Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 1967, Australians voted resoundingly to fix a fundamental gap in our Constitution to allow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be counted in the population of the country they had cared for, for over 60,000 years. The referendum was a culmination of many years of activism by people who knew that most simple of propositions—what was right and what was wrong. The over 90 per cent of Australians who voted in favour of that referendum and the advocates who campaigned for it would not have anticipated that by 2023 outcomes for First Nations people would be as lacking as they are. This fact makes the Uluru Statement from the Heart the resilient call to action that it is.

Fifty-six years later Australians again have the chance to improve our Constitution with the Voice to Parliament, a body that will begin the process of healing our nation. As Minister Burney and the father of reconciliation, Senator Dodson, have made clear, the Voice will do this through two simple themes: recognition and consultation, recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of this country and consultation by listening to the voices of First Nations people about policies that affect them—not to, not for but with. As former prime minister Paul Keating said in his landmark 1992 Redfern address:

It comes at a time when we have committed ourselves to succeeding in the test which so far we have always failed.

Because, in truth, we cannot confidently say that we have succeeded … if we have not managed to extend opportunity and care, dignity and hope to the indigenous people of Australia …

His words are still true more than 30 years later. It is time to change. The Voice begins that change. The simplicity of the Voice cannot distract from the momentous change it will bring. For me, this is the strength of the referendum question—big outcomes from simple changes, a courtesy based on common decency.

Enshrining the Voice in our Constitution is a key recommendation from the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the dialogues that guided the statement. There are two reasons for constitutional recognition. Firstly, it means that prioritising policy which impacts Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people does not become a fad that can be swept away on the whim of politicians. It signals that the contribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to the national story in the nation's birth certificate will be there forever. Secondly, it means that our Constitution can be truly ours and a shared document that recognises First Australians' vast existence and contribution to this continent. By recognising First Nations people in our nation's founding document, we can show that the Constitution is not about dictating to First Nations people, not about baseless legislation for First Nations people, but about sharing history with First Nations people—not to, not for, but with. It addresses that shameful doctrine of terra nullius, the doctrine that said Australia was an empty land, a land there for the taking. More than 60,000 years of spirituality, art, politics, religion, land management and law meant nothing when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights were terminated because they were not recognised according to British law. This was the doctrine that past politicians used to justify the taking of children, the forceful seizure of land and the wilful destruction of language and culture. By recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Nations peoples of this country, through the Voice, the lie of terra nullius will be nullified in the document that perpetrated it. It will be consigned to history, where all views that have held back First Nations people belong.

The importance of the consultation provided by the Voice cannot be overlooked. Some have said the referendum's themes of recognition and consultation are distinct; they are not. They must be thought of in tandem, complementing each other. By reducing one, the other is reduced. Recognition gains its strength from consultation. Consultation gains its strength from recognition. It is this fact, among others, that led the Referendum Council to conclude that a voice to parliament was a priority. The council found 10 principles to measure each proposal against: whether it did not diminish Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty; whether it involved substantive structural reform; whether it advanced self-determination and the standards established under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; whether it recognised the status and rights of First Nations; whether it told the truth of history; whether it made sure it did not foreclose on future advancement; whether it ensured it did not waste the opportunity to reform; whether it provided a mechanism for First Nations agreement-making; whether it guaranteed it had the support of First Nations; and whether it did not interfere with positive legal arrangement. According to the Referendum Council, a voice to parliament met each of these principles. This led the council in their first report to conclude that the priority of the Voice to Parliament 'is clear from the assessment'. The referendum is the culmination of an historically large democratic process. The Uluru Statement from the Heart, agreed to by 250 delegates, was born out of 13 regional dialogues attended by 1,200 delegates. This is grassroots democracy led by First Nations people at every stage.

My home state of Tasmania hosted a regional dialogue in Hobart which endorsed the Voice to Parliament. Some have said that Aboriginal people in Tasmania disagree with the proposed constitutional alterations. I think the overwhelming support from Indigenous Tasmanians during the dialogues debunks this. I've heard in this place and the other that Tasmanians support recognising First Nations people in the Constitution but don't believe that the Voice is the way to do it. Again, this is not what I've been hearing, particularly in the electorate of Braddon. I've been talking regularly with the community across the north-west of Tasmania, down the west coast and on King Island. Many of them proudly tell me that they identify as First Nations people and that their family are First Nations people. I've been hearing the same thing: people are energised by being able to make history, people appreciate a debate that can be put above politics and be decent, and people tell me the Voice is the right thing to do because it is about time and it's a simple courtesy that has the power to make real change in the lives of people who have long suffered in Tasmania.

Tasmanians know well the mistreatment of First Nations people. The 'Black Line' was a literal human line that moved across our island state looking for Indigenous people to capture, kill or relocate. Many of us were incorrectly taught at school that, because of actions like these, Truganini was the last Tasmanian Aboriginal person. Some have claimed that the Voice could reignite similar race debates to those seen in Tasmania's dark history. I could not disagree more.

In March I hosted a virtual town hall led by Thomas Mayo and my friend and colleague Senator Malarndirri McCarthy. Over 500 people tuned in on a Saturday afternoon to listen, learn and ask questions about the referendum. They told me how excited they were to hear from First Nations people from around Australia—people they would never have had the chance to hear from or talk to. They were grateful and excited that the referendum had provided the opportunity for this conversation. I did not hear anyone worrying that the Voice debate might be initiating race based discrimination. Perhaps this is because each generation—indeed, this generation—is much better informed about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders' culture and accomplishment than any generation before.

