opening up the government to both constitutional and administrative law litigation.

Some of my colleagues here have quoted former High Court Chief Justice Cullen and others who foresee a lot of disruption. Some have quoted High Court Justice Robert French, who said: 'Given the immense range … there might be an interaction' and it would 'make government unworkable. I don’t think the High Court is in that business.' But the Hon. Roger Gyles AO KC says that neither the government nor any expert can give those unequivocal assurances.

We don't have to look far to see an example of how courts do in fact act in this exact space when imposing their interpretation of what consultation means in practice. December, just last year, following an action led by the advocacy network known as Environmental Defenders Office the full bench of the Federal Court of Australia upheld a judgement setting aside a decision of the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, NOPSEMA, to approve an offshore gas project in the Timor Sea that had been submitted by Santos under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Regulations. Why? Because the court determined that the consultation with an Indigenous clan had been inadequate, despite NOPSEMA and Santos highlighting they had met all of the relevant, defined regulatory requirements. The court upheld that the extant view on the scope of consultation was too narrow and that the clan had functions, interests and activities which may be affected by the project and so should have been consulted. The EDO, in the media release put out afterwards, celebrated the fact that this legal action and the judicial decisions to broaden the requirement for consultation would slow down, if not completely stop, this project, which is one that would increase energy supply to Australians helping to drive down the cost of living. So judicial intervention and unintended consequences that affect life for all Australians are not an abstract concept but a real risk if Australians vote yes in this referendum.

In conclusion, I will be voting no in the referendum, because I care about recognition, I care about equality, I care about representative democracy and the Constitution. I care about avoiding blank cheques and avoiding unintended consequences. As one of the so-called 'authorised dissenters', I will also be voting no to this legislation, and I'm glad for that opportunity, because, again, going back to my first speech, I quoted Edmond Burke and highlighted that I owe Australians my judgement as well as my industry, and in my judgement a yes to this referendum would be a bad outcome for all Australians regardless of race.

I would encourage Australians to support the better way proposed in the co-design process that's supported by the coalition. We've indicated that we will work with the government in a constructive manner to bring this about quickly and to bring all Australians together.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I start my speech by acknowledging all Australians regardless of identity, because, at the end of the day, there is only one race—the human race. It doesn't matter how you got here or where you came from or how you identify yourself, from a government perspective what matters is closing the gap and making sure that every person can be the best person they want to be. To do that government should focus on closing the gap, and what we know is that the real gap in this country is directly correlated to how far you live from a capital city. And, yes, I realise that makes Alice Springs furthest from a capital city and are probably the people that need the most help. But the fact is there are many regions in-between Alice Springs and all capital cities that also need help.

That's where we get to the rub about this bill. That is, there is no detail on how a voice will work, and what we've seen this week from Labor is that they claim to care about the environment, yet wouldn't support an inquiry into the impact of transmission lines on the environment. They claim to care about aged care, yet they won't say how many nurses they've got in aged-care centres on a 24-hour basis. They claim to care about energy prices, yet they didn't support a quarterly reporting system that would tell Australians how expensive their energy was. And, of course, they claim to care about women, yet they were happy to weaponise a rape allegation for their own purpose. So why should we believe the Labor Party when they say they care about Aboriginal people when they won't provide detail about the Voice? At the end of the day, if you're not prepared to provide detail about the Voice, why should the Australian people vote yes to this referendum when you want to make a permanent change to the Constitution?

I won't be voting for this bill, and I will be voting no to the referendum.

Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're debating one of the most significant bills to come before the Senate, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I want to acknowledge all senators who have made contributions by sharing their wide-ranging views and also acknowledge the respectful way in which these have generally been received. It is how we behave in relation to this debate that will be reflected in the community over coming months.

This bill will amend our Constitution forever. We've heard many tell us that enshrining an Indigenous voice in parliament is the only solution we should consider, but like many of my Liberal Party colleagues I do not believe that to be the case. We don't believe this proposal should be adopted, because it is risky and divisive, but we do believe in Australians having the chance to have their say on this matter. As a result, I will vote yes to facilitate the passage of the bill later tonight. There are, however, many questions that remain unanswered, many of which will be asked during the committee stage of the bill's passage this evening, although how many will be answered in full remains to be seen.

One of the major differences between the Liberal and Labor parties is that the Liberal Party places greater trust in Australia's democratic institutions. We already have the opportunity to give Indigenous Australians a voice in parliament. We do so by voting for them to represent us, not by opening the Constitution up to legal challenges from the unelected High Court of Australia. In his contribution to the debate earlier today, my colleague Senator McGrath acknowledged some of the great Indigenous Australians who have proudly served in this place. I'd also like to acknowledge my colleagues Senators Nampijinpa Price and Liddle and particularly note their excellent contribution earlier, as well as those of others around the chamber who similarly provide an extremely valuable perspective and contribution to our parliament.

