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

In relation to this very significant bill, I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

I rise to make a short contribution on the third reading of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. In making my contribution I want to make it very clear to the chamber what will happen on this side when this bill is voted on today. The majority of this side of the chamber will vote to pass this bill through the parliament. This is not though because we agree with what this bill ultimately sets out to achieve, which is of course to irrevocably change this nation's Constitution in a way that will destroy one of our most fundamental values—equality of citizenship. The majority of us will vote to pass this bill because we believe in the people of this nation and their right to have a say on this issue. Ironically, the referendum of course will provide an unequal say for every citizen.

What we tried to do through the committee process on Friday evening and into Saturday morning was to establish some basic information for the Australian people so that when they ultimately vote in this referendum they are properly informed. What we saw, however, from this government was a cynical exercise to obfuscate and deflect rather than provide the Australian people with the answers they both want and deserve.

Senator Watt of course was armed with his handy little booklet that he purported gave Australians the information that they need, but he wasn't armed with the answers to the real questions Australians are concerned about. On more than 100 occasions the best Senator Watt could do on behalf of the government was respond: 'Well, that will be a matter for the parliament,' or, alternatively, 'I refer to my previous answer.' It was without a doubt one of the greatest displays of an exercise in avoiding giving the Australian people the details that, as I said, not only they want but, if you were treating them with any form of respect, you would ensure as a government you were able to give to them.

Despite this government's inability to answer any questions on how the Voice will work, some things were established during the committee process. We showed that there are genuine legal risks that the Australian people are just being asked to accept. We showed that the only real attempt at explaining the Voice is a glossy two-page brochure; but what we also found out is that it isn't even worth the paper it's written on. Australia's Constitution is our most important legal document. Every single word can be open to interpretation. The meaning of the words in the chapeau, the meaning of the words in section 129(i), the meaning of the words in section 129(ii) and the meaning of the words in section 129 (iii) are all important issues, and not one of them was explained during the committee process.

What we do know, though, from our interrogation of the bill, is that it is four things: it's risky, it's unknown, it's divisive and, on top of all that, when you change our Constitution it is a permanent change. Enshrining the Voice in the Constitution does mean that it's open to legal challenge, and if it is open to legal challenge then it is open for interpretation by the High Court of Australia. Ultimately, despite what the government says, it is the High Court of Australia who will determine what the right to make representations actually means—a vital question that we did pursue in the committee stage and there are still no adequate answers to it. What we do know is that legal experts don't agree. And the legal experts, I'm sure, cannot be sure how any High Court will interpret such a constitutional change. Again, what are we doing here? We're opening up a legal can of worms. The proposed model, as we know it, is not just to the parliament; it's to all areas of executive government. It gives an unlimited scope, as we've heard, from the Reserve Bank and potentially to Centrelink. Or, in the words of a constitutional law professor, from submarines to parking tickets. What does that then mean for the Australian people and for the government that they know? There is a considerable risk of delay to government decision-making. And what does this, ultimately, deliver to them, potentially? The risk of dysfunctional government.

There is no doubt that every single one of us in this place wants to see better outcomes for the most marginalised people in our community. We all want to lift them up; none of us want to put barriers in their way. But in our national anthem, we now proudly sing that 'we are one and free'. What the Albanese government is proposing with the Voice is a way of dividing us, and that certainly does not make us one. As Senator Nampijinpa Price has said:

We should be one together, not two divided.

And as Ian Callinan AC KC, former High Court judge has said, 'I would foresee a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation arising out of the Voice.'

The coalition does not believe that this is what the Australian people want. Once the Voice is in the Constitution, it won't be undone. Once a High Court makes an interpretation, parliament can't overrule it. We'll be stuck with the negative consequences and bad outcomes. And what we saw in the committee stage of the bill on Friday night, and into Saturday morning, is that the government either will not tell or, even worse, is unable to tell Australians the most basic details. The government did not have the answers. The big message out of all of this is that the Voice is four things: it's risky, it's unknown, it's divisive and it's permanent. If you don't know how the Voice is going to work, my humble opinion is to vote no.

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

What a truly historic day for First Peoples and, in fact, for all of us. I start by acknowledging all of the First Nations people and others gathered here today in the gallery. We have a new generation of people voting in their first referendum and, for some of them, it will actually be their first time voting ever—and what a first vote to have! Eligible Australians will be voting to recognise the first peoples of this country in the nation's birth certificate.