Tasmanians have told me that they are aware of this and aware of what their generation can do to educate the next. I think this is what Thomas Mayo and Kerry O'Brien were talking about when they said in their most recent book, The Voice to Parliament Handbook:

I believe it is up to us to answer their question with our actions now, in our generation. We should not pass on the burdens of our colonial past, nor a constitutional ignorance of our Indigenous heritage to our children, many of whom will become the future leaders of our great nation.

If we miss this opportunity, it will be generations before there is another chance.

In his address to the Garma Festival, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese talked about the referendum, providing Australians with the opportunity to be heard on the right side of history. So often in the history of First Nations activism, the importance of events is written after the fact. When Vincent Lingiari and his Gurindji brothers and sisters walked off their cattle station at Wave Hill, they didn't know what their case would mean for Indigenous land rights in Australia and how the image of his handful of sand would be etched into the national consciousness. They didn't know that what they were doing would make history; they just knew that it was the right thing to do. This is the spirit in which I hope Australians will take up the call of the referendum.

The task ahead is vast and doesn't lack risk, but, as the Prime Minister said at Garma, 'We recognise the risks of failure, but we also recognise the risk of failing to try.' The passage of this bill will put a simple but critical question to the Australian people. I urge all my colleagues to campaign for a strong 'yes' vote. I know that's what I'm doing, and I will vote 'yes'. The success of this referendum will set the course for an empowered future. My optimism is based on the simple fact that as a nation we are only as strong as our ability to walk with those who need it most. As the Uluru statement offers:

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.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it's an Indigenous voice to parliament that Australians are looking for, then congratulations to all—we've already succeeded. An Indigenous member of our great Australian community already has access to the same levers that those of us of British ancestry and those of us from all over this planet who now call Australia home have. It is our democratic representative process. This system has allowed for all Australians to have their voices heard through the voting process, and this process, by virtue of our great nation's ability to recognise injustice and to act upon it, allows women and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders the right to vote as well.

We can't allow those who seek to divide us to get away with the misappropriation of language. This is crucially important. The goalposts have shifted on what it means to be intolerant. To simply ask questions or to ask for detail or to have a different view on how to address the issues of inequality for Indigenous Australia in a calm, rational and respectful debate is enough to have you branded a racist. These are the people who want to use weasel words, labelling the Voice as an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. This way of framing the discussion implies Indigenous Australians within our own electorates and patron seats don't already have a voice, as if we are here in this place representing all Australians except those of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander ancestry.

And more than that, if you disagree with the idea then it also implies that what you're really saying is that you don't think Indigenous people deserve a voice. It is designed to intimidate and manipulate reasonable and honest Australians into compliance out of fear. This idea of a voice denigrates those Indigenous members of parliament in this very chamber and in the other place fighting for the plight of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Those Indigenous members and senators come from across the entire political spectrum.

We on this side of the chamber are more than willing to consider what the proposal is, but, as we have said, the choice, as it should be, ultimately rests with the Australian people. But the problem is, once again, there's nothing for them to really consider. There's no detail. There's no plan. There's certainly no transparency from those opposite. The coalition do stand here in good faith. We want to reasonably consider the proposal, but we need the government to come to the table and explain what it is they're hoping to achieve and how it will work practically. After all, it's one thing to have good intentions, even a good idea, but when it comes to taxpayer money and constitutional change we can't simply operate on goodwill and the vibe of an idea.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's tax law going to be in 100 years? Does the Constitution tell you that?

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we can see in this chamber right now, Senator Pratt interjects as we try to have a reasonable debate on this topic. Those opposite in government can't stand to hear anyone's view that differs from their own.

As I said, it's one thing to have a good idea, but when it comes to taxpayer money and constitutional change we can't simply operate on goodwill and the vibe. It needs to be grounded in achievable, measurable and practical reality with real outcomes. Surveys are repeatedly showing Australians want detail, and the Prime Minister is repeatedly ducking under the table. The government must set out specific detail. The question is: does the detail even exist? There are so many questions that remain. Who will be eligible to serve on the proposed body? What are the prerequisites for nomination? Will the government clarify the definition of aboriginality to determine who can serve on the body? How will members be elected, chosen or appointed? How many people will make up the body? How much will it cost taxpayers annually? What are its functions and powers? Is it purely advisory or will it have decision-making capabilities? Who will oversee the body and ensure that it is accountable? If needed, can the body be dissolved and reconstituted in extraordinary circumstances?

I would have thought these are very reasonable questions. It should be the bare minimum when proposing a change that could have lasting and far-reaching consequences for all Australians. It would be a totally futile, purely symbolic and empty exercise to implement any kind of system without ensuring that it actually worked for all Indigenous Australians. But we know that meaningless symbolism is Labor's lifeblood. Virtue signalling to the high heavens makes it look like you're doing something good without actually having to do the legwork.

My colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price has stood in this chamber day in, day out, time and time again, being the Voice for the people of the Northern Territory, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. She represents real regional voices, forgotten Australians who need a voice, yet we don't even know if the Voice is going to be their voice. So whose voice is it then? The inner-city bureaucrats? Only the Indigenous groups who vote red? At present, the referendum is risky, costly and especially divisive. As always, this government says one thing and does another.

We live in an age where questions are dangerous and dissent is criminal. If you don't swim with the tide of progressivism, you are the problem. You are not simply an alternative view, you are not still a valid member of the Australian tapestry, you are the enemy and should be forced out of the conversation. We saw that yesterday with a new campaign by GetUp encouraging people against the Voice to make increasingly racist comments to ensure their isolation.