The proposal for the Voice that Prime Minister Albanese has presented us with is full of unknowns. It is not fair on Australians to ask them to blindly accept the government's proposal without any assurances that it will deliver any form of improvement to the lives of Indigenous Australians across the country. I prefer to work with what is known rather than what is not. If we don't know how the Voice is going to work and if the government can't give us clarity on how it will work, then I believe that the only choice is to say no. Australia's constitution is the most important legal document we have. It provides a strong foundation to our democracy. As every word can be open to interpretation, we need to make sure that we clearly understand what every word on every page means. Even Australia's legal experts are unclear about how Labor's proposed voice model will be interpreted. Do we want to risk opening the Constitution up to misinterpretation?

Much has been said about the inclusion of the executive government in the proposed question. In addition to the risk associated with how the Constitution will be interpreted, I'm concerned about the additional risk that will come from the confusion of not knowing what aspects of parliament or executive government the Voice will have input to. It's a recipe for dysfunctional government that will lead us to a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation, as former High Court judge Ian Callinan has said.

Can we guarantee a Voice that comes from Canberra is truly representative of the needs of regional and remote communities? Every community is different, and a centralised, Canberra based organisation rarely has the grass roots, local knowledge and awareness to affect change. It's a huge risk we are being asked to take.

The Albanese government refuse to reveal any details on how the Voice would operate before asking us all to vote on these reforms. We've been told this is an important first step to reparations, but don't we deserve to know all the details before committing to a permanent change to our Constitution?

As my colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price has stated, this debate is dividing us, not bringing us together. Enshrining only one group of Australians in our Constitution, rather than encompassing all Australians, means our country will be permanently divided by race. We should be one together, not two divided. I also wholeheartedly agree with her sentiments written recently in Essays for Australia:

… gaslighting Australians to coerce support for a 'Yes' vote and calling Australians racist, troublemakers and uncaring if they do not oblige does not make for a healthy democracy and is completely and utterly un-Australian.

It's okay to say no, and it's okay to ask for more information. Instead of uniting Australia, this divisive version of a voice will forever be a symbol of division. We all want better outcomes for marginalised people in our communities. However, dividing it is not a path to achieving those better outcomes. There are not two kinds of Australians. There are Australians. We are Australians.

The reforms to our Constitution we are debating today represent a significant move away from our parliamentary system. This will change the way we govern forever. A democracy is a society where citizens are sovereign and control the government. A democracy must be fair for all, no matter their origin, ethnicity, religion, gender, age, education, sexuality or what they earn. What is being proposed with this Voice model is not fair for all Australians.

As pointed out by others in earlier contributions, this government argues that the Voice will advance the interests and welfare of Indigenous Australians but has not shown us how. We support constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians and we support the empowerment of local and regional voices across our country. We do not support dividing our nation.

The consensus needed to fully encompass all views on a voice takes time. There has not been enough time given to ask questions about exactly how this will work and to consider responses. There hasn't been enough time given to consider the legal ramifications of this model, and we haven't had time to think about the permanency of this change to our Constitution. Something that is so important should not be rushed through. Our legacy should be one of unity, not of division.

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

I acknowledge that we are on Ngunnawal and Ngambri country and pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. As an Yanyuwa Garrwa woman, it is incredibly significant to always be able to acknowledge the people on whose land we cross wherever we go. I also acknowledge all the First Nations senators here and the lands of their ancestors.

I want to thank every senator in this debate for their contribution—each and every one of you. One of the wonderful things that I sincerely enjoy about being here in the Senate, when we get it right, in the way we debate and put our case—it's important for our country. That's what I've heard over the last week. Sure, we've heard lots of other things going on here in this Senate, but when I focus on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 and listen to the debate of each of the senators I appreciate it.

In Yanyuwa we are known as li-Anthawirriyarra, which means our spiritual origin comes from the sea country. It means we listen. We listen with our ears, with our hearts. We know that we are imperfect creatures. We know that we have to constantly strive to be the better part of ourselves. And I see that here in this debate. There are those who are 'no', there are those who are 'yes', and there are those who are unsure, but all the while challenging each other to be the better part of ourselves throughout this. That is the tone that I ask that we keep and maintain throughout our journey towards the referendum—that we maintain that and we hold that.