We are the oldest living culture in the world. We have cared for this country. We have preserved the waters and ecosystems. We were the first inventors and navigated by the stars for tens of thousands of years. We are hundreds of nations across this country, with different stories, languages, cultures, arts and dances. Our people have provided many Australian governments with beautiful, deliberate and considered words in the form of statements, declarations and agreements.

Now what we need is action. That is the responsibility of all of us: Indigenous and non-indigenous, from remote communities to the decision-makers here in this place. And we must stand together in solidarity. In passing this bill today, the Senate will trigger a referendum and signal that the parliament's work is done. It is time for the grassroots 'yes' campaigners to get out there in the community and share with all Australians why this referendum is so important and why the Voice to Parliament is so important.

But this is only the beginning of what is needed. We need to restore First Nations' people's rights in this country. We also need progress towards truth and treaty. We also need that now. We need to see progress on closing the gap, community based health care, education in language, stronger cultural heritage protection and better legal frameworks to be provided for consultation on projects that are happening on country, either land or sea country.

For over 200 years since colonisation, we have been fighting to survive. The frontier wars saw our people chained and massacred on our lands and being systemically stolen. Government policy ripped our children from our families and punished them for speaking our languages and practicing our laws and our cultural traditions. Today, we continue to fight governments and fossil fuel billionaire who are destroying our sacred places, our meeting places for ceremony and cultural business, our ancestral songlines and our trade routes, which are in fact the social and spiritual fabric of our culture.

We are sovereign people and sovereign nations, and the Commonwealth government—

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

Why did you vote for it?

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

Sorry, do you have a contribution, Senator Thorpe? I'm happy for you to make it.

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

Order! Senator Thorpe, your interjection is disorderly. I am asking you to listen in silence. Senator Cox, please continue.

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

We are sovereign people and sovereign nations, and the Commonwealth government must treat us as such.

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

Vote against it.

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

I'm sorry, President. Senator Thorpe continues to be disorderly by her interjections.

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

Senator Thorpe, I have asked you to listen in silence. We're up to the third reading. If you want to make a contribution, you may stand to do so. Otherwise, I'm asking you to listen in silence. Please continue, Senator Cox.

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

Our sovereignty has, in fact, never been ceded. My sovereignty is my birth right to care for this country, to protect this country and to be a knowledge holder and to pass that traditional knowledge on to the next generation. This change in the Constitution will not impact on our sovereignty, my sovereignty. I would not be standing here—

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

Prove it.

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

Order!

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

I'm happy to let Senator Thorpe continue.

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

Senator Cox, allow me to control the chamber. Senator Thorpe, I have called you to order a number of times. I don't want to be constantly interrupting Senator Cox. I have asked you to listen in silence, and I expect that to happen. Senator Cox, please continue.

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

This change to the Constitution will not impact on our sovereignty, my sovereignty, and I would not be standing up here in support of this bill if I had any doubt in my mind that it would. The Greens have sought independent legal advice and we have had discussions with the referendum working group, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, who joins us here today, and many others. I want to thank them for their respect for our concerns and for taking the time to hear us and address these concerns. Ceding our sovereignty is something that I—and, I assume, all First Nations people in this place—would not want to do.

The Australian Greens remain committed to the full implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and truth, treaty and voice. The referendum is the first important step. I continue to push the government for the establishment of the makarrata commission to oversee that truth telling and treaty making. My message to all Australians is that, on referendum day, I will in fact be voting yes to unite Australia, bringing us together for what I see is to be a decade of change.

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

Today this parliament will pass the legislation to give Australians their say on Labor's Voice. As I travel around the country I'm constantly asked questions by the people of Australia wanting to understand the Voice, wanting to know how it will work and wanting to know what tangible difference it will make. These are reasonable questions that deserve answers. On Friday night and into the early hours of Saturday morning, Senator Cash, Senator Liddle, myself and others put those questions to the government. It came as no surprise that they couldn't answer them. To answer one, the minister would point to Labor's design principles as explanation for how the Voice would work. To answer another, the minister would dodge questions by saying all specifics would be up to the parliament. But it can't be both. This government is simultaneously claiming its design principles are the detail Australians are asking for while also confirming that nothing can be guaranteed until after the referendum.