Labor has not been upfront with Australians about the risk. Some Voice activists have said this will be the first step to reparations and other radical changes. The Voice, for some, is part of a three-stage process: the Voice, then a treaty and then something called truth-telling. But don't fall for these seemingly innocuous terms. What they really entail is the effective creation of a two-state system within this country that rewrites history and the law and fixes nothing. This isn't scaremongering about something imminent and nefarious. This is a warning about what is possible under Labor's Voice when it lacks the details necessary to safeguard this country from those unintended consequences. Labor has significant form on unintended consequences as a result of their half baked and rushed legislation, and we're seeing the dividends of that on our energy bills currently, on inflation and the cost of living.

Australians deserve all of the details before they vote on a permanent change to our Constitution. And we mustn't forget, at a time when Australians are indeed experiencing a cost-of-living crisis, the Voice referendum and the setting up of this body, if it's successful, will be incredibly costly. In the financial year 2023-24, the government has allocated $4.3 billion for the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which has over 1,400 staff. Their role is to advise government on improving the lives of Indigenous Australians. Labor's Voice would basically replicate this. There is no clarity on how the two would interact. This is not to mention the some 109 Indigenous bodies funded by the government in existence already that work to provide outcomes for Indigenous Australians. If the mechanism to address Indigenous outcomes already exists, what are we really voting on? If they don't work, shut them down and use that money to promote this new voice. The government needs to be honest about its agenda here.

The Australian people should be asking how much is this going to cost in the end. We've at least got some indication of how much money it's going to cost at a state level. You've got the treaty deals the Queensland government is considering, and they are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. It's not a modest change, and we don't know how the Voice will work, and this is just one state's arrangements.

How many extra public servants will be required to service the Voice? What is the anticipated recurrent expenditure? How much will taxpayers spend on motor vehicle fleets, accommodation and travel? We on this side are slow to transfer authority out of the hands of the people and into the hands of courts that do not represent them. But this government wants to jump right in, because it doesn't believe in its heart of hearts that Australians know what's best for them.

This voice is divisive. It does not give the voiceless a voice; it amplifies one voice over the others. The big danger with the proposed constitutional amendment is the destruction of equality of citizenship. As Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price says, 'We are one together, not two divided.' Enshrining in our Constitution a body for only one particular group of Australians will mean permanently dividing us by race, and many Indigenous Australians don't want this split. We need to bring Australians together, not divide them as Mr Albanese wants to do. This will divide our country along the lines of race and do nothing to help the most marginalised members of the Indigenous community. The Voice will forever be a symbol of division, rather than an instrument of unity—in fact, it already is. Noel Pearson has warned that voting no would lead to a future of 'almost endless protest'. Pearson even criticised Senator Nampijinpa Price for being trapped in a 'redneck celebrity vortex' and for being used by right-wing thinktanks to 'punch down on blackfellas'—hardly the words of inclusion.

In this referendum we will see, as we saw with the same-sex marriage postal survey, those with the affirming view labelling those with alternative views as bigots or, in this case, racists. But the question—and this is why I say, 'Don't fall for the language'—isn't about whether Indigenous people deserve a voice, as the 'yes' proponents pretend is the case. Not many in this country would deny a voice to any Australian. The question is about this idea of creating another bureaucratic body at great cost to give one segment of Australia a greater say than the rest of Australia, undermining the democratic process to, at best, make no difference to the lives of Indigenous Australians and, at worst, circumvent the democratic process to influence policymakers on all matters. This top-down, elitist Canberra voice does nothing to help Indigenous communities on the ground, those who want to build better lives for themselves and their families. We all want better outcomes for the most marginalised people in our community. The simple proposition of whether we are willing to divide our country along the lines of race is something we should all examine closely. The coalition does not believe that that is what Australians want.

Prime Minister Albanese is asking Australians to vote for this huge change to our Constitution, without giving them the details of how it will work. Many who advocate for the 'yes' campaign are trying to portray this as no big deal and something that should just be waved through on the vibe. It is a very big deal and it will change our country and the way that we are governed. There is absolutely nothing 'modest'—as Mr Albanese is trying to pass this off as—about changing the nation's rulebook. Our party's position is clear: we support the Australian people having their say, but we do not support this risky, divisive, unknown and permanent change to our Constitution. Our message to all Australians is this: if you don't know, say no.

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

I rise to commend the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 to the house. I want to begin this speech not with my own voice but by once again reading, into the Hansard, the collective voice of those Indigenous people from around the country who gathered at Uluru to chart our nation's path forward towards reconciliation or rebirth. Their words, from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, read:

Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs. This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from 'time immemorial', and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.

This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or 'mother nature', and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.

How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last two hundred years?

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

Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are alienated from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.

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

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

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

Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.

We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.

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. The question at the heart of this bill is not a complicated one; it is simple. We should recognise the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who have been custodians of our land for over 60,000 years. Australia's First Nations people are the longest surviving civilisation that our planet knows. In this bill and the referendum that will occur later this year, our nation has an opportunity to cement their place where it ought to always have been: at the heart of our nation's history, culture and, indeed, our political life.

Australians have previously faced the question of whether to embrace the ongoing journey of reconciliation with First Nations people. In 1967, Australia voted resoundingly to change the Constitution in favour of counting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our census. Fifty-six years ago, in a decision well overdue, over 90 per cent of Australians voted yes in a referendum, yes to the recognition of peoples who for too long had been subjugated by the laws of the very land of which they had been guardian since time immemorial.

I believe in 2023 that we are an even better nation than we were in 1967, and I call on Australia to vote yes in this next step towards the truth-telling that is fundamental to the common good, fundamental to our common humanity, fundamental to our future as a nation. In 1967 Australians made the decision to move forward as a nation, to right a wrong which had stood for far too long. We again have this opportunity to stand together as a nation, to show what ought to be our resounding support for Australia's First Nations people.