In Yanyuwa we say gujingga, the sacredness of holding that story. This is our story. This is our story for this Senate, for this parliament and for the Australian people in 2023. Hold it with a great deal of sacredness. The gujingga—our songline, our map. The story that we are telling, we are creating. We talk about 60,000 years for First Nations people. For the Yanyuwa and Garrwa peoples, we know those stories have been passed down and they continue to be passed down. I share this with you from where I come from, from my heart.

I say thank you to each and every one of you, senators. You challenge us because we want to get this right. And we want to do it with dignity, respect and clarity. I also take this opportunity to thank Senator Patrick Dodson, the most amazing man certainly in all our lives but mine in particular. I just want to reach out to him right now and say: 'This is for you, Pat. You've walked with our country for so many decades, and you continue to do so with us now. You are right here with us. I respect your story as I share mine with the Senate.'

I thank Linda Burney not just as the Minister for Indigenous Australians but as an amazing woman—Wiradjuri people, her families. I thank those who have walked with us in the Referendum Engagement Group and the Referendum Working Group—all of you, and you continue to do so with a great deal of passion and patience. I know at times it's getting rough, but I say: hang in there and hold on, because when you walk with goodness, with your intent to be that, knowing that you're going to have ups and downs, then you keep that journey sacred.

Tonight on Yanyuwa country they're going to dance, and for the next three nights they're going to dance—the Yanyuwa, the Garrwa, the Marra and the Gudanji peoples—for the Malandarri Festival. I've asked them: 'Please, dance really strong for us so that I can feel this ground shake here on Ngunnawal country at Capital Hill.' Shake this place, my ancestors. Shake this place, my families. And you dance strong, because that is who we are. We have fought for four decades just to be recognised as Yanyuwa traditional owners in that part of the country. We know what it's like to fight. We know what it's like to keep persevering despite all the odds. We know what it's like to rise above another funeral, another death and the poverty. We rise with hope.

We may have what some in here may say is an imperfect road—you know: 'Is there enough detail?' 'Don't touch the Constitution. It's too precious.' 'It's too risky.' All of these things I've heard as reasons for why we shouldn't embark on this journey. But they still are not strong enough reasons to not try. We must try. We have to improve the lives for our people across the country, First Nations and all Australians. We will be a better country if we get this right. We will be a much better country. To inspire, to encourage and to be brave—that's what this time in Australia's history is about: to take the leap of faith, to be a better people, a better country, with all our faults, and to do it with dignity and to do it with determination.

People talk about not being united through this journey. We so want us to be united. We so want Australians to come out on the other side of this with that special feeling of knowing that they've contributed to a better part of ourselves, a better future.

You try working with your own language groups. We have over a hundred Aboriginal language groups in the Northern Territory. I try to work with all of them and more across Australia. But, if I focus on Borroloola and that region and the four language groups I've mentioned, in the four language groups we have the Yanyuwa, the Garrwa, the Marra and the Gudanji, and then within that we have the structure of the jungkayi—the protector, the keeper of country. And then we have the ngimirringki. The ngimirringki is the traditional owner. So whenever one group, for example, is not happy with the other group, we have to sit down; we have to work it through; we have to keep talking. We have to bring the jungkayi together and the ngimirringki together. And we sit, sometimes for days, to try and work it out, so that we come out on the other side of it feeling good and strong. We may not have found a decision that pleases everyone, but we will have found a way where we still keep walking. And that's what this journey is.

I call on all Australians: I may not think like you, and you may not think like me, and you may have come from Greece, from Italy, from Saudi Arabia, from the UK or from the US and made Australia your home. Well then, this is your opportunity to be a part of something special, to be a part of something historic. You may be a Muslim, you may be Catholic or Protestant—whatever your faith, this is your chance to be a part of something special; to create the Australia that we could have done, a long time ago, if we'd had the opportunity. Wherever you live across all the states—and I call on all of you, from New South Wales to Queensland, to the Northern Territory and across to Western Australia, over to South Australia, into Victoria and all you Tassie mob—every single one of you matters, and we need you. We need you to say 'yes'. We need you to walk with us, because we don't want to leave anyone behind, because we can be a better country. We must be a better country. In here, you hear all the ins and outs and the technicalities, and the legislation, or this law and that law. And that's okay, because that's what we are elected for, all these senators in here. But what the referendum is really about is you, the Australian people. Those that gathered on Anangu country called for Australians to walk with them. I reach out to you and echo that message too—a generous message; an invitation to walk in faith, with hope and with a great deal of love. And that means everyone—everyone.

We can do this. We should do this. We must do this.

