House debates

Monday, 22 May 2023

Bills

Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023; Second Reading

6:39 pm

Photo of Susan TemplemanSusan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I know there are a lot of people who feel like they need more information about what we're talking about here today. But, in fact, there is a lot of information, and some of it's quite dense, so what I want to try to cover off in the time that I have is some of the key issues that I know are top of mind for people, both supporters and those who are still not sure. The legislation that we're talking about today, Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, has to be passed so that we can hold the referendum to amend the Constitution in order to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Voice. That's the big picture stuff. Once this bill is passed by an absolute majority of the House of Representatives and an absolute majority of the Senate, a referendum will be held in the second half of the year, sometime, we're expecting, between October and December.

There are really two key things that the referendum is going to seek to do. It's going to enshrine Aboriginal and Torres Strait peoples in the Constitution. First, it's about just recognising that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were here when colonial settlers arrived. They were here with their 65,000 years of history, with a continuous connection to the lands on which we now reside. It's recognition. I have to say, I've found very few people who are opposed to that. The majority of people nod and say, 'Well, that's just obvious, isn't it?' The second part is about listening to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples when it comes to the laws and policies that affect them.

The listening part is really what I want to focus on. Now, we know that listening to communities leads to better laws and policies. In my community within the Blue Mountains World Heritage area, we know that the policies that affect us are much more effective when we're listened to about our local knowledge and understanding of the precious lands that we occupy. So this is about listening to communities and making a practical difference on the ground in areas that are so profound, like health, education and housing. That is what the Voice will help deliver. Why are we so confident about that? Because all of us know that we get a better result when we partner with the community affected, and this is about partnering with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

I've spent 20 years of my working life going to and from the Northern Territory. I was there for about a week every month, working with very well-meaning organisations and government departments. Over the course of that 20 years, I saw the same ideas and programs being put up. There might be five or 10 years between them, but they came back. They often didn't achieve what they were designed to achieve, because they weren't done in partnership with communities, but we got some good results where they were done in partnership with communities. I can think of a few of them. The Indigenous Ranger Program is a really key and transformative program. There are the many Aboriginal community controlled health organisations. They're making a genuine difference in their communities. Justice reinvestment is another one that changes the way we deal with people who are operating outside the law. These all demonstrate strong and improved outcomes when communities are involved in decision-making. And this referendum is the best chance we have to address the injustices of the past and create change that will lead to a better future, and, quite frankly, lead to us in this parliament making better decisions about where taxpayer dollars go to improve the lives of some of the most vulnerable populations.

We'll get to the actual referendum question. Australians are going to be asked a really simple question. The question that will be on the ballot paper is:

A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

Do you approve this proposed alteration?

That's all people will have to read on the day. That's what will be on the paper where they have to tick yes or no.

Now, what sits behind that are some extra words about the chapter that we'll put in our Constitution. It will be chapter IX and it will be called 'Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples', and it will have subsection 129 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice'. It will say:

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

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

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

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

And that's it; the amendment is that simple.

I want to address the furphy—it's the kindest way to describe it—that there's no detail and that this process has been rushed. It's important because we understand that in people's really busy everyday lives constitutional reform is not always the highest priority. I certainly know that when I was busy raising kids and running a business the last thing I would have had time to really think about was the detail of constitutional reform. But it is hard to find a pre-referendum process since Federation, since we first wrote the Constitution, that can really compare to the lengthy process we've gone through to get to this point.

It's a statement of fact that no referendum has been preceded by more debate, more engagement by parliamentarians, legal experts and community members than this one. There was, for instance, an expert panel on the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution established in 2010—13 years ago. It conducted community consultation and produced a report in 2012. Then there was the 2015 report of the Joint Select Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Now I'm surprised that one didn't become everybody's bedtime reading. Even back then we were going into the detail of it.