Labor's Voice has received criticism from across the spectrum that the proposed wording is 'flawed' and 'risky', with some warning it will open a legal can of worms. Some of this country's top legal experts can't agree on how the constitutional change may be interpreted. What we do know is that the wording of this proposal gives Labor's Voice a near unlimited scope. When one constitutional law professor warned the Voice may have input on matters 'from submarines to parking tickets', his concerns were mocked in this parliament. The Prime Minister may mock these concerns, but the reality is he cannot guarantee that the Voice won't have input on these matters. The Prime Minister wants us to blindly trust him to sign his blank cheque and allow his risky proposal to be enshrined forever in the Constitution when he cannot guarantee anything. Labor showed us on Friday night that they cannot define what matters relate specifically to Indigenous Australians that don't affect non-Indigenous Australians. They showed us that they could not say what makes Indigenous Australians different to other Australians. When asked if Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people are Australians, one Labor minister even had to confer with his advisers and he still couldn't give an answer.

While all of this is important, I ask Australians to look at the root of this proposal and ask themselves if they truly believe that this is the answer. Will an extra layer of bureaucracy and red tape do anything more to help Indigenous Australians? Will a Canberra body of academics and experts do anything more to close the gap? Will a body made for one group of Australians to the exclusion of all others bring us closer together?

I understand Australians want to do everything they can to help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in need. I have seen this empathy and goodwill time and time again. But I also have seen it exploited, and I am seeing it exploited now. The goodwill of many non-indigenous Australians is being exploited by those who seek to profit in money, clout or power off the real problems being faced by marginalised Australians. This is a dangerous and costly proposal. It is legally risky and full of unknowns. It is exploitative. It is emotionally manipulative. But, worst of all, from the day Mr Albanese put his wording to the Australian people, the process of division was begun. We are being divided. We will be further divided throughout this campaign. And, if the 'yes' vote is successful, we will be divided forever. I want to see Australia move forward as one, not two divided; that's why I will be voting no.

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

Senator Thorpe, I'm going to give the call to Senator Pocock and invite you to go and put a jacket over your T-shirt. Slogans are not allowed in the chamber. Senator Pocock.

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

I appreciate the opportunity to just briefly correct the record on a few things. In the early hours of Saturday morning we heard much about the need to have a respectful conversation and for it to be grounded in fact. There are just a few things that have been said this morning that I think are already bordering on misinformation, if not well into that territory. Senator Cash asserted that Australians have an equal say in this referendum. I would like to point out that Australians who live in the territories only account for half. We only count for the total national vote. You don't actually look at the territories' votes. The other assertion was that this is adding race to the Constitution. Race is already in the Constitution. This is about ensuring that First Nations people, Australians First Peoples, have a say on issues that affect them. After 10 years in which we've seen things not improve, it makes no sense to hear arguments to say, 'Well, we shouldn't change anything.' Yes, if it isn't broken, don't fix it, but, if it's broken, it requires fixing, and this is an opportunity to fix it.

Senator Nampijinpa Price referred to this as 'Labor's voice' and the 'Canberra voice'. That is blatantly untrue. This is the result of one of the most consultative processes in Australia's history. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was presented to the former government in 2017. It is a generous offer of a way for us to truly move forward to address the entrenched disadvantage that we talk about so much here in the Senate chamber. I would like to acknowledge Aunty Pat Anderson, Professor Megan Davis and the many others here who have been working for decades to get to this moment—working for decades to get Australia to the point where we are willing to make meaningful, structural change to the way that we do things when it comes to First Nations people. We have an incredible opportunity as a nation, and my hope is that, as senators, we will all keep things grounded in fact when it comes to campaigning, regardless of our differing views on this.

An incident having occurred in the gallery—

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

Order! It's not appropriate for there to be clapping or any other actions from anyone in the gallery. Senator Thorpe.

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

Well, happy assimilation day! Sovereignty has never been ceded, but, for the first time in this country's history, people are starting to talk about sovereignty and what that actually means. Recognising First Peoples' sovereignty in this country will dissolve this colonial, violent institution that we're all in right now, and that's why you won't acknowledge sovereignty in the racist Australian Constitution. That's why the Greens voted it down—and the hypocrisy of climate! This is a colonial institution with colonial laws. I'm here—yes, I'm here—to infiltrate it, to rattle the cages and to destroy the white supremacy that is represented in this place.

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

Senator Thorpe, I remind you to make your comments to the President.

