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

HANSON (—) (): I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 3 October 2023:

The activities of Aboriginal Community Services (ACS), with particular reference to:

(a) whether there was fraudulent usage of National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation (NATSIC) vehicles and fraudulent usage of NATSIC fuel cards and credit cards by current and former staff members and directors of ACS;

(b) whether any former NATSIC members and/or employees were in receipt of payments from ACS as contractors or employees;

(c) whether any of these former NATSIC members and/or employees were receiving WorkCover or other workers' compensation/insurance payments while being paid/employed by ACS;

(d) whether third party related member benefits were appropriately approved by membership and reconciled against grant agreements (approved, expended and reconciled in accordance with grant agreement requirements);

(e) whether employment of family members was appropriately approved by the membership and in accordance with conflict of interest requirements;

(f) whether taxation was avoided through the use of third party related member benefits, or income in the form of payments, incidental costs, including credit cards, and fringe benefits arrangements for staff and directors, and what property has been purchased as a result (for example, housing, vehicles, jewellery etc, subject to Proceeds of Crime legislation);

(g) whether unlawfully obtained income or benefits were used in the setup of trust accounts related to ACS or by any staff or directors of ACS;

(h) whether investigations, whether related to fraud or otherwise, have been undertaken by the relevant Commonwealth and state departments into the operation of ACS and current and former staff and directors of ACS, including their involvement in suspected fraud relating to other organisations and boards such as the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Executive Board and NATSIC;

(i) any third party payments, including any payments made to consultancy firms, including James S Sturgeon Consultancy (ABN 55 592 208 638), Altitude Strategies Pty Ltd, NFP Success and other related entities;

(j) whether there are any financial conflicts in the provision of auditing services to ACS;

(k) whether the ACS board has complied with legislative governance requirements in regard to financial approvals, processes, reporting and transparency, including membership transparency requirements, for example, notifications to members for annual general meetings and whether ACS has met all requirements for legitimate annual general meetings;

(l) whether any current or former ACS staff and directors were unable to obtain appropriate working with vulnerable people and working with children's tickets in any jurisdiction across Australia;

(m) whether any current or former ACS board members have been paid in any form by ACS, including through income or by receiving benefits; and

(n) any other related matters.

I rise to speak to this important motion on the activities of the Aboriginal Community Services. It goes to the heart of government accountability—something which the Prime Minister promised would improve under his leadership. As with many of his other promises, this one has not been met. The Albanese government's record on accountability is just about the worst I've ever seen in my 27 years in politics. For some time now, the Prime Minister has been lecturing Australians that special laws and programs and billions of taxpayer dollars haven't closed the gap, and that's his justification for the racist Voice to Parliament. Senator Nampijinpa Price's proposed inquiry into Aboriginal land councils will help explain this failure. I commend the senator for her many years of effort on behalf of Indigenous communities and for her pursuit of accountability for this failure.

Over the years, I've had many Indigenous Australians contact my office or tell me in person about the corruption of this industry. Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are sick and tired of the corruption standing in the way of much-needed assistance and support. They're sick and tired of the protection racket shielding corrupt individuals from justice, and it must stop. For some time now, my office has been working with ethical Indigenous community leaders to expose corruption in the use of Indigenous grant funding. The corruption itself is not especially surprising, and I'm confident we've barely scratched the surface of it so far. Of much greater concern is that it has been under investigation by more than one government department for years. Even more appallingly, the subjects of the investigation have been permitted to remain in positions from which they control millions of dollars of taxpayer funding. I refer to Aboriginal Community Services, or the ACS, based in South Australia.

Evidence of the corruption with Indigenous funding continues to emerge as the government campaigns hard to enshrine this corruption in the Constitution. Last month, we learned about the allegations involving the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, which has been funded by the Attorney-General's Department with $83 million. Already the Attorney-General is dodging responsibility for this funding, pretending that he has no control over how it's spent. What a pathetic excuse! I'm telling you now: Australians have had enough of it. They want accountability, and they want to know where their taxpayer dollars are going.