Seeded deeply in both my faith and my politics is the belief that all humans must be treated with innate dignity. In 1967, the churches were early advocates for the referendum and dramatically improved the uptake of the 'yes' votes. Now I am proud to see again that Australians of many faiths are standing in support of the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians and their Voice to Parliament. When Australia's Catholic bishops endorsed the Uluru Statement from the Heart, they invoked the words of Pope Saint John Paul II, who said to Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Alice Springs in 1986:

Your culture, which shows the lasting … dignity of your race, must not be allowed to disappear … Your songs, your stories, your paintings, your dances, your languages, must never be lost.

My belief in this bill and the rightness of the notion of a First Nations Voice to Parliament is a reflection of what to me has always been a central calling of my faith: to recognise in fullness and without hesitation the humanity of all those who walk this world with us. For centuries now, grave wrongs have been perpetrated against Australia's Indigenous people. Now, once again, our nation has an opportunity to recognise that innate humanity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, to hear their essential voice in the political and social arena of our nation.

It has been heartening to see faith leaders across our country recognise the deeply spiritual core of this undertaking and support it in the way they have. But I am yet to see images in 2023 that show the engagement on the ground of people of all faiths walking this pilgrimage with our brothers and sisters across this great southern land. I call on people of all faiths to stand in solidarity with the First Nations people of this country, and fight alongside them and with them for this Voice.

Broad alliances of Australia's Jewish community and advocacy organisations have repeatedly affirmed their support for the Voice. One such statement shared by 16 prominent community groups remarked:

Jews have also experienced the deep silence that follows atrocity and genocide, the experience of being abandoned by humanity, the struggle for recognition of confronting truths, and the tormenting powerlessness of not being heard.

I call on Jewish Australians to walk with our First Nations brothers and sisters in this time of truth.

Many Islamic faith leaders, the advocates of a religion which at its very core centres justice and the calling to stand up against oppression, have also expressed their clear support for the Uluru statement. The Australian National Imams Council's support for the Uluru statement was reflected in this comment:

Before 1770, Muslims engaged with the Aboriginal people of this land. They shared resources, engaged in trade and had a respectful relationship. It is a rich history and proud moment for both the Aboriginal and Muslim community. We continue with this respectful engagement and relationship.

Australia's Hindu communities have expressed the same support for the Uluru Statement from the Heart, reflecting on the history between Australia's First Nations people and our world's Hindu cultures—a history which spans over 4,000 years. The Upanishads declared: 'Every human must live selflessly and learn to see God in everything everywhere. He who sees God in all and all in God develops the right attitude towards the creation manifest in everyone and everything around you.'

Likewise, the Australian Buddhist community has endorsed the success of the Uluru statement and a voice to parliament, and has played an active role in informing the religion's diverse members on the referendum and why it matters. Both Buddhists and First Nations Australians have a core belief in rebirth. I believe this is an opportunity for us to seek the rebirth of our nation.

Our nation was born of the Dreaming. It is a gift to all of us, including those of us who followed the arrival of colonists. Our nation has a 60,000-year history. It is only right that this is formally acknowledged in our nation's Constitution. I often wonder how different our country might look if our first settlers had stepped off the boat at Botany Bay to meet First Nations people with compassion, interest and a desire to understand, know and live alongside them. The legacy of the British Empire and the harm inflicted on colonised people has left wounds the world over which may never heal. But we must do what we can to salve them. What I'm certain of is that Australia's history would be richer, and our culture the better for it, if those first moments of meeting between worlds had been guided not by the fear of difference or the need to dominate but instead by the deeply human drive to connect with, to see and to, in fullness and without fear, walk alongside our fellow man.

The next phase of our nation's growth will either be stunted by a 'no' vote or be enriched by a generous response to the Uluru statement. Time is an inadequate measure to describe the history of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. There is much we can learn from Indigenous Australians, and a voice to parliament would not only provide them with the opportunity to have a say about how they are governed and how they fit into the complex web of modern Australian culture; a voice would also provide a much richer opportunity for us to learn from the millennia of knowledges which has been passed down through generations. We will soon show our desire or derision for long-quietened voices to be heard. This year, my fellow Australians, we have the opportunity, as did our parents and our grandparents in 1967, to accept the invitation to learn, to listen, to grow and to thrive—one and all. The first settlers failed to do that when they landed in Botany Bay in 1788. We should not let hubris, arrogance and deafness rob us of this opportunity to reconcile.

Colleagues, we find ourselves at the centre of a rare moment in history. We are faced with the opportunity to choose what kind of nation we wish to be and whether we want to move forward to develop a new shared language of respect and recognition in our nation. It is rare that we have such a magnificent opportunity to truly chart a new path in our history.

We will make a choice this year about limiting or expanding that capacity. We take responsibility for ourselves in our own era, but, in our choice, the die is cast for all those who will come after us. Australians in 2067 will look back on the decisions made in 1967. They will look at the Mabo case in 1992. And they will see what we did in 2023. We will show that we were either led by fear and miserliness or enabled by hope, faith and love to envision a more whole, a more vocal and a more truly unlimited and glorious Australia in our profound and remarkable diversity. One day, probably far sooner than any of us are able to realise, what happened in this chamber and what happens when the results of the referendum are laid bare will be considered as part of our nation's history. Our choices and the words both said and left unsaid will be analysed and invoked by new generations of Australians.

My mind turns to what other reality we might be experiencing and what alternative reality Australia's First Nations peoples might be experiencing if the first instinct of those British colonisers had been not to subjugate but to see and to hear the voices of all those whom they encountered and to recognise the immeasurable and immutable humanity in all those who lived and walked these lands for 60,000 years. It is time for us to lift our sights beyond the warnings of eminent lawyers and their voluminous works and words. It is time to hear the voice, to heed the call and to join the chorus of the song masters who sang the Uluru Statement from the Heart into being. The Bible, in Psalm 95, urges us: 'If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts.' Let us not be the generation who go astray in our hearts.

