Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In continuation, Perry Hamilton from Griffin said: 'I have been trying to work out why the Prime Minister and the Labor government are so hell-bent on including the Voice into the Constitution when they can simply legislate right now.' Peter Perkins from Kippa-Ring said: 'The Voice may make representations to the parliament and the executive government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This is a nebulous statement. To draw the long bow, everything parliament discusses or proposes relates in some way to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I will be a "no" voter, and I am very concerned about many unspoken issues.' John from Clontarf said: 'I was sitting in the lunch room with colleagues and the topic of the Voice came up. The feedback I heard was they're sick of being pushed around, being told what to do, and sick of the conversation, and this was from both Indigenous people and non-Indigenous Australians.' Mike and Terra from Clontarf are voting no. They say that this voice proposal in the Constitution represents the Aboriginal industry only and not Aboriginal people in remote areas, and they've done a lot of travel into remote areas.

With the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Nampijinpa Price, I recently did a 'politics in the pub'. We had an opportunity to go to a school. Then we had about 350 people for a 'politics in the pub', and it was quickly sold out, more quickly than when I've run it with a treasurer or former cabinet minister. One of the things I asked Jacinta about was her name. I said, 'Your name is Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. What does "Nampijinpa" mean?' She explained that it is her skin name. It was a very interesting meeting. She spoke about the Voice when asked, and she doesn't support it either.

When we talk about a voice, I think we can all agree that it's important to listen to all voices. Here are some of things some my respected and highly qualified colleagues are saying. Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has said, 'I don't want to see my family divided along the lines of race, because we are a family, a family of human beings. Senator Kerrynne Liddle said, 'The scope is far too wide, and it gives Indigenous people a benefit above and beyond other Australians in the founding document, the Constitution.' Former prime minister Tony Abbott stated in his address to the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum: 'The Constitution belongs to all of us.'

Prime Minister Albanese refuses to provide even the most basic detail on the Voice model. He wants you to vote on a Saturday, and then, come Monday, he will spend however long he needs to workout the detail. That's like putting foxes in charge of the chook house of our Constitution. Details should come before the vote, not the vote before the details. This process is without precedent. Informed decision-making is one of the leading features of autonomy for the individual in today's society and is undoubtedly one of the major issues that have arisen with the process this government has taken to introduce the referendum to Australians.

There are already hundreds of bodies across the nation that represent Indigenous views: the National Indigenous Australians Agency, the NIAA; the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies; the Lowitja Institute; Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet; Closing the Gap; NAIDOC; the National Native Title Tribunal; Indigenous land corporations; the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations; and Indigenous.gov.au. There are also four main national bodies that represent Indigenous Australians: the National Consultative Committee, the National Aboriginal Conference, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and the National Congress of Australia's First People. There are also 11 democratically elected First Nations people in the House and in the Senate. Where is their voice? Does their voice not mean anything? MPs and senators have a responsibility to represent their state or territory or their electorate.

I would like to say also that discussion from codes like the NRL and other sporting bodies and businesses is unhelpful and is only driving more people to vote 'no'. They don't want to be told what to do by a sporting group or big business.

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. Twelve months ago the people of Hughes put their trust and faith in me to represent and serve them in this place. I similarly put my trust and faith in the people of Hughes when later this year they, along with 17.5 million other Australians, will have the opportunity to vote on this referendum.

The people of Australia always get it right. As disappointing as it was to be a Liberal on 21 May 2022, when we conclusively lost government, the Australian voters got it right. Similarly, Australians will get it right later this year when they vote either 'yes' or 'no' on this referendum. I was elected by the people of Hughes as a Liberal and under the Liberal brand. I commend my party's position to support this bill to the extent that we will not stand in the way of Australians having their say on the bill and on the referendum. This is appropriate.

Changing our Constitution, our founding document, by vote by a majority of Australians in a majority of states is one of the hallmarks of our great democracy. It has only occurred on eight occasions since Australia became a federation in 1901. The subject matter of this upcoming referendum is in two parts, although in one question. It is the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the enshrining of a national voice within our Constitution. These are important matters for both Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians.

I have had the advantage of having listened to many speeches on this bill made in this place, from my side, from the government's side and from the crossbenches. At the outset, I thank the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Minister Burney, for her representation of and advocacy for her people on this bill. She has conducted this debate with respect, integrity and dignity. My plea is that, as this bill leaves this place and goes to the other place and then ultimately to the Australian people, we similarly conduct ourselves with respect, integrity and dignity.

On my side, I particularly commend the speech of my friend the honourable member for Menzies and the work he undertook as the deputy chair of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum. Similarly, I commend the courage and commitment by my other friend the honourable member for Berowra, who has been a staunch supporter of constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and for a voice at local, regional and national level. He has worked tirelessly over many years in his belief that this is the answer to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. In that vein, I similarly acknowledge the work also conducted by the former Minister for Indigenous Australians, Mr Ken Wyatt, who's no longer in this place.

The Liberal Party has a longstanding tradition of supporting Indigenous Australians. Robert Menzies gave Aboriginal people the right to vote in Commonwealth and territory elections. He also established the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, a national treasure that seeks to preserve Indigenous language and culture. Harold Holt brought the 1967 referendum to a successful conclusion, to enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be counted as part of the Australian population. John Gorton appointed the first Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Malcolm Fraser passed the first land rights act. John Howard made the first attempt at a referendum for constitutional recognition. Scott Morrison secured the National Resting Place and built a historic partnership with the Coalition of Peaks.