To all those young Australians out there who I've talked to along the way: you know. You always say: 'This is a no-brainer.' To our young Australians: you give me so much hope. You inspire me, because you are our future. You are the ones that this will benefit more than most. You are the ones who can see a future that a lot of us might be too tired to see, might be too traumatised to see, might have had too many disappointments to see. But a lot of you young people see it differently. We also have to reach out to you and give you hope. We have to lift each other up.

I know there are those Australians, especially First Nations, who feel this may not be enough. I say to you: don't give up on us. We will get there too. Stay with us, and walk with us. It's hard walking in this system, in the Westminster system of parliament. But it's the only system we have to be able to try and influence in a better way.

Finally, I just want to say that it is the states and territories and the leaders of those areas, of those jurisdictions, premiers and chief ministers, who have supported Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney along the way. We know that much of that work, which is important work, will be done if we get the imprimatur of the Australian people when this referendum occurs.

In closing, I want to remember those who passed on the journey—our elders, in particular Yunupingu. And I want to read his daughter's words. About her dad, Binmila said that he:

… dealt personally with every Prime Minister since Whitlam. Many promises were made, but none were delivered in full. As a sovereign man of his clan nation, he was left disappointed by them all.

As his brother sang in a song treaty:

But promises can be broken Just like writing in the sand—

His daughter said:

Our father was driven by a vision for the future of this nation, his people's place in the nation and the rightful place for Aboriginal everywhere.

Voice, treaty, truth: that is what we want the future to be for our country for all of us. Bauji Barra.

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

I thank all senators who have contributed to this debate. There have been some fabulous speeches, none more so than the one we just heard from our good friend Senator McCarthy, the Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians.

We are at this point on our journey on constitutional recognition because of the work, leadership and stories of countless Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people over many decades. I acknowledge them and I thank them. I'd particularly like to acknowledge and thank the Minister for Indigenous Australians in the other place, Linda Burney, and our Senate colleague, again, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy.

I'd also like to acknowledge and thank our colleague Senator Patrick Dodson for the work he has done over so many years to advance the cause of reconciliation, including in this term of parliament as the special envoy for reconciliation and the implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Pat, we're all thinking of you right now.

I also thank those many non-Indigenous Australians who have worked towards constitutional recognition in the development of the Voice.

The Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 is a critical step in fulfilling the first request made in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. If approved at the referendum, there will be four simple lines inserted into the Constitution. Those lines will finally recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as Australia's First Peoples in our founding legal document after more than 120 years of exclusion and omission. Those lines will enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice in the Constitution. The Voice is the formal constitutional recognition that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates called for in the Uluru statement. Through the Voice, we will listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to create practical change and make a difference where it matters—in areas like employment, health, education, housing and justice.

I'd like to address three issues that were raised by those who oppose the Voice over the course of this debate. Some senators have asserted that the Voice would undermine equality in the Constitution and divide Australians based on race. This is untrue. This is about recognising the status of First Peoples in this country.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, please resume your seat. I expect there is going to be a considerable period of debate, and it is an issue that has enlivened a lot of energy in this chamber. I ask all senators to respect the standing orders and to allow each senator to be heard in silence and to take the opportunity to speak in accordance with the standing orders. I call Senator Watt.

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

As I say, some senators in this debate have asserted that the Voice would undermine equality in the Constitution and divide Australians based on race. This is untrue. This is about recognising the status of First Peoples in this country, and that status is not based on race. Instead, it is connected to the unique fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have occupied the Australian continent for over 60,000 years and represent the oldest continuing living cultures in human history. They have maintained a relationship with the land, waters and skies across Australia since time immemorial.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, please resume your seat. I draw senators' attention to the standing orders. I have already made a statement about behaving in this chamber in a way that accords with standing orders not only in the way they're written but in spirit. That shouldn't contain the debate in any way, but I urge all senators to respectfully respond to one another and maintain the dignity of the Senate. Senator Watt, you have the call.

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

The Australian Constitution has never recognised the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of this country, and that is what this bill does. The introductory words are very clear on this, stating that the provision is 'in recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia'. Former Chief Justice of the High Court Robert French has said that the proposed constitutional alteration contained in the bill would represent 'a significant shift away from the existing race-based legislative power that the Commonwealth has with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people'. Recognition of the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of this country is long overdue, and the Voice is the form of constitutional recognition sought by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Further, this bill does not give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples any special rights or privileges. It also does not take away the rights or privileges of any other person or group. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples face significant gaps in life expectancy and in educational attainment, and they are proportionally the most incarcerated peoples on the planet. The Voice would have tangible benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It would not negatively affect the lives of non-Indigenous Australians. In fact, improving outcomes for First Nations people benefits us all. The constitutional expert group made it clear that the Voice would not confer special rights on First Nations peoples, nor would it change or remove any rights, powers or privileges of anyone who is not Indigenous.