Colleagues, this bill has been greatly overcomplicated, so let me repeat what our First Australians are actually seeking:

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

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

…   …   …

… walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.

I will be walking alongside First Nations people. I will vote yes, and I urge you to vote yes too.

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

ator McGRATH () (): As I speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, I would like to talk about why I believe Australians should vote no to the proposed Voice to Parliament. Despite the constant attacks from the 'yes' campaign which are directed at anyone who questions the Voice's merits, it is important that we have an open and honest conversation about this topic. We must consider the potential consequences and evaluate whether this proposal truly aligns with the quintessential Australian values of fairness, unity and democracy. Where the answer to a question about a potential consequence is, 'I don't know,' the safe choice is to vote no. If you don't know, you should vote no.

First and foremost, let's talk about how the Voice will be divisive. We all know that addressing the challenges faced by Indigenous Australians is crucial. This is something governments of all levels invest billions of dollars of taxpayers' money in doing each and every year. On this, it's essential to remember that not all Indigenous Australians support this Voice, this model or this change. By enshrining it in the Constitution we run the risk of creating a national divide based on race, because race has no place in our Constitution.

This proposal goes against the Australian values of inclusivity and unity. It goes against the boisterous, liberal, multicultural democracy that we've built here. We should strive for a system that treats all Australians equally and doesn't enshrine a permanent divide in our nation. We have seen how this Voice can be divisive in recent days, when a campaign session run by the 'yes' case has shown their ugly sides. It was not just sad; it made me angry to see a GetUp-aligned, pro-Voice campaign telling its supporters to deliberately alienate their fellow Australians as part of a cynical ploy to shame people into voting yes. This ugly attitude, this win-at-all-costs attitude of the 'yes' side, badly marks the 'yes' campaign. No genuine political campaign should seek to provoke racist attacks, which cause harm to so many Australians. This cynical attitude is typical of a 'yes' campaign that likes to talk about uniting Australia but in reality is doing the opposite. It attacks anyone who dares to question it and deliberately seeks to provoke fellow Australians. If the 'yes' campaign was serious about uniting our nation it would cut all ties with this group of GetUp activists. This divide-and-conquer strategy must be rejected.

Moreover, let's acknowledge the potential dangers of the Voice. All fair-minded members of this place should agree that constitutional change should be carefully thought through. The Albanese government's approach of figuring out the details after the vote is concerning, to say the least. Our Constitution is not something to be toyed with lightly. Our Constitution is not something to be treated like a draft press release for the Labor Party. We must ensure that any changes are well considered and won't undermine our democratic processes. Running into something without clear plans and details is a recipe for uncertainty and unintended consequences.

Unlike previous referenda, there's been no constitutional convention to devise an agreeable and unifying approach. Without this, we've arrived in this place where those who were once advocates for change on the conservative side of politics have been shut out, ignored and alienated. So it's perhaps not surprising that polling on the Voice shows that support continues to decrease and has actually spiralled to under 50 per cent this week.

Let's talk about fairness. It's crucial to recognise that within the Indigenous community there are diverse perspectives and not everyone supports a taxpayer funded lobby group enshrined in our Constitution. Fairness means that all Australians, regardless of their background, should have an equal opportunity to participate in our democratic process—fairness for the oldest Australians and for the newest Australian migrant. We must be cautious about creating a system that gives a certain individuals or groups greater influence solely based on their race or ethnicity. Our aim should be to create a level playing field for all Australians. The concerns about Labor's proposed Voice to Parliament are genuine and deserve attention.

It is an easy talking point for the other side, but the legitimate question of the government's agenda is actually a very normal part of democracy. Questioning the prime minister's approach is not muddying the waters or sowing doubt. It is actually something you can do in our country. We do have those freedoms. For it to be otherwise would go against our rich democratic tradition. It would go against all those who have given their all so we can continue to live in a free and liberal democracy.

But let me make one thing clear. My party, the Queensland Liberal-Nationals, will not be standing for lectures from Labor, from the left, when it comes to Indigenous voices. We have a proud history of embracing Indigenous representation. My party, the Liberal-National party, selected Australia's first Indigenous federal parliamentarian, Neville Bonner, in 1971. Neville Bonner's commitment to Liberal and conservative principles and his advocacy for Indigenous rights set him apart during his time in this place and when he left this building. Despite facing harsh criticism from left-wing activists, he remained steadfast in his beliefs and continued to champion the cause of his community. Bonner's unique position as both an Indigenous activist and a Liberal allowed him to bridge divides and advocate for change within the framework of Liberal values. His legacy serves as a reminder to those left-wing political ideologues that they should not limit anyone's commitment to advancing the rights and wellbeing of Australians. I should also mention that Neville Bonner's great-niece, Senator Joanna Lindgren also served in this place, representing my party, the party of Senator Scarr beside me and the state of Queensland.

Not long after Neville Bonner's election, in 1974 we proudly elected Eric Deeral as the first ever Indigenous state MP. Eric Deeral's story was truly remarkable. Coming from humble beginnings, he faced the harsh realities that Indigenous people in North Queensland experienced firsthand. His journey from a young labourer and ringer up to being a passionate advocate for his community led him to public service. In the fierce Cook electorate contest in 1974 he emerged victorious. What set Eric apart was his unwavering dedication to serving all the people of the Cook electorate, regardless of their race or ethnicity. In his maiden speech to the Queensland parliament, he emphasised that his mission was to improve the lives of everyone in Far North Queensland. He championed better infrastructure, such as improved roads, and boosted tourism. He wanted to create employment opportunities. He fought for more schools and increased access to healthcare services, prioritising the wellbeing of his constituents.