Several weeks ago, I committed to engaging with my electorate on this bill and the two underlying propositions regarding constitutional recognition and constitutional enshrinement of a national Voice to Parliament. To that end, over 2,000 have responded to my survey; I've received over 400 emails from constituents; and, on 3 May, over 130 people attended a community forum I facilitated and moderated on the Voice. I thank Aunty Gail Smith from the Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council, who gave the acknowledgement of country, as well as CEO Melissa Williams and all the Gundungurra people who attended. I also acknowledge those from Sutherland Shire Reconciliation, led by Aunty Dolly Brown, who also attended. I thank the panellists, who gave up their own time: Joe Hildebrand for the 'yes' campaign, and former prime minister the Hon. Tony Abbott for the 'no' campaign. Joe and Tony argued vehemently and vigorously but without vitriol and without virtue signalling. They used intellect, reason and passion to argue their respective cases. I thank those from my electorate who attended to ask questions—intelligent questions—and who were generally seeking to understand the referendum question before they vote. That is what I hope for in this upcoming campaign. My plea is that we, as Australians, treat each other with dignity and respect, in the same way the panellists on my community forum treated each other.

When we wake up as a nation the day after the referendum—it will be a Sunday morning—we must be able to look at ourselves in the mirror. How we feel on that day is important, as is, in addition to how we feel on that day, the day after the referendum, how we treat each other in this process, how we treat each other in this place and how we treat each other outside of this place. The day after the referendum, whatever the result, the Australian people will have got it right. That's what we accept in a democracy. That's what happens in every election. We lost the federal election last year, but the Australian people got it right. Although we may have different views in this place and the other place, there is, I believe, one thing on which we all agree: that we must do more to close the gap; to bring about real, practical reconciliation with Indigenous Australians; to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, many of whom live in deplorable circumstances that would be unacceptable in other parts of Australia. And I say this, as well, as somebody with Indigenous Australians within my family. To Sherri, Jackson and their beautiful little girls, Estelle and Everlee: if this voice is successful, I hope that it improves your lives and the lives of your people down there in Wreck Bay.

Therefore, the question for the Australian people, for the electorate of Hughes, is whether the referendum, if passed, will bring about better outcomes for Indigenous Australians. It seems there is widespread support for constitutional recognition. I support that. I always have. It seems to me that the majority of my electorate support this. Indeed, the majority of Australians seem to support this. This is largely symbolic; however, symbols are important. Otherwise, we would not have flags. We would not have uniforms. We would not have badges. Symbolism matters.

The second part of the question that is being put to the Australian people will be about enshrining a national voice into our Constitution. This is the part that has troubled my electorate and is troubling many Australians. We canvassed this at length at the community forum.

Prime Minister Albanese had the opportunity to break these questions into two. This would have ensured as far as possible that constitutional recognition was successful. Instead, with intractable obstinacy to engage with our party, in an attempt to wedge us and paint us as racists, he has refused to obtain bipartisan support. The Prime Minister therefore now takes full responsibility for the 'yes' campaign's success. The process could have been very different. The process should have been very different.

In conclusion, my electorate of Hughes has demonstrated that it is interested in understanding both the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigns for the upcoming referendum. I say to the people of Hughes: please continue to engage. Ensure that you understand both sides of the debate. I am one of 17½ million Austrians who will have a vote on this important issue towards the end of this year.

The people of Hughes and the people of Australia got it right last May. They will get it right again on this referendum.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill. I believe that all Australians of goodwill on all sides of politics agree that we need to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. While there are areas of progress which we should celebrate, the simple fact is that, on average, Indigenous Australians will live shorter lives than other Australians, have poorer health outcomes, be less likely to be employed and have lower levels of education. The two parties of government have a shared responsibility in closing these gaps. Over many decades, both parties have made some progress but have left much still to be done.

The bill before this House, in my assessment, is motivated by two complementary desires. The first is to achieve practical outcomes in improving the lives of Indigenous Australians, and the second is to incorporate within the foundational legal document which underpins the rule of law in our nation a symbolic recognition of the distinctive place of Indigenous Australians as Australia's First Peoples and as the inheritors of a culture which is more than 60,000 years old. If this bill is passed it will authorise the government to proceed to hold a referendum which, if supported by the required majority of Australians and the majority of states, will amend the Constitution so as to establish the Voice to Parliament.

In my remarks today I want to focus firstly on why the Liberal Party is supporting this bill. Next, I want to review the bipartisan history in getting to this point and explain why it is so deeply regrettable that the current Prime Minister has abandoned that bipartisanship. Third, I want to make some observations about the choice now facing the Australian people.

Let me turn, then, to why the Liberal Party is supporting this bill and why, as a Liberal member of parliament, I am voting yes on this bill. The purpose of this bill is to authorise the referendum to proceed. It sets out the specific terms of the constitutional amendment which is proposed and which will take effect if the referendum is passed. From the time this parliament was formed in the middle of last year, and the Prime Minister announced that his government would be proceeding to a referendum on this matter, the Liberal Party's position has been to approach the question with an open mind and with goodwill.

We went through considerable deliberation. Our leader and our shadow minister attended meetings of the Referendum Working Group on the Voice to Parliament. We sought further details about what the Voice was and how it would operate. We asked questions, such as: Who will be eligible to serve on the body? How will members be elected, chosen or appointed? How many people will make up the body? And a range of other questions. It became increasingly clear, though, that the detail we were seeking was simply not available.