Some senators asserted that the Voice will result in excessive litigation and foul up the workings of the executive government. Again, this is a furphy. These assertions ignore the text of the bill. They require a selective and distorted reading of the evidence before the joint select committee and its inquiry into the bill. The bill has been extensively scrutinised by some of the best legal minds in the country. This includes the constitutional expert group and the Solicitor-General. They have concluded that the bill is legally sound. The Solicitor-General advised that the Voice is not just compatible with the system of representative and responsible government provided by the Constitution but an enhancement of that system. These views were echoed by the overwhelming consensus of constitutional and legal experts, who told the joint select committee that the amendment is constitutionally sound.

The Voice will improve the development of policy and legislation and the administration of programs. This is because the Voice will be connected to grassroots communities, and it will make representations to the parliament and the government on matters affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. When you listen to communities you get better outcomes, making a practical difference on the ground in areas like health, education and housing. That is what the Voice will help to deliver, and that is the evidence that a range of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and communities gave to the committee in expressing significant support for the Voice.

Some senators have unfortunately deliberately taken out of context quotes from former High Court Chief Justice Robert French and former justice Kenneth Hayne to support the ridiculous and false idea that government will somehow grind to a halt. Both Mr French and Mr Hayne clearly stated that the High Court would not interpret section 129 in a way that would disrupt the ordinary and efficient working of government. Mr French stated, 'I don't think the High Court is in that business,' and Mr Hayne stated that the argument that such an outcome would be destructive demonstrated 'conclusively' why the High Court would not make such findings. The bill is clear. The Voice will have no power to prevent, delay or veto decisions of the parliament or the executive government. The parliament and the executive government will retain decision-making power over all laws and policies. The provision does not require parliament or the executive to consult with the Voice before taking action. The parliament will also be able to make laws about how the executive government receives representations and what, if any, action a decision-maker needs to take in response to a representation.

The issue of sovereignty has also been raised in the context of this debate.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Support the amendment.

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

As we have said many times and as others have said, more importantly—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, senators.

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

the Voice provision has no impact on sovereignty.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prove it.

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

This question of sovereignty was put directly to the constitutional expert group.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Before I give you the call—do not give her the microphone before I give her the call.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's lying.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I give the call, I want to indicate again—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't want the call.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will direct this to you on this occasion, Senator Thorpe.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to say that that is incorrect; it affects our sovereignty.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I give you the call, Senator Thorpe—and I will direct it to you on this occasion—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I pass on the call.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You need to adhere to standing orders, and I thank you for your understanding of that.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hate seeing my sovereignty compromised in this disgusting place.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I expect there will be robust debate and you can participate appropriately, but please maintain the standing orders of the Senate. Senator Watt.

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

As I was saying, the Voice provision has no impact on sovereignty.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prove it.

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

The question of sovereignty was put directly to the constitutional expert group, and the group advised unanimously that enshrining a voice in the Constitution would not affect the sovereignty of any group or body.

Some senators suggested that this bill has been rushed and that the processes that led to it have somehow been lacking. It is difficult to identify a pre-referendum process since Federation that can hold a candle to the consultation and consideration that has led to this bill. We have been talking about this and considering the detail of proposals to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution for well over a decade. Since 2010, there have been: the expert panel on the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution; the Joint Select Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; the Referendum Council led First Nations regional dialogues; the national First Nations constitutional convention at Uluru; the final report of the Referendum Council; the Joint Select Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples; and the co-design interim and final reports. The Prime Minister's announcement at Garma last year built on this work, and the government engaged in further robust consultation. A referendum engagement group and a referendum working group made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders were then established to advise government, supported by a group of constitutional experts, including a former High Court judge.

As a result of that process, some changes were made to the Prime Minister's Garma draft. Those changes were not extensive, but they were significant. The changes ensure that parliament will have broad and flexible powers to set up the Voice and respond as it evolves. The revised wording was then subjected to yet another process of public debate and scrutiny, including through the joint select committee's inquiry. The joint select committee recommended, after reviewing significant evidence through hearings and submissions, that the bill be passed unamended. The content has been extensively debated in the other place. Now, we are debating the words of the alteration in the Senate.

Australians can have confidence in this constitutional amendment. They can have confidence in the process that brought it into place. They can have confidence that constitutional recognition through a voice to parliament will work to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Uluru Statement from the Heart concludes with the following words:

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

It has been a long journey to get to this point. It will be up to the Australian people to take the next step, to move forward together and create a better future for us all.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the bill be read a second time.