No taxpayer funding should be given to anyone without strict accountability and transparency measures in place. However, that's what appears to happen with the billions of dollars going out in Indigenous grant funding. The Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act has nothing like the strict accountability provisions required of non-Indigenous corporations. The Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, or ORIC, writes to Indigenous grant recipients to politely point out their noncompliance, and the recipients keep getting more grants.

If you want to understand the failure to close the gaps, we need to examine the activities of the many thousands of land councils, Indigenous corporations and charities charged with delivering assistance funded by taxpayers. They are the ones who are responsible for the design and delivery of the programs supposed to address Indigenous disadvantage. We must also examine why successive Australian governments have allowed this failure to go unchecked for so long and why the investigation of which I have been made aware has been so unreasonably delayed. There can only be one reason: the government is trying to hide the truth of this corruption to preserve the dwindling 'yes' vote for the coming referendum.

A voice to parliament will not solve these issues; it will entrench them. A voice to parliament is not a different approach; it's just more of the same failure enshrined in the Constitution so it can continue for all time. More importantly, this is not the government's money or the land councils' money. It's our money—more than $11.5 billion in grants over the past five years alone. Australians have every right to know exactly who is getting it, what it's being used for and why it's not working the way it should. There is immense goodwill amongst Australians to help those in genuine need, but that will evaporate unless they can be confident that their support is really making a difference instead of being squandered.

I have brought this to the attention of the parliament today—my notice of motion has even got the attention of the Department of Social Services and the minister's office, who didn't want me to put this forward, who's actually been contacting the crossbench not to support this, not to support accountability, because this is under investigation. So I said, 'Well, how long has it been under investigation?' It's been under investigation since 2021—two years. And then they also brought in a special audit, which has been in the place for the last six months. 'Oh, we can't do anything.' 'Okay. Have you got a timeline for when you will find out what charges are going to be laid, because corruption has happened there?' 'Oh, we don't know that. We've got to find where the money is coming from, because it's not only the pot of Department of Social Services money. It's coming from state governments as well, so we've got to ensure that this money is from DSS.'

If this happened in the private sector, they would have moved immediately. But it has been two years, a special auditor has been brought in and still there is nothing? That stinks to high heaven to me, because you're not being accountable to the people of this nation. This corruption has been going on for years and years, and I spoke about it many years ago, and nothing has happened. I don't care who's in government here, whether it's the Liberals, Labor, the Nationals or whoever. You all seem to turn a blind eye to it. You sit there and you say: 'We need a voice to parliament because it will actually close the gaps. It will help what's happening.' You don't need that. You need to actually find out where money is going, not have another advisory body—or so you call it. You say it's an advisory body; I say it's setting up a sovereignty structure so that they will actually ask whatever they want and start taxing the Australian people even more so. That's what it's about, and that's quite evident in the papers that were written, even by the people who have written the Uluru Statement from the Heart. These people have said exactly what they want from the Australian people, and it's a deceit that you're putting before the Australian people when you say you reckon it's only about a voice.

You have that voice. You've got 11 people in this chamber, and the biggest risk you have here is Senator Price, who is there fighting more so for the Australian people than I am seeing from any other representative who calls themselves Aboriginal in this place. I have seen more out of her in the short time she's been in this parliament than any other who calls themselves Aboriginal in this place.

The whole fact is that it's about accountability. I have never heard anyone else in this place that claims to be of Aboriginal descent ask for accountability. Where has the money gone?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cox, on a point of order?

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

Yes. I would like Senator Hanson to reflect on the comments she has made in relation to other senators in this place. If she has a particular view on Senator Nampijinpa-Price, that is her right. But a negative reflection on other senators and their identity in this place is against standing orders, so I would like her to withdraw those comments.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I might do, Senator Cox, and I did listen intently, is I am going to seek some guidance form the Clerk. I don't want to rush and make a ruling that may be off. Bear with me, please. I have sought guidance and there is a standing order that if senators have taken offence it is in their right to request that statement be withdrawn. By the same token, I could ask Senator Hanson: if you could reflect on your comments. I think we are all grown up enough in this building to come to a conclusion where we can make comments and remarks without too much going to the heart of someone's personality. So I put that to you, Senator Hanson.

Senator Cox, please, I am trying to give you the call. Your microphone is not on. Senator Cox.