For these and other reasons the Liberal Party arrived at the position that we would not support the proposal to establish the Voice through an amendment to the Constitution. However, we were very clear that we supported the Australian people being in a position to take this decision. In turn, we are supporting the bill that is before the House today, and that is because this bill must pass if the referendum is to proceed.

I want to turn to the importance of bipartisanship. In 1967 the Australian people voted overwhelmingly to change the Constitution as it applied to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. The 'yes' vote was almost 91 per cent. This was a remarkable, positive and unifying moment for Australia. As the Prime Minister acknowledged in his Lowitja O'Donoghue oration last night, it was achieved because the then coalition government led by Harold Holt took care to achieve bipartisan support for the referendum. The Liberal and Labor parties both recommended that Australians vote yes. The result of the 1967 referendum was that Indigenous Australians could rightly feel that they had been recognised and supported by the broader Australian community.

Of course, there is more to be done. This side of the House has long recognised that reality. That is why it has been our policy for a considerable period of time to support amending Australia's Constitution so that it contains formal recognition of Australia's First Peoples. Wisely, over more than a decade, both sides of politics have recognised that if we are to make progress towards this very important objective, that progress must be achieved on a bipartisan basis.

In 2007, former prime ministers John Howard and Kevin Rudd both stated their support for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In 2012, both the Liberal and Labor parties voted for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act. After the coalition came to power in 2013, then prime minister Tony Abbott, with support from then opposition leader Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong, established the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 2015. This committee delivered its final report in 2015, recommending that a referendum be conducted to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution. In 2015, the Referendum Council was jointly appointed by then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and then Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten. It's job was to advise the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about progress and next steps towards a successful referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution.

In 2018, the Liberal member for Berowra, my close friend and holder of the neighbouring seat, and Labor senator Pat Dodson were appointed as co-chairs of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Arising from the final report of this committee, a Voice co-design process was carried out during the life of the last parliament, under the then coalition government, the Morrison government, with the agreement of the then Labor opposition.

I run through this brief history to underline the importance of bipartisanship in these processes, something which has been recognised over more than 15 years and which was previously the foundation to the successful outcome of the 1967 referendum. This is why it is so deeply unfortunate that, since the 2022 election, the Prime Minister has radically departed from this bipartisan approach. The government has chosen not to engage in any realistic or meaningful consultation, still less negotiation, with the opposition concerning the words of the referendum question and concerning the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment. The Prime Minister has chosen not to provide any significant detail in relation to how the Voice will be structured and how it will operate even though the Liberal Party have been clear from the outset that this is an area of great concern, we believe, for many Australians. The result is that we as a nation find ourselves in a position where there is a real risk that this referendum will divide the nation rather than unite it. Rather than delivering a result which enhances mutual understanding between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, which increases confidence amongst Australians that they are greatly respected and valued by the entire nation and which tells the whole world how proud every Australian is of the distinctive culture, history and society which has developed on this vast southern continent over more than 60,000 years, we face the real risk that the result of the referendum will do none of these things. In my opinion, we face that risk should the result be 52 to 48 for the referendum or 52 to 48 against.

I fervently hope that risk does not materialise into reality. But, if it does, a fundamental reason will be that the Prime Minister chose to abandon bipartisanship, chose to make no attempt to secure wording which enjoyed support across the political spectrum and chose to go ahead to put a referendum to the Australian people in circumstances where the meticulous preparatory work required to secure strong majority support simply had not been done.

Let me turn, then, to the choice now facing the Australian people as they cast their votes in the referendum. The vote that I will exercise as the member for Bradfield will be to support this bill so that my constituents and people around Australia in turn get to exercise their votes as they see fit. From the point that this bill passes the parliament, each member of this House and each senator has one vote in the referendum, a vote worth no more and no less than the vote of every one of the more than 17 million Australians on the electoral roll. It is my hope that we have a respectful and fact based process under which every effort is made for Australians to receive the information they require to cast their votes as they see fit.

I want to express my respect for the many Australians of goodwill who intend to vote 'yes' and the many Australians of goodwill who intend to vote 'no' on this referendum. As I have spoken to my constituents in Bradfield, it is clear that many are thinking carefully about this referendum. It is also clear that many people feel that the information they need to make a decision has not been made readily available. Many are uncertain precisely how the Voice will work. To help address this uncertainty, I am pleased that there will be a pamphlet written and distributed to all Australians setting out the case for 'yes' and the case for 'no' on the particular referendum question. This has been a standard requirement in referendums for many years, but, curiously, the Albanese government initially proposed removing this requirement. The Liberal Party pressed for the normal requirement to apply, and I am pleased that the government ultimately agreed. It is for this reason that some Liberal members in this chamber will vote to oppose the bill so that they can formally provide input into the preparation of the pamphlet. It is a legislative requirement that if a parliamentarian is to provide input into the 'no' case then that parliamentarian must vote no to the bill presently before the House.

Let me turn to the Liberal Party support for regional and local voices. These will be local and regional advisory bodies which provide grassroots advice to bring about practical outcomes for Indigenous Australians. The establishment of local and regional voices was recommended in the Calma-Langton report written following the co-design process I outlined earlier. Indeed, this was the policy commitment which we took to the last election, along with a commitment to spend $31.8 million to establish local and regional voices. The approach of starting first by legislating local and regional voices would allow the new system to establish itself and to prove its worth, and, should it prove to have problems, the legislation can be amended to fix the problems.