Eric Deeral embodied the qualities of an exceptional local representative. He didn't need a Voice to Parliament because he was the voice to parliament. Neville Bonner didn't need a Voice to Parliament; he was the voice to parliament. Senator Liddle doesn't need a Voice to Parliament; Senator Liddle is the voice in this parliament. Senator Nampijinpa Price doesn't need a Voice to Parliament because she is the voice to parliament. This is the difference between us and the left.

Even after losing his seat in the 1977 state election, Eric Deeral continued his remarkable service to his local community. He served as chairperson of the Aboriginal Coordination Council. He continued to work tirelessly to advocate for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. But Eric's legacy extends far beyond his time in parliament. He opposed the paternalistic policies of the Whitlam government and staunchly advocated for the rights of his fellow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. He argued passionately against handouts, recognising that true empowerment comes from self-reliance and self-respect.

We should all pay tribute to Eric and to Neville as being those true warriors for the cause of freedom and also for the cause that is Queensland. We should remember their legacy and we should engage in an open, respectful and empathetic conversation that takes into account the potential consequences, and ensures that any changes we make to the Constitution, or propose to make to our Constitution, uphold our Australian values of fairness, unity and respect for our liberal democracy. Together, this place should be working across the aisle to find alternative approaches that promote inclusivity, empower local and regional communities, and address the challenges faced by Indigenous Australians in a manner that respects the founding principles of our nation.

I believe there's a better way forward that will truly unite our country, but it is not by putting race in our Constitution. Race has no place in our Constitution. Our Constitution should be colourblind. Our Constitution should see all Australians for who we are; that we are equal—that whether you've been here since the Dreamtime, or whether you've been here as someone who arrived on the First Fleet or in the waves of immigration that have come to this country, we're all equal, regardless of the colour of our skin. We should look to the soul within people and judge them on that, rather than judge people on the basis of their race.

I will be voting against this bill and, I will be working my hardest in Queensland to ensure that Queensland votes no to this proposed constitutional change.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to begin my contribution to this debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) Bill 2023 by acknowledging the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, who are the traditional custodians of this land—land over which sovereignty has never been ceded. I also want to acknowledge all the First Nations peoples in this chamber from across the political spectrum. I pay particular tribute to the contribution of my colleague Senator Dorinda Cox, a strong Yamatji-Noongar woman and a proud representative of her state of Western Australia who, I might say, has shown genuine leadership in this debate within my own party and in the broader national debate. But let's start by acknowledging the truth that the land we're on was taken by force and is retained by force. But it always was and always will be Aboriginal land.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of this bill, which will allow for a referendum on whether or not to amend the Australian Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of Australia, and establish an advisory body known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, which will be able to make representations directly to parliament and the executive on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. On one view, how could this possibly be controversial? The Greens were the first party to endorse the Statement from the Heart in full. While we do support this Voice referendum, we acknowledge that it's just one step towards the greater goal of First Nations empowerment and justice. Critically, as Greens, we fully support and are fully committed to progressing the truth-telling and treaty-making elements of the statement alongside the Voice to parliament. Truth, treaty and Voice are the core elements of the Statement from the Heart, and I want to acknowledge that we have so much more to do to achieve that package in this place.

Before this year's joint parliamentary committee's recommendation to pass the bill, the 2018 Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples was asked to consider the work of the 2012 expert panel, the previous joint select committee, the Statement from the Heart and the referendum council. That committee also concluded by recommending a detailed design process for both the national Voice and local and regional voices; and that the government consider legislative, executive and constitutional options to establish the Voice, support for truth-telling and a National Resting Place.

The parliament has dragged its feet long enough to take meaningful action which addresses these long-standing historical injustices. Now, in 2023, we are still seeing First Nations culture under systemic attack.

Language forms an integral part of Indigenous culture and spirituality, and, at the time of colonisation, there were over 250 distinct Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages on this continent. Today, there are still approximately 145 First Nations languages spoken, which is remarkable. Just by comparison, all of Europe just has 24 official languages. First Nations linguistic heritage in this country is under real threat, with some 110 of those languages spoken by so few people that they are critically endangered. Yet we do nothing. That is unacceptable.

Culture lives, breaths and stays alive through children and family. Every day, far too many First Nations children are still being taken from their families, from their culture and their country. Some are stolen and put with strangers in out-of-home care and others are locked up in the most inhumane child prisons, which are devastating reminders that the Stolen Generation has still not ended. Where's the outrage about that from those opposed to the Voice? Where's the urgency on that from those who want to campaign 'no' to the Voice?

The damage and loss doesn't end at childhood. First Nations people account for 32 per cent of adults incarcerated in this country, despite forming just over three per cent of the population. This is a result of the material and legal bias faced by First Nations people in this country. Where's the outrage about that from those outraged by this constitutional amendment?

This structural unfairness is more than unacceptable. To be poor, excluded and silenced on your own land while surrounded by wealth and privilege is downright criminal. And it will be solved only by empowering First Nations peoples to set their own destiny, to build stronger communities and to gain a fair share of this country's wealth for their families, their futures, their kids and their elders.

Today, the Australian Constitution does not acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of this country, and it still includes provisions which allow discriminatory laws based on race. When we have coalition MPs saying the Constitution should have no provisions in relation to race, where's the outrage about the current race powers in the Constitution which have only been used to target and discriminate against First Nations peoples? The confected outrage on that point from the coalition is appalling.