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

This isn't about personalities; this is about the attack on someone's identity. And it is offensive when it comes from a non-Aboriginal person who seeks to attack Aboriginal people's identity in this place. It is actually racism, so let's get that correct.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I have used the wrong word, I think people around the room know how I operate. But I will come back to Senator Hanson. Senator Hanson, would you reflect on your statement?

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

I am going to clarify this. No names were mentioned. No senator was named. The fact is I referred to senators in this place who have never raised accountability in this place. So if they take offence about their job they haven't done then that's their problem, not mine.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. Now, I will say this: you didn't have to mention a person's name but it is not hard to work out who our Aboriginal members of the Senate are. I will say this: I would like you to withdraw but I am giving you the opportunity to reflect. I think you can make your point succinctly in many other ways, as you have done for many years in this chamber. Could I ask you to reflect on your comments and, with that reflection, a withdrawal would be greatly appreciated.

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

I withdraw identifying people by their Aboriginality who have not defended and asked for accountability, so I will say that any senator in this place who has not called for accountability, right?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Hanson. You still have the call.

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

So any senator in this chamber who has not called for accountability, that is the question here. We must call for accountability and that is exactly what this document is doing. We intend to move forward. This whole argument is about people who are marginalised and people who are so-called disadvantaged in this nation. They are also calling out. If we really want to address the real issues concerning these people then we must make sure that the money that is allocated to go there must go there. Am I asking too much that we must have accountability? If you cannot support that, why not? That is what the Australian people want. Taxpayers want accountability. The people you are supposed to be supporting want accountability.

It's not about a lack of money. There has been over a trillion dollars thrown at this. It's about accountability. Am I picking up that, because nothing has happened, there's a protection racket going on here? We've heard it over the years with the legal services, the land councils and so many other government corporations and organisations. It's all shut down; you never want to say or do anything about it. For years I've copped, 'You're racist,' because I dare raise these issues. Criticism is not racism! I'm doing my job. That's what each and every one of you should be doing in this place. Do your job and call for accountability. I don't only do it with the Aboriginal industry; I do it with the NDIS and any other department that I feel is not doing its job. There needs to be accountability for the Australian taxpayers.

It's not only the Aboriginal people that are hurting. We have an issue with the high cost of living in this country. People are homeless. They're living in tents in parks. They can't afford to pay their electricity bills. We need to rein in the spending and demand accountability—where it's going. We need to stop the fraudsters and the corruption. We need to stop patting them on the back and saying: 'It's alright, mate. Because of your background, who you are and what your race is, we're not going to drag you before the courts and make you accountable.' That's not standing up and being leaders of this nation. I call for that right across the board with everyone.

That's what I'm asking the senators of this place. If you are true to your word—you took the oath in this place to represent the people of this nation to the best of your ability—that's what you should be doing. This motion is calling for accountability with taxpayers' dollars. If you sit there and turn your back on it and don't support this motion, you will be to blame and I will tell you to your face: you don't deserve to be in this place. There are people out there who are relying on us to be the leaders of this nation. If we can't call it out then who can? No-one else can. That's our job. I took this job with pride. I'm humble and I'm privileged to have this position in this parliament. That's why I'll stand up and fight for it without fear or favour. I'm sick of hearing the lies told in this place. I'm sick and tired of you backing your own positions without standing up with some determination and belief in this country. All Australians, regardless of their race, should be on an equal basis with the same rights.

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

I rise to speak to Senator Hanson's motion calling for an inquiry and report into an organisation in South Australia called Aboriginal Community Services. Senator Hanson's call to look into this organisation should be supported. She has raised serious issues around the governance within that organisation. Senator Hanson is right to call for an inquiry into this organisation. Australian taxpayers have a right to know where their money is being spent, and that goes, of course, for every other organisation that receives government funding. It is important not just to the taxpayer but, mostly, to the people that suffer when such organisations are found to be doing the wrong thing. Usually, those people are our most marginalised Indigenous Australians.