It is interesting that objective observers have commented there is a considerable amount of agreement between the two major parties. As Constitutional law professor Anne Twomey wrote:

Despite the political acrimony over the Voice referendum, what's most striking is the similarities between the positions of the Coalition and the Labor government.

Both agree Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should be recognised in the Constitution. Both agree practical outcomes are needed to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. Both agree parliament and the executive government need to be better informed about the laws and policies they make, and that they need to hear the voices of those on the ground who are affected by those laws and policies.

Of course, there are also areas of disagreement which are well understood.

I conclude by observing that this is an important bill. I am pleased to support it and, in turn, to cast a vote for the referendum being able to proceed. This decision will now be in the hands of the Australian people, and I am confident they will apply their trademark common sense and wise judgement in arriving at a decision for our nation.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Bradfield for his contribution and for laying out very well for the House the long history of this debate and the amount of work that has gone on over many, many years. As the member for Bradfield noted in his concluding remarks, this is a very important piece of legislation. We have seen, sadly, over the past 235 years since settlement that Indigenous people in this country have been let down in many ways by successive governments, by successive departments and bureaucracies, both at state and federal level, and by boards paid to represent them. They have been let down in areas of life expectancy, health outcomes, education and job opportunities. By most, if not all, statistical measures, our Indigenous communities have never closed the gap. Of this, I think across this chamber there is no doubt and no disagreement.

This legislation is purportedly designed to fix that through two mechanisms: firstly, through constitutional recognition of Indigenous people and their presence here on this great continent long before British settlement; secondly, through the creation of a Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Constitution. Sadly, the details of which, remain a mystery to us all.

It is the second part of this that is proving divisive. We cannot address these issues by dividing Australians on the basis of culture. To paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr's eloquent statement, no Australian should 'be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character'. We cannot address the systemic issues faced by Indigenous communities without acknowledging the amazing diversity of opinion, culture, background and life experience that exists in Indigenous communities right across this great nation.

In relation to the first part of the question, I firmly believe, as does, I think, everybody who has contributed to this debate, that Indigenous recognition in the Constitution is both necessary and well overdue. I think if this was the first part of question was a separate question that we were addressing, we would see an outcome even greater than the 1967 referendum. If we want to look for examples, the Queensland, South Australian, Victorian and Western Australian governments have been able to include such recognition in their own constitutions. Therefore, there is no reason why this should not occur at a federal level.

In relation to the second part of the question though, the coalition believes this is best achieved through legislation. It has been pointed out previously that this could be done here and now, and importantly this would deliver local and regional voices. These should be the direct voices of their respective communities, built from the grassroots up. What may impact Indigenous communities in the APY Lands or on Cape York may bear no relationship to the issues faced by Indigenous communities in an urban setting or in areas like my electorate of Forde.

It is important to note that there are already a multitude of organisations supposedly trying to fix the issues in Indigenous communities, but I think it's fair to say that they have demonstrably failed to deliver for those Indigenous communities. If we go down the path of a voice, these organisations as well, in my view, must be restructured, reformatted and refocused on solving the genuine problems facing local Indigenous communities right across this country. It is because these local communities themselves are best placed to know what they need and when they need it.

It is these local communities in the electorate of Forde that I would like to highlight. There is so much Indigenous heritage to celebrate my communities. The traditional custodians of the land between the Logan River and Tweed Rivers are the Yugambeh people, and to the north of the Logan River is the Yuggera people. These lands include that of the Logan district, now the City of Logan, a large portion of which falls within my electorate of Forde, and the northern Gold Coast.

The early history and creation of the Logan districts itself is much like the broader Australian story over the last two centuries. Relations between the settlers, law enforcement and the Yugambeh people was, as Griffith University states, 'at times volatile, while at others relatively peaceful and respectful'. And I know from stories I have heard that there is an acknowledgement among the settlers' diary records that if it wasn't for the assistance of the Indigenous communities in their first couple of summers of settlement they would not have survived. But we also have to acknowledge the moments when things weren't so good, such as the activities of the native police in attempting to disperse Indigenous peoples from the lands on which they had lived for generations past. However, we should also acknowledge and celebrate those, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who have worked to bridge the gap between the Yugambeh people and the settlers. We've recently seen through the Yugambeh Museum the Yugambeh language being revived by their extraordinary work, and it is now being taught in our local schools.

I'm also proud to have worked with and continue to work closely with some wonderful local Indigenous groups. For over a quarter of a century the Jimbelunga Nursing Centre in Eagleby has provided and continues to provide high standards of care, safety and service for the aged and elderly in our communities, to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Health Service in Brisbane has worked tirelessly in our community for many years. And the Beenleigh Housing Development Company is an organisation that strives to support, enhance and transform the lives of its members in a culturally supportive and regenerative way. The previous coalition government was one of its biggest supporters, having provided a $750,000 funding grant over three years for it to continue to run its programs. Its aim is to provide shelter for the community that provides nourishment and protection through the concept of the Jinndi Mibunn, or the eagle's nest. The pilot Family Jarjum Jinndi project is a key goal of the organisation that would see the establishment, construction and running of a housing hub for the local Indigenous community. The Forde electorate, and the Indigenous community within it, fully demonstrates so clearly the benefit of working together towards a single goal of bringing real change to the lives of Indigenous people.