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

I am here for five more years. I don't need anyone's vote, I don't need anyone's white guilt, and that's what this is about. It's appeasing the white guilt in this country by giving the poor little black fellas a powerless advisory body, where those in the parliament—this place, and have a look at it—decide what it is and who it is. It might be one person; a body doesn't mean a group of people. It could be Noel Pearson, it could be one of them fellas up there—poster boy himself. Well, poster boy also followed me around the meeting at Uluru. Oh, it is terrible isn't it, but you won't talk to the black sovereign movement about these issues? You have denied their space at the table to tell you what really happened over those two days at Yulara: the violence, the intimidation, the bullying.

What about the referendum meetings? What happened at those? We had an old man with one arm who lit a fire in protest at Blacktown in Sydney, at the Sydney dialogue. One arm, he had. He lit a fire with his grandkids to protest. What happened to him? Fire brigade came, put his fire out. Remember that? You remember that they put his fire out and they arrested him and they put him in the back of a divvy wagon outside that dialogue. I had the chair of the Referendum Council throw the microphone across the table at me at the Melbourne dialogue. Let's talk about that:100 people in the room, and they all witnessed it. You remember that. That's the bullying and intimidation and threats that have gone on for six years.

For six years they have denied the black sovereign movement. Megan Davis said it already in her speech. We excluded black leaders because they were cynical. They even admitted to not having real black grassroots leaders at the table. They had the numbers sewn up in those dialogues. They had it all sewn up. They had all the land councils and the organisations. They did the numbers. They said: 'Right, Noel, we've got it. It's going to happen.' And what do you know? Here we are today. And, yes, I wore my gammin T-shirt.

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

Senator Thorpe, please resume your seat. I asked you respectfully—in fact, I ordered you to cover your shirt because any slogans that can be read by me are inappropriate, so please don't also refer to it. Please continue.

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

Thank you, President. Gammin, as we know, is a fake, pretend, a joke. And that is what I think a powerless voice to this place is. We have fought for over 200 years against colonisation. The Constitution is an illegal document. It's illegal. The occupation of this country is illegal. You are following the King—the King! We are all bound by the King. And now, poor little black fellas are begging for a seat at the table, and all we get is to become advisers with no power. Well, I am ashamed. I am ashamed that we are not standing here for a treaty, or for some truth to happen in this country, and that we have followed a conservative regime—John Howard's regime—Labor. His position, and the King's position, is to wipe us out. We're a problem. We're certainly a problem to this mob. We're just a problem that needs to be fixed all the time, and you are just tinkering around the edges. You won't implement the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. You've had ample time to do that in the last 32 years. You've had ample time to implement the recommendations regarding the stolen generations. You are completely gammin—fake; you're not genuine. You wave your flag, wear your deadly black earrings and feel really good about it. We're hearing all of these beautiful heartfelt stories about how this is going to fix our lives and solve everything. But we can't even do anything until after this referendum. In estimates we were told, 'Wait till the referendum; wait till the referendum.' Meanwhile, our children are being tortured in prisons. Our babies are being stolen from their mothers' arms. Our people are taking their lives. Young men are telling me about the hanging points in their cells. They're passing the word around because they've had enough.

What does the Labor government do about that? They say, 'It's state and territory responsibility; we're washing our hands from this.' But there are federal responsibilities that you also ignore. The Blak sovereign movement is a voice that you never allowed at the table. If that is anything to go by, then what hope has your tokenistic Voice got? Who's going to listen to a token voice? Do you—just you—want the Voice to tell you that you need to stop killing our people? I hope the Voice is going to tell this parliament that they've got to stop killing our people. They've got to stop the suicides. They've got to stop assimilating us into their system.

We, First Peoples in this country, have the oldest constitution on the planet. Why are we begging like paupers, again, to go into a white, racist, colonial constitution that was set up to deny everything that we are, to destroy our lands and our waters, to destroy everything as quickly as they could, to extract as much resource as possible from stolen land, and to dispossess us and make a nice life for yourselves? There is not one law in this country that has ever, ever been good for us—not one. And now we're meant to accept a powerless voice. It is truly assimilating our people so we fit nicely as your little Indigenous Australians. It's what you want us to be, right? You don't want us to speak our language. You don't want us to practise our culture—except when you go to some festival and feel good about it. That's the only time you want to look at our culture—when it suits you; when you want to hang a painting in your Senate office. It doesn't back up what you're actually doing. You are crucifying us again, giving us no power.