During my time representing the Northern Territory in the Senate, I've often spoken on the importance of accountability and transparency of Indigenous organisations and the governments that fund them. If we're ever going to close the gap then let me remind you where the gap exists. Many in this chamber, right across the board, when speaking on Indigenous issues like to suggest that the gap exists between Indigenous Australia and everybody else. Well, there are certainly members of this chamber who are doing pretty well for themselves, who aren't part of that group of Indigenous Australians that are marginalised. The further you move away from a capital city, the more marginalised Australians become—that's everyone. But our most marginalised are those in remote communities whose first language is not English and who still live connected to traditional culture. Everybody else, including the growing Aboriginal middle class, are doing really well. Some have very large property portfolios. Some are earning six-figure salaries. They're alright. The gap exists between them and our most marginalised. But it is our most marginalised who require us, elected parliamentarians, to hold these organisations to account. That is why we're elected to be here. It is our responsibility to do so.

Just days ago, my colleague Senator Kerrynne Liddle and I were refused a very similar request for a much broader inquiry into Aboriginal organisations. We were denied by the Labor government; by the Greens, who purport to be champions for Indigenous Australians; and by Senator Pocock, another who purports to be a champion for Indigenous Australians. Just like the referendum, this issue is in fact not an Indigenous one; it is an Australian one. It affects us all.

May I remind the chamber that Indigenous Australians are Australian citizens also. We forget that. We're treated as an 'other'. There are those that get upset in here about racism—those who like to point the finger at Senator Hanson—and yet they suggest that we should be treated as one separate group to the rest of Australia. That's a pretty bloody racist notion, if I say so myself—that we should be relegated to an entity just for us so that when it's too hardball for the government to deal with an Indigenous issue they'll say: 'Handball it to the Voice. That's too hardball. Just vote down a motion for an inquiry. We don't want to expose the truth. We don't want to hold anyone accountable. We don't want to lift the standard for Indigenous Australians.' It is a matter of equity and it's a matter of justice and responsible use of public resources.

As a nation, we throw billions of dollars every year at Indigenous issues and, of course, at the Aboriginal industry. Rather than looking at these organisations and at how they are spending taxpayer funds or trying to enforce transparency and accountability, we continually turn a blind eye, make excuses, maintain the status quo and the racism of low expectations. That's what we do. That's what happens in this chamber. When are we going to hold the ministers, departments, agencies, and organisations that receive the money to account? Why should Indigenous organisations have a different set of accountability standards? Why should standards for Indigenous Australians be lowered? There's all this talk of closing the gap, and yet we cannot lift the standards. How can organisations receive money year after year yet not supply a mandatory annual report? Could they be getting away with it? Are they getting away with it? Have they been getting away with it? We don't know the answers to these questions, because we keep having inquiries shot down.

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

There's no transparency.

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

There is no transparency and so the behaviour continues. It makes no sense to me, and I defy anyone in this place to explain it. The truth is it smacks of paternalism. It says, 'We'll just turn a blind eye to these problems because we're afraid to look bad.' There is an absolute bigotry of low expectations, but there is also a tyranny in low expectations. We cannot claim to want to help marginalised Indigenous communities if we will not hold to account the people and organisations engaged to carry out the work. We will not improve the situation if in our response we refuse to acknowledge the problems that exist. We will not help anyone if we do not demand transparency and, of course, accountability.

The excuse that I often hear is that we can't frame Indigenous Australians in this way. I'm talking about organisations. I know that Senator Hanson is speaking about organisations. I know that Aboriginal people come to Senator Hanson. The same people come to me also. They don't have trust in the government or the Greens to listen to them when they are telling us that they are not being heard by the powerful and they are not being heard by those who trample on them and take the resources away from them that they need to improve their lives. That's why they come to Senator Hanson. That's why they come to me. We are their representatives in this parliament. They are evidently ignored repeatedly by this government, by the Greens, by Senator David Pocock, who's only interested in representing the traditional owners of the Australian Capital Territory. No other traditional owners of the country are of any concern to him as a federal representative. But this is the transparency we need for these organisations to do their job better. What is wrong with holding such organisations to account to ensure that they are serving the most marginalised people in this country better? To lift the standards to improve their lives—what is so wrong with asking for this?