I've heard those opposite comment during this debate that we should be listening. The remarks I've just made on the successes of our local Indigenous community show that we are listening. I can share with this House that the views I hear when I am out and about speaking to a variety of constituents across my electorate are much like those shared by the member for Bradfield in his earlier comments. There are those who fully support the Voice and the present proposal, there are those who do not and there are those in the middle who want more information and are undecided.

As noted earlier, it's important that any actions we take in the space do not divide us. All Australians want to see real change, a real closing of the gap for all of our Indigenous communities. This change cannot happen by creating citizens with different rights. How can something that is built on a premise that is divisive be expected to deliver positive change? With this proposal we are left with so many unanswered questions. What happens if the proposed model does not work as expected? Will we be required to hold another referendum to repeal fundamental errors? How and why should Indigenous people trust the government to deliver meaningful change to their communities when, since the last election, it has already gone back on so many of its promises to the Australian public? How can the Voice be held to account to make sure it does not overlook the needs of remote communities? No government should ever provide so little detail on such an important and permanent decision and then seek that you trust everything will work itself out once the decision is made. Australians deserve all the details before they vote on a permanent change to our Constitution.

As others on this side have noted, the coalition supports the passage of this bill and, importantly, Australians having their say. That's why I'm supporting the passage of this bill, allowing every Australian to vote on the proposed question and on whether it should be adopted and enshrined in our Constitution. I urge each and every person in this country to think carefully before casting their vote. Do not feel pressured to vote a certain way because a corporation or organisation is telling you that you should. If the proposal is not completely satisfactory to you, do not feel that you have to vote for it at all in order to attain parts of it. Good policy married with poor policy will not necessarily equate to a good outcome.

The question for me remains: on a vote as significant as this, are the risks work taking? Guilting the Australian public into voting for the poorly detailed policy that is the Voice, as distinct from constitutional recognition—those two should be separated—in my view is not a risk worth taking. Establishing a local and regional voice, along with restructuring Indigenous organisations, for the betterment of Indigenous people could be done right now in this place via legislation. We would then have genuine information and detail to discuss the specifics of the policy—an aspect of this debate which, to date, has been sadly lacking.

I will continue to support the call for Indigenous recognition in the Constitution. Constitutional recognition would be a significant step forward for Indigenous Australians and, in my view, would mark the completion of our Constitution.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to oppose the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I have to say I'm quite sad to have to speak on this bill in that way today. I don't believe that the government really needs to put us in this position with this bill, which is dividing us as a parliament and will divide us as a nation in the referendum. In fact, I believe we're at a historical point, a unique one in modern Australian history, where everybody—it doesn't really matter whether you're a conservative or a progressive, Right or Left, what your racial background is, what country you've come from or what gender you are—agrees that our Constitution could and should be altered to improve it so it's understood that the historical reality of this continent is that Aboriginal people were here first, accepting that principle in our Constitution. I actually think that consensus exists across this chamber and across our society today.

It is sad that we have ended up at a point where we are going to divide on a second proposition, which is something the government has called 'a voice to parliament'—which is the result of work that was done by the previous government—because of some things that are easily resolvable, in my mind. I'll go through some of those for the benefit of people listening.

I think that disagreement in a democracy is not division, and it's fundamental, when we have referendums, that we have a good debate and freedom of debate to discuss the ideas that will shape the fundamental rights that are involved in a constitution. Australia had the unique benefit of adopting the best of the British constitution and the best of the United States system and constitution—taking the best of those two models and implementing them together, as a modern country. But we're naturally conservative about the Constitution, not politically but in a traditional sense. There hasn't been a successful change to the Constitution since I was born, in 1977. In my entire life, not one referendum has been accepted adopted, and not many before that either. The reason for that is that there is an inherent scepticism, and I think a good scepticism, about government and government wanting to extend its power or control over the lives of individual citizens and communities, and about the idea that government knows best or that government can do best.

The whole principle of the Voice as I understand it, as best as it has been explained, is that government has not listened to Aboriginal people. Government and its organs—all of its bureaucracies, all of our parliaments, all of our laws—have not understood some fundamental things about what Aboriginal people want and need or how to determine their destinies within a modern Australia. And that's why we need the Voice. So we accept the point that government and its organs and all of our power has not been able to improve the lives of Aboriginal people. At the same time we're proposing that the way to resolve that is to send 24 elected politicians, elected by race, of Aboriginal descent, to Canberra to talk to government and that that will somehow resolve the same problems that have been unresolvable. To me, that doesn't make a whole deal of sense.

I've listened carefully to the arguments of my colleagues in the Labor Party, across the chamber. I've listened carefully. Many of them are very emotive. They've focused on 'how will you feel the day after if you vote yes or no'. I understand. Feelings are very important. Emotions are important. But constitutions are about rights, the application of rights, and about the construct of our society, and human progress has shown us that equality of rights is fundamental to a free society. The basic principle of equality of rights and access to rights is the most important feature, which means we should not allocate those rights on the basis of race, on the basis of background or on the basis of privilege. All of us want our children and grandchildren and future generations to have equal rights and opportunities, especially when it comes to questions of race.