A successful referendum can and must be the start of what will be decades of positive change for First Nations peoples guided by them that moves us towards truth-telling, treaty-making and self-determination. And I repeat, as Greens, we are committed to working towards this.

A constitutionally entrained Voice for First Nations peoples has seen support from all parts of civil society, both within First Nations communities and outside. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders' representative bodies such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body, the First Peoples' Assembly of Victoria, the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, Queensland land councils, Northern Territory land councils, Western Australia land councils and the Coalition of Peaks are just some of the First Nations bodies that have voiced their loud support for these reforms.

Australia's Race Discrimination Commissioner, Mr Chin Tan, stated that the Voice is a tool for realising the right to self-determination and one that will 'help better outcomes for First Nations peoples'. The Law Council of Australia, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, Multicultural Australia and many other groups, including professional sports clubs, have raised their support for the Voice to parliament.

This referendum is about recognising and respecting the First Peoples of this country and their culture, a culture that is the oldest continuous living culture in the world, a culture that has looked after this land, looked after their kids, looked after their peoples for over 65,000 years. We're just but a blink of the eye. This institution is a blink of the eye in comparison with that history.

I also recognise that there are committed, principled and engaged people from First Nations communities who are deeply suspicious of this move towards a voice. They've told me that they are concerned the same self-elected First Nations people who already dominate many of the formal engagement processes with governments also will dominate the Voice. They ask, quite rightly, how will First Nations people on the ground in towns in my home state of New South Wales, like Brewarrina or Bourke or Wilcannia, be heard and represented in this new Voice? They're right to ask these questions, and they're right to be deeply suspicious of any actions taken by this parliament. I understand the scepticism; I understand the pushback. It comes from experience, and it needs to be respected.

I've heard from so many First Nations mums and grandmothers who tell me of the fear they have of white government cars driving into their neighbourhoods to steal their kids. I've listened to them tell me of the panic they felt and their desperate moves to hide their kids when FACS or DoCS drive into their street. I've listened to young First Nations young people, who tell me their main engagement with government is being hassled on the street by police when their only crime is being black in public. I've seen First Nations elders crying when their pleas to protect their country from mines, bulldozers and loggers are ignored. The wounds are then torn deep in their culture and spirit. And I've seen, time after time, how this place ignores those cries. You can't hear those truths and be anything other than suspicious of government. This place, this parliament, far more often damages than helps First Nations communities with the laws and decisions it makes and the pleas and the calls that it doesn't listen to.

However, we also need to have hope that we can learn from this. Turn the ship around. Start making decisions that empower the people who know best how to advance the interests of First Nations people, which is, of course, First Nations peoples themselves. That is the hope of the Voice, and that's what I'll be voting for. First Nations communities around this country have faced more than two centuries of colonisation, oppression and violence. Today they stand strong and proud and continue to work, and to work bloody hard, to overcome the challenges facing them from our nation's structural and institutional oppression. They're asking us to believe in them and their capacity to decide their own future.

The Voice to Parliament is just one step towards achieving meaningful justice for First Nation peoples while we progress truth telling, treaty making and self-determination. I don't think the Voice is a magic solution to all of this, but it is a start. And this referendum will be a moment for the Australian people to say clearly and loudly, 'Yes, we want to walk this walk with First Nations peoples.' Together, we can take that first step on Voice and also travel together along the harder, the longer path of truth telling and treaty making. But all hard journeys start with a first step. Let's take that step today and vote 'yes' on this bill.

Linda White (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people and pay my respects to them as the traditional owners of the Canberra region and the land on which Parliament House sits. I also want to acknowledge and pay my respects to the Wurundjeri people, who are the traditional owners of the land where my electorate office is based in Melbourne.

When I was thinking about what to say today, I was reminded of something the Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, said about the Voice this week: 'If you're spending billions of dollars a year and you're failing, why keep doing that? Let's try something different. Let's listen to Aboriginal people talk about their future, because I reckon we'll get much better outcomes.' I think this way of looking at the referendum puts the whole question within a frame of common sense, and clearly articulates why we have to do something differently.

Over many years, we have spent untold billions of dollars trying to improve the lives of Indigenous people, but we haven't got any better results. In my view, to keep doing the same thing over and over again while hoping for different outcomes is not only foolish, it's dishonest. The Voice offers us a different path. It offers an opportunity to change tack, to let First Nations people into decision-making processes about them and draw new solutions for old problems that so far we have been unable to solve.

When I was sitting in the chamber on Wednesday, something Senator Canavan said resonated with me. When talking about something different—in this case consulting locals when energy infrastructure is being built on agricultural land—Senator Canavan said, 'The best decisions are always made when they're made on the basis of advice from people on the ground, at the grassroots, in local communities.' Senator Canavan then went on to say of regional communities:

They're trying to get their voice heard. That's all they want. They just want a voice.

Senator Canavan and I don't always agree; however, on this point I think he's hit the nail on the head. Policies are better when they are born from the 'advice of people on the ground'. Policies are better when they come from the grassroots. There is power in having a voice. Having heard him say this, it was puzzling to me why Senator Canavan, along with his National colleagues and so many of his Liberal ones, opposes the Voice to Parliament. The fact is all the Voice is seeking to do is provide advice to government from the grassroots of the First Nations community on policies that matter to them. That's exactly the same principle stepped out by the Nationals in this place on Wednesday. Given that, I suppose I'm wondering why, in the opinion of some, it's acceptable for farmers to be consulted on matters that affect them but not Indigenous Australians.

After all, that is what the Uluru Statement from the Heart requested, when 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates gathered at Uluru to endorse the Uluru statement and deliver an invitation to our nation to walk along a path of reconciliation to a better future for all. In 1967, Indigenous Australians were counted. Now, in 2023, they seek to be heard.