We know that there are opportunists that come along in these organisations, we know—

Please, let's not play stupid and act like it's just white people who come into these organisations and do this. We know that people of many backgrounds do this, regardless. If you're admitting that white ones come into these organisations well, we should be holding these organisations to account then, if you're actually admitting.

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

There's an interjection from the Greens.

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

There's an interjection from the Greens: 'It's white ones'.

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

Is that racist?

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

Is that racist to mention colour in this chamber? Is that offensive to anybody? Only when you use the word 'black' apparently. Aside from that, there is an admission there that there are those in organisations who take advantage of them. So, given that we know there is a problem, why do you not want transparency and accountability? Why do you not want these organisations to work effectively for our most marginalised Indigenous Australians? They're the ones that miss out every time. No, let's set up a whole new bureaucracy, with the opportunity for more of the same. Let's ingrain it in our Constitution—shall we?—so that the opportunists can come and take advantage of this new, no doubt well resourced, detailless, risky, divisive, unknown fairytale concept that the Australian people are expected to write 'yes' to so that we can have another organisation that can be ingrained in our Constitution that has every opportunity to fail our most marginalised Indigenous Australians and ignore once more what's going on with the many other organisations, this one in particular, that Senator Hanson has brought before us that we should, as is our responsibility as elected senators, hold an inquiry into. It is our responsibility. I don't care what someone's racial background is, but if an organisation that's designed to support our most marginalised is doing the wrong thing by those most marginalised, then they should be held to account.

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

It's only an inquiry.

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

It is only an inquiry, as Senator Hanson has suggested. What are we so scared of? I think 'protection racket' is most appropriate in terms of framing what is going on here.

It is why, once again, I support Senator Hanson's calls into this organisation and I encourage everyone in this place to do the same. If we're really, truly serious about helping our most marginalised, we shouldn't sit around waiting for a nonsense, fairytale, detail-less, risky, unknown, permanent change to our Constitution. We get off our backside and do what the taxpayer pays us to do, which is our job, to look into these organisations. Enough is enough.

I support this inquiry wholeheartedly. I will continue to fight for the voices of those who are discarded and who are disrespected. Despite all the platitudes of acknowledgements, all the platitudes of paying respect to Indigenous Australians elders past, present and emerging—all those platitudes that we go on about and we hear like a drone—there is no real action to back up those words. No real action. And that action can start this minute, not tomorrow, not the next day and not 14 October; it can take place now. So let's support this motion.

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

I thank Senator Hanson for this motion and I rise to offer a short contribution today. I've read the public reports and I recognise that there are very legitimate concerns about how these organisations have operated. This should not be taken lightly. I've been advised that the Department of Social Services is currently carrying out an investigation, the results of which will not be known before the proposed reporting date of this inquiry, which is 3 October this year. I'm very mindful that an inquiry at this time could prejudice any future potential prosecution. If the outcome is to seek justice for what has been alleged, then I believe the best course of action is to allow the investigation to be completed.

I won't be supporting Senator Hanson's motion today but I remain open to working with the Senate on ways the Senate can be assured that, through the investigations conducted, there is a pathway to a resolution in this place to hold them accountable for this.

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

enator COX () (): I think it's a little bit rich that we're continuing to have this conversation—a revolving door of constant singular examples of information that is coming to those who are bringing these motions forward—when there are, in fact, other avenues, as I have talked about at length in this place. One of those avenues is via the Australian National Audit Office. Regarding Senator David Pocock's remarks in relation to the already pending investigation by the Department of Social Services that is happening, it is in the best interest to respect a process that's already being undertaken.

Seeking to undermine that really conveys to me what this is about. The little hood slips off and we get to see what it's really about. This is at-length talking about a Voice to Parliament and having a good old go about how that's not going to solve the problem, but these individual inquiries do. What that does is relay, hopefully, to the rest of those following this debate and the conversations in relation to this motion is the absolute hypocrisy of people who are so out of touch with community that they want to bring on an inquiry to bring those witnesses in front of a public hearing to give evidence, which then compromises those people's safety in those communities. You talk about the almighty power. In fact, in the time I've sat in this chamber, I've heard from a member opposite who spoke about a family or community member being attacked at a community meeting. I think it's pretty rich that people then decide, 'Oh, we'll get them all together and have a public hearing—an inquiry to shame these people with what's happening about the black industry and the black money in this country.'