So it is not understandable to me that a voice which is necessarily based on race—that's what the Makarrata Commission has told us: three per cent and 97 per cent—and which enshrines racially based rights in the Constitution will improve equality of rights in Australia or help us reconcile our history and help us journey together in the future. It isn't clear to me. The arguments I've heard from members opposite have not cleared it up either. I heard the member the Cowan, for example, say that, if you can Google a chicken curry recipe, you can Google what the Voice is. But we're not going to outsource the Australian government or the construction of our rights or the construction of our Constitution to Google or to a multinational company. There was the argument from the member for Cowan. She may have been making a joke, but it isn't a real constitutional argument.

Constitutions should be about principles, and the Constitution should be about the principle of equality of rights. It's a fundamental Liberal principle. It's a reason I'm in politics and parliament. I do believe absolutely that, as a human being, whatever your background, you should be treated the same, and our country has failed to do that in the past. Our Constitution failed to do that with some racist provisions in our own constitution that should be resolved and fixed. But history has taught us many things, and one of those is that trying to make subsequent or future generations pay for the mistakes of past generations is a fool's errand. Over 50 per cent of the population in Australia have a grandparent or parent born overseas. Most people have no ownership of our colonial period or the wrongs that were done to Aboriginal people. They weren't part of it—not their ancestors or them or their children or the future generations.

This debate today on this bill and this referendum that the government is putting forward is about the future. It's about future constructions of rights. We can't make rights more equal in Australia or fix what went wrong in the past—when many things went very wrong—by attempting to rebalance things the other way, so that the three per cent will then get special rights over the 97 per cent. It was wrong not to give Aboriginal people equal and the same citizenship from the beginning of our Constitution. It is wrong to enshrine the rights of three per cent over 97 per cent the other way. The better proposition is equal rights for all Australians, and that's the proposition that I'll be putting when I campaign for the 'no' case, because I believe that's the fundamental principle that makes a society free and makes us a great country.

I'm disappointed in the way the government has handled not just this legislation but the entire referendum debate. Many of the government members had a very respectful debate, but many implied that, if you don't understand the Voice, you are some form of idiot. The Prime Minister has been guilty of this, too. If you don't understand what the Voice is, somehow you're a fool. This is not correct. The Voice is a very new concept. People don't understand it. They need information about it. That is why, in the past under the legislation, governments have provided money and funding for the 'yes' case and the 'no' case in referendums and committed to extensive information campaigns and committed to constitutional conventions. That's because, when we're talking about the construct of our society, we want the maximum information in the hands of our citizens. We want their best thinking. We want their best consideration. The government has a role in setting that up. We certainly shouldn't be outsourcing it to Google, as the member for Cowan suggested. But the Albanese government quite radically has provided no funding for the 'yes' and 'no' cases. I understand that the purpose behind that—and I think Australians should really appreciate this—is that they believe that will give the 'yes' case an advantage. Therefore the government is saying, 'No funding.'

The government attempted to cut off the communication that would ordinarily go to every single household. Every household would get a basic piece of information from the government outlining the 'yes' and 'no' cases and outlining the merits of both so people could make their own decisions. The government tried to cut this off. Why did the government try to cut off information about our Constitution and about what's proposed? One can only surmise that they don't want information about the Voice in people's hands. Why? If this is as good for Aboriginal people as members of the government believe, why wouldn't you fund a full information campaign about it on both sides? You have to be fair about this. I might be a constitutional monarchist and believe in our system being quite unique and good for Australia and good for Australia's future, but of course I believe that the campaign for a republic should get the same amount of funding as the constitutional monarchy campaign. It would have been outrageous for the Howard government to have denied funding to one side or the other. It would have been outrageous for the Howard government not to commit to providing information on the 'yes' and 'no' cases to every single household so they could make their own informed decision. It would be, I think, an error not to have had that constitutional convention, which people can still remember being a great exploration of the issues.

What a great opportunity has been missed by the Albanese government to have a constitutional convention. That really could have thought about the best of the arguments for and against a Voice and really explored things in a way that would have helped. There's no doubt that the polls are telling us people don't understand exactly what the Voice is or how it will function. That's all demographics, including older people, younger people and migrants. I think that this failure by the government to have this fundamental fairness project on a fundamental change to our Constitution, something new and different, is a failure of the government. That's why I'm going to be opposing this bill.

I'm very frightened at the way the debate has been conducted in some quarters. It is almost as if Aboriginal people who have a 'no' opinion, who don't agree with the government's proposal on the Voice, have no right to that opinion. I think that's an extension of the paternalism that we've seen over many hundreds of years. It's an extension of the paternalism towards Aboriginal people—the idea that they can have only one opinion. Actually, the diversity in Aboriginal voices should be as welcome as the diversity in any other background or group, and it should be listened to.

I've found when I've spoken to Aboriginal elders who have spoken to me, some just very randomly, at events—they might be doing the welcome-to-country ceremony or other things—that I have been surprised by what I have heard from them about their concerns about the Voice. I have been surprised sometimes by their positions. Sometimes I have been confronted by other things that they have said that I did not expect. I believe Australians should go and listen to as many Indigenous Aboriginal elders as possible to get a real understanding of what people are thinking. We are not getting that in this debate in this chamber. We are getting a very one-sided monologue about this. We are not getting that in the media. We are getting a one-sided monologue.