If you are genuine, give us Senate seats in here, like they do in New Zealand. Have a treaty like they do. Why can't we do that? What are you scared of, Labor? Hawke got sidelined by his conservatives at the time, and was told not to pursue treaty. You know that. Keating tried and he got shut down. And Albo obviously has no guts to even go there—

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

Senator Thorpe, I remind you to refer to people in the other place by their proper titles.

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

The Labor Prime Minister of this country has not even got the courage to come out and say that he wants a treaty. He's going straight for constitutional recognition, to put us in there—so that we're nice, good little Aborigines with a parliament supremacy over us at all times. Well done! Well done on the assimilation agenda. You had the Greens' backing, which is why I left.

This is a point in this country where it's the final nail in the coffin. I'll be voting no to this disastrous idea of giving us no power. If this bill gave us power then I would have thought about supporting it, but I can't support something that gives my people no power. I can't support something that is hand-picked by whoever is in power. I can't support something that is just going to be considered as not very important in this place. We know how we operate in this place; it's hard enough to find time for a meeting. Who's going to have time to listen to the Voice's opinion? You don't have to turn up to get the advice; it's just advice. I've been a previous adviser to ministerial groups and women's ministerial advisory bodies—I've done all that. You're just a token adviser.

So happy assimilation day, everybody. Many clans and nations around this country do not support assimilating into such a racist, colonial regime, and we'll continue to push for our sovereignty to be acknowledged. We'll continue to push for a treaty and we'll continue to push for peace—real peace—in this country. Not the peace that we've seen over the last six years of this campaign, and the bullying which has really divided so many families and communities. We're not going away. We have survived. We have survived massacres and murders over the last 230 years, and we'll continue to survive. We will never cede our sovereignty; it's not just a word, it's an action, Greens! We will never cede our sovereignty and we'll fight you to the end for a treaty so that we have real power in this country. So look out!

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

This will probably be one of the most momentous days in the history of our nation and this parliament. We're looking at passing a piece of legislation that will enable the people of this nation to go to a referendum on a Voice to parliament. As I've travelled around the country and spoken to a lot of Australians, they're still very, very confused about what this means to them and to future generations.

Some of the speakers today in this chamber, I cannot, and will not, agree with them. But as I look around the chamber and at the people in the galleries, I see people of all different cultural backgrounds and all different races; people who have migrated to this country for a better way of life. This nation was founded on the Westminster system of government after it was settled by the English. Yes, we all acknowledge there were other people in this nation at the time, but it's been on the backbone of, as people say, the colonials, the convicts and the people who came here, many of whom were dragged here from England and other places against their will. They were the stolen generation as well. Many atrocities have happened over a period of time, and we have acknowledged that. We can't change it, but we have acknowledged it.

Our country has grown with a parliamentary system, the same system as in England, which started with a parliament with people elected based on their dedication and passion and wanting to make changes for the betterment of this country. Those opportunities have been afforded to anyone, whether they be people born here, migrants, refugees or even Indigenous Australians. To say that they've never had a voice is truly untrue. It's not the truth. We have Indigenous people sitting in this parliament based on their ability and dedication who hold their seats in this place with pride, representing not only their own cultural background but all Australians—the same as I do. My cultural background may be English-Irish, but my responsibility in this place is to all Australians, regardless of race, colour, or creed.

To raise issues, as Senator David Pocock has, and to say that a lot of these questions haven't been answered and that there are problems out there, comes from a senator who, on many occasions to do with legislation, hasn't consulted with the people and with businesses and has just supported the legislation. Yet he dares to question the fact there was consultation that went on at Uluru that never did. It never did. A bunch of academics went out there. The Aboriginals I have visited in some of these communities haven't even been consulted. They have no idea what's going on. I'm sure Senator Price will back me up on this.

When we talk about the problems. Billions and billions of dollars have been thrown at it over the years. I've spoken about it since I first came to parliament in 1996. The money has not gone where it's needed to go. You have your bodies. You have over 3,200 Aboriginal corporations and bodies. You have a department that was set up under the previous government, the NIAA—$4.5 billion a year. You handed out over $1 billion in grants in one year to 1,500. All the other government departments are handing out $11½ billion in grants. Where has the money gone? That's the question you need to ask yourselves. Where has the money gone? Who have you put in charge of it? Is the fox in charge of the hen house? And yet you turn around and want to blame everyone else in this nation who is not Aboriginal or Indigenous for the faults when maybe you should look in your own backyard and question yourselves. Why haven't things changed?