You can come here and talk about transparency and accountability, but I don't know how many times I've opened my media summary and seen that people have been fact checked about the claims they've made in this long campaign for the Voice to parliament. In fact, I talked about this earlier today in my senator's statement. I used my 10 minutes to talk about the transparency and accountability of having a QR code and telling people it's for a postal vote but in fact it goes to your political party. Or that you can send text messages asking people to donate to your cause while we're sitting in this place. To what? To bring our people down?

It's constant rhetoric, and I would hope that when people talk about standards in this place they can apply those same standards across the board. I don't see that happening. In fact, the thing that I do know is that there are lots of Aboriginal organisations across this country who are not registered with ORIC because it has lots and lots of scrutiny and there are lots and lots of hoops that they have to jump through. They go under acts like the Associations Act in Western Australia, because there's not enough scrutiny under that. So I reject that comment.

I don't come to this place as a senator with lived experience, someone who has history from my old people, to give you all a history lesson at 6:35 at night. But I reject the notion made before that we're all citizens now in this country—that is not how it always was. In fact, I still have the dog tags and the citizenship certificate that my grandparents had to apply for in this country—the tags they had to wear around their necks in this country. They were told they needed to be 'out of town' at a certain hour in this country. They were told they were 'too black' to be able to go into the local pub or the shop. They had to knock on a side window in their hometown in country WA.

Under the 1905 act, so many things were restricted and marginalised—a word that has been thrown around quite a lot in here tonight—in states like Western Australia and Queensland. And we continue to see this pattern of conversation: that blacks can't govern themselves. Well, do you know what? I'm sick and tired of it—I am absolutely done with the conversation that, somehow, people in my communities are seeking safety on that side of the chamber from certain individuals. I think that's pretty out of touch. I admit there are conversations we do have about our organisations that can do better and which should do better. That is at the essence and the heart of nation-building in this country. As an act, native title was created to divide our people, and that's the conversation we should be having—about the regime that was sought, implemented and enacted upon my people around native title. That's not what we asked for and it's not what we wanted in this country.

If we're doing truth-telling in this place, and we want to bring transparency and accountability into the conversation, how about doing some truth-telling? How about talking about where we've come from in 200-plus years and the evolution of all that? But also talk about the wash-up and the legacy of that, because we're still dealing with it today. The Greens will definitely not be supporting this motion. I think it's another patched up, dressed up attempt at an inquiry to bring down First Nations people in this country. It is a detriment that we would even entertain and even have this conversation in this place in a year when we seek to provide self-determination and empowerment to our First Peoples in this country. I definitely won't be supporting that.

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

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

Senator McCarthy?

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I was just about to jump. I gave courtesy to Senator Roberts, believing he was going to speak.

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

Senator McCarthy, despite your comments there, the standing orders require that I put the question. The question is that the question be now put.

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

Acting Deputy President, I seek some clarification. As I understand it Senator McCarthy had indicated a desire to speak in the debate. I believe that may have been indicated to Senator Roberts, but Senator Roberts moving that the question be now put prevents Senator McCarthy from speaking. I forget procedurally whether there is any capacity for Senator McCarthy to say anything on this motion that has now been put—that we vote on the motion. It would be polite for Senator McCarthy to have that opportunity, given that she had indicated a desire to do so.

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

Senator Watt, my understanding is that the standing orders do not allow for consideration of the kind that you've just requested. I think from the response across the chamber that the senator is aware of the standing orders and has acted in accordance with the standing orders seeking to cease this debate. Is that correct, Senator Roberts?

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

That is correct.

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

Okay, so I am going to follow the procedure. A point of order, Senator O'Sullivan?

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm seeking some clarification. Depending on the result of the division, the debate may in fact still continue.

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

Exactly, but we have no choice other than to put the question, so let's proceed in that way. The question is that the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to. A division is required. In accordance with the standing orders, there are no divisions after 6.30 pm, so the vote on the motion moved by Senator Hanson will be held over till tomorrow morning.