But I am concerned that when I have said to Indigenous elders, 'I would like you to come and speak to the people in my electorate and tell your views, because your views as an Aboriginal person are more important than mine on this matter,' they have said that they are too afraid to speak out in the culture of today on their view that they have concerns one way or another about the Voice. I think that is a very, very sad indictment of this debate and the culture that we live in. This should not be the case. How we going to improve the situation for Aboriginal Australians if lots of Aboriginal people do not feel comfortable in coming forward with their own views? Are we guilty of not listening already? Are we guilty of not listening in this debate to Aboriginal voices that think differently to what the government is proposing? It feels like we're replicating the mistakes that we have been making for a long time in many ways. This is not an esoteric point. I think this is part of the cultural problem that we have today—that, if you are not in line with the majority or you don't have the consensus view, you are denied a voice. I think, sadly, that is happening to a lot of Aboriginal elders who don't agree with this proposal.

I accept many do, and I accept many think this is a good way to proceed. I think it would be nonsensical not to accept that. But a diversity of opinions needs to be heard. The fact that they are not being heard is another reason why I don't support this bill or this process. I believe that this juncture in history actually lends itself to us coming together and taking an important step in reconciliation. That would be recognition in our Constitution. I believe the government could get a mandate from the Australian people—and perhaps they did last time—to legislate a Voice in their own right. I may not agree with that, but if the government gets the public's permission they should legislate that Voice. It is a better way to proceed given all the lack of understanding that we have seen from Aboriginal bodies in the past. You can go through all of the different bodies in Australian history. Everybody in this chamber has now acknowledged that they haven't done a great job of listening, understanding or working through government processes to produce outcomes. That's why we're here. So how is another one going to do that?

The last one point I'll make is that the government's denial of detail of any potential bill or legislation is another revealing point of their intention. Detail does matter in relation to constitutional reform. How we will improve the lives of Aboriginal people is an essential question. How will the Voice do that? No government speaker has addressed that. They've said it will. They've asserted many things, but they've not said, 'This is how the Voice will function to improve these actual practical outcomes for Aboriginal people.' At the same time they're saying we need to listen more, the government are saying that this will not be listened to because the executive doesn't have to pay attention; it just has to consult. That's their own argument—that this will not be litigated. Really, when you look at it—and there is plenty of conjecture about this—everything is litigated in Australia. So if we have a constitutional amendment and we have a bill to enshrine the Voice and a piece of legislation passes this parliament, this would be the first constitutional amendment in Australian history that wasn't litigated. I just don't think anybody can look the Australian people in the eye and suggest that there will be no litigation out of a change like this. Of course there will be and we accept there will be. That is not necessarily a reason to go against it but it is a concern that would be addressed by a piece of legislation that the Australian people could examine and that legal professionals could examine. We could test that and test how well that would work or not work. None of that has happened. So I say to people: consider this carefully, seek out the information the government is trying to deny you and consult Aboriginal elders.

The Prime Minister is fond of asking: if not now, when? But I say to the Prime Minister: if it is a bad idea, never. I won't be supporting this bill and I certainly won't be supporting the referendum in its current state. I do believe that it is sad for our country. I believe we can recognise Aboriginal people in the Constitution and that we should in the future.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great privilege to rise this evening to make a related and brief contribution to what has been a marathon debate. I think there have been over 100 speakers so far, and I have listened very respectfully and with interest to the contributions from all sides. While we obviously have points of difference, there has been a great opportunity for the House to debate this bill and for all people to put their points of view. I want to take the opportunity this evening to explain to my constituents my position on the Voice. I've been very consistent in my media statements that I have always supported the recognition of Indigenous people as the first inhabitants of this continent that we all now enjoy; that is a no-brainer and it should be recognised. However, I don't support the enshrinement of the Aboriginal Voice advisory body in our Constitution. I will explain why in a moment.

I did also want to make the point that I absolutely support the right of the government to take this referendum to the Australian people. It was certainly an election commitment that they had made, and the Australian people deserve to have their say on this important issue. I will be voting against this particular legislation this evening, if that is in fact when the vote takes place, as an authorised dissenter. The reason—I'm talking specifically to my constituents here—is because I had some input into the 'no' pamphlet I will have to be recorded as having voted against this legislation. That is why I stand here tonight—to explain that position. I will also now explain why that is so important.

Many people in my electorate don't have the IT skills or the access to IT to simply google all of the details on the Voice. There are many elderly people. I have a larger than average cohort of older Australians. Many have already contacted me and asked for more information, so I do believe that the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets will be critical for my constituents to come to an informed position on the Voice. I encourage all of them to take advantage of that process.

I want to take a moment to quote from Paul Kelly's—the doyen of the press gallery—article in The Australian on the weekend about this process. This is not me speaking. This is not any partisan o Liberal member or indeed those from the other side. This is a scrupulously fair and balanced commentator who has enjoyed the title of 'doyen of the press gallery' for many years. He said:

This is a government that refused to convene a constitutional convention, refused to authorise a full-scale parliamentary assessment at the outset, made no early effort to achieve bipartisanship, declined to legislate the voice first to test its viability and decided the details of the voice would be released after the referendum, not before.

This is why we so desperately need these pamphlets to be sent out to all Australians, I'm speaking here tonight specifically to my electorate. We have fought very hard to get this pamphlet up. The government initially refused or was not going to include a pamphlet as part of the process. We have got them over the line on the pamphlet, and I will be taking part in providing some input into the wording of that 2,000-word pamphlet.