I come to this debate from a legal background. I practiced law for many years and studied law at university. At no point in my career did I think that I would be in the Senate, let alone in the Senate debating a bill for an act to alter the Constitution. Nevertheless, in the whole process of this referendum debate, I have applied that legal background, and it is by looking through that prism that I can see this proposal to change the Constitution is sound and will stand the test of time.

But we don't just have to take it from me. I also sat on the committee that inquired in this legislation. I want to take the opportunity to thank Senator Green for chairing that committee process so fairly. What I learned in the committee is that the proposed wording is legally sound and operates as a good reflection of what the alteration seeks to achieve—that is, recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the Constitution and enshrining a body to make representations to government on matters which concern them.

Nevertheless, a fair bit of misinformation has been put forward around the referendum, including the claim that the proposal will encourage vast amounts of litigation in the High Court. In the committee, we heard evidence time and time again from constitutional law experts, former judges and chief justices of the High Court as well as leading and respected barristers practising in the High Court. All of them confirmed that the claim that an avalanche of litigation is waiting around the corner should the referendum succeed is highly unlikely and overblown. I trust this evidence. Really, it seems to me the claim about endless High Court legal action being taken as a result of the Voice existing is not much more than a scare campaign designed to frighten and confuse people.

I also want to address the claim that there is not enough information about what the Voice will look like. This was a matter we heard a bit about in committee process too. Above all, it is important to remember that the Australian Constitution is a minimalist document. It's a document that is deliberately designed to set out broad powers belonging to the Commonwealth with the intention that the parliament will proceed to legislation detail in line with these powers. For example, in 1901 the Constitution gave the Commonwealth government exclusive powers to make laws relating to Australia's defence. This power is broadly laid out in section 51 of the Constitution. This power does not provide for how many military personnel there should be in the Australian Defence Force. It does not prescribe how many ships there should be in the Royal Australian Navy or where our barracks should be located. It also makes no mention of the Royal Australian Airforce, because, of course, defending Australia from the air in 1901 would have proved difficult given that aeroplanes didn't yet exist. And therein lies the point: the Constitution is designed to be a lasting blueprint for government, while the parliament is designed to debate and to make laws as required to exercise those powers.

This set-up has worked well for Australia for 122 years. So, when it comes to the Voice, it only makes sense that a plain and simple power should be inserted into the Constitution, and the Constitution will therefore fulfil its function as a minimalist document. That will allow this parliament, including every senator here to do our job of filling in the shape of the Voice. That is the process we have always followed and it is the process we should follow again. I actually think it is an inherently democratic process that gives the parliament, as the nation's sovereign decision-making body, an important and central role in deciding what the Voice should look like, and I look forward to that debate.

But it must be said that all these legal arguments for the Voice pale in comparison with the argument that enshrining the Voice is just the right thing to do. For too long politicians and bureaucrats have made laws and policies for Aboriginal people, not with them. The fact is that it hasn't worked, and it can't go on. The fact is that for generations Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been put down, locked out, abused, vilified, dispossessed and, frankly, murdered. The result of this systemic mistreatment has been political disenfranchisement—or, perhaps put better, the loss of a voice—and this voicelessness has created the reality we confront today. By a long way and by every measure, First Nations people in Australia die younger, are sicker, suicide more frequently, are more incarcerated and have more trouble finding somewhere secure to live than non-Indigenous Australians. There is no dignity in this reality for any of us.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have asked for their voice back so that we can all move forward together, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians taking a rightful and dignified place in our shared future. I support this bill. I say, bring on the referendum to make the Voice the ninth change to the Constitution since Federation.

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 make a contribution to this debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. It is I think one of most important debates we will have perhaps in my time in this parliament, but it is certainly a very important debate that this generation of Australians will have about the future of this country. At the heart of the debate is a need that we as a country have to break entrenched patterns that divide our nation. It's a divide which is damaging, which creates disadvantage and which, on any objective or even subjective measure, is not right. It's a divide between Australians, created by racial difference. But seeking to deal with this division and these outcomes by way of further division is not the answer. A united, unifying and meaningful approach, where the entire nation is taken on the journey for a solution, is the right way to go. I expect that that's exactly what most Australians hoped for in the conduct of this debate.

At this point I'd like to refer to the position taken by the coalition, which is to not support the question in the referendum, while of course allowing Australians to have their say through the passage of this bill, to allow the referendum to take place. But rather than the binary situation we find ourselves in, where it is the approach that is on the table or nothing, we prefer, as has been outlined by a number of my colleagues in this debate—and indeed through the committee process and by the Leader of the Opposition—to have local and regional voices legislated for to enable that grassroots feedback and input to policymaking and decision-making that we talked about earlier, and a truly bipartisan approach to constitutional recognition. That was our hope, and that was what we put on the table as we deliberated on our way forward on this very important and, frankly, very difficult issue for us to deal with as a nation. And we wanted to enact and push forward with that as soon as possible. I should point out that these of course were all part of the recommendations put forward in the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition, a committee process that I participated in, along with Senator Malarndirri McCarthy and Senator Pat Dodson.

There are options not being taken—those that I've already mentioned around local and regional voices. As I said, we have in front of us a binary approach, a question that people will have to answer when the referendum rolls around. What concerns me about this debate that we're engaging in in this place and out in the community—what I am truly worried about—is that those who have a question, those who are concerned, those who aren't convinced that what is being proposed by the government is the way forward face a degree of shame, rather than having a question answered, rather than being provided with information that might satisfy those concerns. They are deemed irrelevant; they are deemed—

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

It being 1.30, I shall now proceed to two-minute statements.