You talk about the stolen generation. Yes, it did happen at the time. Ask yourself why. A lot of these children would not have survived if they were not taken away from their families. That's the truth of the matter. Some Indigenous have even admitted that. We don't do it these days, but we should for some children, because of the sexual abuse that is happening to them. But we turn a blind eye to it. We keep putting them back in families that are not going to protect and look after those children. But we don't do it to non-Indigenous families. We take the children away. Is that right for the children?

How many of you in this chamber have actually been to these Aboriginal communities, have actually seen what is happening? Children on the streets in the middle of the night, children who fear going back to their homes because of the abuse—the alcohol and drug abuse, the sexual abuse—these are young children. Why is it my fault because I am a white? Why is it not the communities' fault? Why are we turning a blind eye to this? These are the problems that we really need to ask questions about. Do you think a voice to parliament is going to change all of this? And Senator Thorpe was right: they want Senate seats in this place duly allocated to the Indigenous. Why? Even Senator Farrell asked me a couple of years ago: would I support an increase to 14 senators per state? No, I would not. We are overrepresented. We don't need more senators. We need people with a vision for the future of this nation. That is what we need, not more members of parliament pushing their own agendas.

This is not bringing us together. This voice to parliament is going to be divisive. We are all Australians together. No-one is taking into consideration my place in all of this or the place of any other Australian who was being born here but who is not Indigenous. Do you really care about the fact that I am part of this land just because you can say that you have had a connection with this land for 65,000 years? I don't care. I have heard it raised from 40,000 to 50,000 to 60,000 and now 65,000 and I have even heard 100,000 years, just because you have got your cave paintings and your Dreamtime and you have this connection with the land. What about my connection with this land? What about the farmers? What about the people who work the land? What about the defence personnel? What about the people who have died, sacrificing their lives for the freedom of this nation? Every person who would lay down their life to protect this country for freedom has every right to this land.

You say that you have a connection to the land, the waters, the environment—I actually went up to Palm Island. I remember the conversation with the Aboriginals up there who asked for my assistance, and I did all that I possibly could to help them with the hospital issue, the education, the housing—disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful. And if you remember my interview, Charlie Perkins was there. He said, 'You have no idea the connection that we have with the land.' I said, 'If you have got so much of a connection, why don't you clean it up?' There is more to it than that. It is about the fact that we are all Australians. We cannot change what has happened in this nation. We cannot turn back the hands of time. We acknowledge what has happened, but do you think that you can actually give people authority, voices to parliament, and that is going to make things better? It is people who have the fortitude to call it out for what it is, and it is people who will fight against those being called racist because you dare to challenge anything.

The word 'racist' means nothing these days. It is about being a member of parliament to represent all Australians, and I come to the point where we are being lied to. Even Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, who is in the chamber today, said the Voice to Parliament could be challenged in the High Court. There are no guarantees. And then you have on the front page of the Australian, 'Indigenous Voice to Parliament yes campaigner Thomas Mayo's radical vision threatened that politicians would be punished if they ignored the voice advisory body.' It goes on to say, '… the Voice to Parliament being the first step towards reparations and compensation for Indigenous Australians.' More money, more greed, more power, more control. And then it says, 'The power of the Voice was its ability to punish politicians that ignore our advice on legislation and funding.'

Is this your truth-telling? Is this what you mean, someone who's been caught on videotape saying this or 'The fact is, we are going to use the rule book of the nation to force them,' and, what I have already spoken about and as Senator Thorpe has said, it's to pay the rent, for example? 'How do we do that in a way that is transparent and that actually sees reparations and compensation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people beyond what we say and do at a rally?' And also, 'It is a way to further what we need for our people in any negotiations for treaties and for other things, like legislation, reform and abolishment of the old colonial institutions.' What does that mean, 'reform and abolishment of the old colonial institutions'?

You see, that is why I said, in my opening statement, there is so much confusion, so many lies. You haven't been upfront with the people. You haven't declared exactly what you're intending. As I said, and I'll tell the people my views, I believe you intend to form a state within the country, a black state in this nation. You intend to allocate seats in parliament to the Indigenous. All you're doing is putting the wording into the Constitution, and you are going to make the legislation yourself.

I think it was Minister Watt who said on the floor, here, one time, 'We will have the Voice in the Constitution and then we will draft the legislation to suit.' That's what the Australian people must consider. You have no idea what Labor's intentions are, because they're not being truthful with you. You need to know the truth. Everyone needs to know the truth.