There was the First Nations constitutional dialogues conducted by the Referendum Council in 2016 and 2017 to discuss options for constitutional reform led by Aboriginal peoples. And then there was the First Nations National Constitutional Convention at Uluru, held by the Referendum Council in 2017, to ratify the decision-making of the constitutional dialogues. That led to the final report of the Referendum Council in June 2017 endorsing the Uluru Statement from the Heart and calling for Voice, Treaty and Truth. So that's what got us to what people are familiar with, the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Since then, there's been the 2018 report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. That recommended the government initiate the process of co-design of the Voice with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Then there was the co-design interim report in 2020 and the final report in 2021, and the Prime Minister announced a draft constitutional amendment in July last year.

Since then, there has been robust scrutiny and testing from various groups around it. Most recently there was another parliamentary inquiry process. We've also had the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum complete the most recent inquiry on 12 May this year. It made a single recommendation: that this bill be passed without amendment. And that is exactly what this parliament should do.

That's an overview of how we find ourselves here. On top of that there's the Solicitor-General's advice, which was released. The opinion draws a line under some very wrong and baseless arguments that have been put forward, including by the Leader of the Opposition, I'm afraid. The Solicitor-General's opinion is consistent with the overwhelming consensus of opinion from constitutional experts. The view is that not only is this amendment compatible with Australia's system of representative and responsible government but it would enhance that system. The Solicitor-General also confirms that it will be a matter for the parliament and not the High Court to determine when and how the executive government consults the Voice and considers the advice of the Voice. All of that should give Australians confidence that constitutional recognition has been well thought through and that it will work.

I want to touch on the design principles that underpin the Voice, because this is where people haven't necessarily had the opportunity to go through the detail. The detail exists. It's just a matter of finding the time to work your way through it. The design principles that have been co-designed include that the Voice will make representations to the parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, which means that they can make representations proactively, that they can respond to requests and that the Voice will have its own resources to allow it to research, develop and make representations. The second design principle is that the Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities. This means that members will be selected by their communities, not appointed by the government. Members would serve on the Voice for a fixed period of time so as to ensure regular accountability to their communities. And to ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the Voice are chosen would suit the wishes of the local communities and would be determined through the post-referendum process. I know that people have asked questions about that, including members of my local Dharug, Gundungura and Darkinyung communities.

Design principle 3 is to ensure that the Voice is representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, that it is gender balanced and that it includes youth. The fourth principle is that the Voice will be empowering, community led, inclusive, respectful and culturally informed. Principle No. 5, a really key one, is that the Voice will be accountable and transparent. Design principle 6 is that it will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures so it respects the work of existing organisations. Design principle 7 is that it will not deliver programs. It will make representations about improving programs, but it will not be the deliverer of those programs. The final principle is that it will not have veto power. Under each of those is a whole lot more detail, and I'm really happy to share that with people in my community who may have more questions and now can go: 'Okay, I get that. I want to go a layer deeper.

These sorts of principles were talked about in Springwood at the hub recently, when I brought together around 700 people. Filmmaker and incredible activist Rachel Perkins shared with us her insights, her thoughts and her journey from the Uluru Statement from the Heart through to her support for the referendum. I thank Rachel. We had 400 people in the room and another 300 online who were participating by entering questions and by giving responses. It wasn't an exhaustive discussion. It was an initial discussion. There were a range of views canvassed, including from First Nations people. It was really important to start that conversation in the community on that scale. It can be a daunting prospect, but I encourage all members of parliament to do it. I think we will have many more of those discussions in coming months.

When we think about why this is happening now, our First Nations caucus members—particularly Senator Pat Dodson, the Minister for Indigenous Australians; and Senator Malarndirri McCarthy; but every one of our First Nations caucus members—have worked very hard on this. The message really is that it's time. I will leave with the words of Daniel Morrison, Chief Executive Officer of the Wungening Aboriginal Corporation, who talked about why this matters for future generations. He said: 'The time is now. It's 2023. We deserve change, if not for us for the children who won't have the opportunity to vote in this year's referendum.'

I commend this bill to the House.

Comments

No comments