I call on Indigenous Australians to consider this hatred that's being peddled, this racism over a period of time. That has to stop. When you have a senator in this place say, 'This is war,' that's why there's confusion with our youth, why there are crimes being committed. What happened on the streets of Alice Springs was disgraceful, and in Townsville and other places around this country. It needs to be about us all working together to find the answers to it. The Voice to Parliament is not it. You've got the Voice. You've got a big voice now as it is. You've got more representation in this parliament, per the numbers, of Indigenous people who claim to be Indigenous.

That's another thing. You haven't got the guts to even admit that there is identity fraud in this nation. You've knocked back my bill. You've knocked back a Senate inquiry into it. Why, when you have people jumping on the bandwagon and claiming Aboriginality? You say there are going to be 24 elected representatives. Who are they? Are you going to have Bruce Pascoe or Senator Lidia Thorpe? Who are you going to have on it? Can you just imagine that? Who is going to be your Voice to Parliament? Are they truly going to be Indigenous? You owe people the right to have a voice but you really don't want it. So be truthful with the Australian people.

You in Labor have been very disciplined. You've held your people back. You can't tell me that each and every one of you agrees with this Voice. But you'll have your say at the ballot box, as everyone will. To the people of Australia: we are one people, one nation, and should be under one flag. I am telling the people of this nation, vote no to this piece of legislation and the referendum.

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

I thank all those who have attended this morning in the gallery and, in particular, our young people up there. This is an incredibly significant day in the history of our country and the parliament, in terms of the final debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023.

We have heard from senators over the last week as well as today, in terms of their views on the Constitution alteration bill. We've certainly heard from the lower house as well, from all members who've spoken there. It has been done, if I may say so, in a very dignified way here in the Senate, and I am incredibly grateful for that—that senators have been able to conduct themselves in that way despite the different views, and there are many, and despite the deep passion and, obviously, for some, despite the concerns that they raise that give them a great deal of worry about what the future looks like.

I stand here not only as a senator for the Northern Territory but also as a Yanyuwa Garrawa woman, a First Nations woman from Borroloola in the Gulf of Carpentaria, and say how incredibly proud I am to be able to stand and speak for the Voice and the importance of being able to go to a referendum and say yes for our country, yes for a better future and yes for First Nations people being able to make decisions in terms of advising the parliament and the executive as to decisions made about them so they can have input into that. It is a very simple request: to be recognised in the Australian Constitution. And, yes, there are many schools of thought about that, but the symbolic nature of being included in that Constitution means a great deal to many First Nations people.

In fact, during this whole debate we have seen, with research polling across the country, that the majority of First Nations people want this to happen. They want this to happen. They are reaching out to all Australians to be able to feel proud of this time in our country's history, where we can lift one another up and where First Nations people can be and feel very much a part of the complete fabric. It is the systemic change that was called for by those who gathered at Uluru on Anangu country—the systemic change within the Westminster system of parliament, of governance, that we all live under, whether we like it or not. That has been the very simple request of all of those First Nations people who came together through all the dialogues and came together on Anangu country six years ago.

But this journey began long before that. It has gone on for decades, and I take this moment to remember Senator Pat Dodson, who led us through the reconciliation process and who is here with us in spirit today, all the way from Broome in his home country. We think of you, Pat, because it is you who have given us, certainly on this side, and I know for my First Nations colleagues Linda Burney, Marion Scrymgour, Senator Jana Stewart and also Gordon Reid, who I know is with us as well—it's important that we are able to pursue this as a country in dignity, with respect for one another. Yes, we have our differences, but isn't that what a referendum is all about? Isn't the referendum an opportunity for Australians to reach out to us as parliamentarians and say yes or no to what we take to them?

I do thank in advance the senators who will be supporting this bill, despite your personal opposition to it. It is important that we send a message across the country that this referendum matters and that it should be conducted with the utmost dignity, and we should show not only each other but our global family around the world that First Nations people do matter in this country and that First Nations people's voices are being heard throughout this process.

But I am concerned a little bit when I hear some of the commentary that goes on, and I still urge all Australians to dig deep, to listen to the better side of yourself throughout this debate and to keep it at a level that is respectful. I am mindful, when we reflect on the marriage equality debate, of the hurt, the deep hurt, that impacted a lot of those families throughout that whole debate. I ask all Australians to ensure that we have our discussions and debates, our considerations as we walk this journey, this very sacred journey, of our country, with the utmost respect for one another—and that means all sides. All of us on the 'yes' side, I urge you to be mindful of the commentary and the conversations that we have with the broader Australian public. All those on the 'no' side, I ask you to do the same. It is only then that we can find the better part of ourselves as a country, the better part of ourselves as Australians—as all Australians. This is a critical moment in our country's history. It is the right thing to do, and it is time now to put this question to the Australian people.

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

Thank you, Senator McCarthy, for the rewarding and deep speech that you are so well known for. Today is a big day. It's a big day for this parliament, it's a big day for our First Peoples and it's a big day for our nation. Some would say it's a day as big as Uluru, because today the Senate is considering the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 to recognise our First Peoples in our founding document and to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

This referendum is about making us a stronger and more united country, and I welcome members of the Referendum Working Group who join us here in the gallery; the 40 young First Nations people from Jawun who travelled to Parliament House to show support for constitutional recognition; and all of those who join us here today. This referendum is about two simple yet very big things: recognition and listening. It's about finally recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia's Constitution, and it's about establishing a Voice to Parliament to make sure we are listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples on issues that affect their lives.

What will that achieve? It will achieve real, practical improvements in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who to this day face lower life expectancy, lower employment, health and educational outcomes, and higher incarceration rates than the rest of us. It's about giving people a say on issues that affect them, like their health and education, because the way we've been doing things without listening has produced those terrible outcomes. It's about acknowledging in our Constitution that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have been here for more than 60,000 years. It's about being proud of Australia and the oldest continuing civilisation on our planet. It's about making history. It's about helping deliver a fair go for all. As the Solicitor-General and various former High Court judges have advised, the amendment we are debating here today is constitutionally sound.

It is disappointing this morning to see the coalition and their allies continue their campaign of misinformation about what this is about. I respect the fact that not all Australians support the Voice. I respect the fact those who oppose the Voice have the right to campaign against it. But I say to those campaigning against the Voice: with that right comes responsibility, a responsibility to tell the truth. You have a responsibility to not make stuff up and spread things you know are not true.

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

The:

Order! I have Senator Wong on her feet.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think all contributions have been heard in silence, and I'd ask that Senator Watt be afforded the same courtesy.

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

Thank you, Senator Wong.

Honourable senators interje cting—

Order! Contributions have been heard in silence, and Senator Watt is entitled to the same silence.

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

Most who are watching here today weren't watching the debate until 4.15 on Saturday morning. They were sensibly tucked up in bed. But during that debate we did get a glimpse of what some opponents of the Voice intend to say leading up to the referendum. We were asked who Australia's First Peoples were, even though it is set out in the very same sentence of the constitutional amendment. We were asked if these First Peoples really are disadvantaged, when the facts are before our eyes. We were asked to justify why matters relating to the Voice will be left to the parliament to decide, when the existing Constitution does the exact same thing. We were asked to explain the principles underpinning the Voice—to explain what we mean by terms like 'empowering', 'inclusive' and 'respectful'. I have to say I found it rather surprising that some senators needed those concepts explained. We were even asked around 4 am if the Voice would impact on Melbourne's Suburban Rail Loop. At least we learnt the nature of the scare campaigns that we will see in the next few months. But, despite all of that, I'm confident that Australians won't be distracted and misled by that kind of dishonesty. I'm confident that Australians will respond with the honesty, generosity and belief in a fair go that we are known for around the world.

This idea of constitutional recognition through a voice began with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This is what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have asked of Australia. In 2017, after more than 10 years of consultation and conversation, hundreds of elders and leaders gathered at Uluru, and together they wrote the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It asked for Australia's First Peoples to be recognised in the Constitution through an advisory group called the Voice to Parliament to make sure that they were listened to on issues that affect them. I think it's worth remembering what the Uluru Statement from the Heart says. It says:

Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened 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 the torment 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.

…   …   …

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.

Now, in 2023, Australians will get the opportunity to vote on this generous invitation. I will work hard for it. The government and many non-government members will work hard for it. More importantly, many thousands of Australians will work hard for it. It's time to recognise our First Peoples. It's time to listen. It's time to say 'yes'.

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

The question is that the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 be read a third time.

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

(In division) Nail in the coffin. Assimilation at its best.

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

Senator Thorpe, I ask that the count be conducted in silence.