As I've said, we've heard many contributions in this place, many of them wonderful speeches. I just want to add my small, unique perspective as the member for an electorate which is 9.1 per cent Indigenous. From the north of the Ngaanyatjarra lands right up to Wingellina on the South Australia-Northern Territory border, Warakurna on the NT border and right down to Nannup and Manjimup in the south-west of Western Australia, it's an enormous electorate with a very diverse range of Indigenous people living across it. We've got some of the most desperately disadvantaged remote communities and we've also got some very highly functioning communities in the southern part of the state. I deal with those Aboriginal people on a virtually daily basis. Just on Friday night I was in Leonora at a function where I spoke to some very dear friends about this very issue. I'm not going to reveal their thoughts, because I want to retain their privacy, but my point is that I engage with Indigenous people, as I say, on an almost daily basis.

When I hear this sort of paternalistic view that all Aboriginal people agree on everything and that, if we have this panel of 24 that will meet here in Canberra, they will speak for that incredibly diverse range of people across my electorate, I just don't accept that. That's not my lived experience of dealing with those people. A great example of that was the cashless debit card trial, which operated in my electorate for five years and was removed recently by the government. Some of those very dear Indigenous friends of mine fought tooth and nail to have the cashless debit card introduced to make a difference to their people. That was opposed by other Indigenous people around the country, many academics, many high-ranking public servants and others who thought it was paternalistic et cetera. It was never actually intended to be targeted specifically at Indigenous people. Across the Goldfields, in fact, fewer than 50 per cent of the people on the cashless debit card were Indigenous, but that's the way that it was construed by opponents in the government, in the media and in other areas on social media.

There was no consensus from Aboriginal people on that particular issue, and certainly, while the government may claim they had support for the removal of the cashless debit card, I have many Indigenous people across the Goldfields who opposed that particular policy. Lo and behold, in today's West Australian the headline says 'Cashless debit card: secret reports reveal spike in drinking, violence after controversial scheme axed'. It goes on to say:

A rise in drinking, gambling, stabbings, domestic violence and school non-attendance was reported in the East Kimberley in the weeks after the cashless debit card was abolished.

So the people of the East Kimberley, who fought to keep the card, would possibly disagree with Aboriginal people in other parts of the country. This notion that all Aboriginal people are going to come together, including three of them from Western Australia on this panel of 24, and agree on these issues is completely wrong. That is part of the reason that I will be voting no and encouraging people in my electorate to vote no.

I think, from the broader perspective of the community—and everyone I speak to wants to see better outcomes for Aboriginal people; there's no question about that—what I'm hearing is that people are very concerned about the risks of introducing this Voice to the Constitution. We've heard a whole range of legal views in the media. We've had the parliamentary inquiry. We've had contributions here in the parliament saying that, because such and such legal expert said that there's not a problem, there can't be a problem. I'm not a lawyer; I'm a humble farmer. But I've seen a few legal cases play out in my time, and a recent one that springs to mind is the Love case in the Hight Court. I'm not going to go into the details of that case. However, I assume the Solicitor-General briefed counsel on behalf of the government, and I assume he briefed them that there was a significant chance that the Commonwealth of Australia would win that particular case in the High Court. Well, the Commonwealth of Australia didn't win the case. I use that example to illustrate that just because you get a legal opinion, whether it be from constitutional expert A, from the Solicitor-General or from a certain retired High Court Judge, that doesn't give any guarantees of how these things may play out in the High Court in future.

So, my position is that I will be voting no in the actual referendum. I will be voting no to this particular legislation enabling the referendum. However, that doesn't mean I don't support the legislation. I'm simply voting no so that I can be part of the 'no' pamphlet process, which I'm very much looking forward to.

In conclusion, I sincerely hope that as this debate carries on over the next six months people make the effort to inform themselves, to ask questions, to not be afraid to dissent if that's how they feel and, most importantly, to treat people who have an alternative point of view with respect. Thank you very much.

Kristy McBain (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank all the speakers who have been part of this debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I think it's really important that the tone of the debate is kept at a high level. Whilst the member for O'Connor and I disagree on a lot, we do agree on that—that there will be a variety of opinions across our country, all of which should be treated with respect during this process.

I come from an electorate with an Aboriginal population that is larger than the national average and one that has experienced disadvantage at various points. I believe fundamentally that we can do better and we should do better for our First Nations communities across the country. And I believe that constitutional recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is absolutely unquestionable. I'm really proud to be part of a government that is now prioritising the importance of constitutional change to recognise and to listen to First Nations people across our country. This debate has gone on for decades, and for decades I have seen a top-down approach, one that imposes a range of things on First Nations communities, one that hasn't listened to the voices of First Nations communities and definitely didn't prioritise allowing our First Nations communities to have a say on laws that directly impact them and that don't, on most occasions, impact any other person in our society.

I think now is the time for change. Not only is it time to right the wrongs of the past but it's time for our country to move forward under a model of recognition that is acceptable to First Nations Australians and that works within the framework of Australian law and governance as we know it. To my mind, it takes a Labor government to effect this type of change. We have a long history of creating equality, equity and fairness for all Australians. But this isn't a Labor Party idea. It is not a function of government. It was an idea generated by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the result of numerous dialogues across the country which culminated in Uluru. We are simply listening to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, because that statement asks for constitutional recognition through a Voice.

We've heard that having a Voice to Parliament will take away some of the feelings of powerlessness that so many of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander friends and family feel, right across this country. We've heard from Constitutional experts who state that the alteration that will take place as a result of the Voice will enhance our system of governance and its laws. It will address the lack of inclusion or recognition of Australia's First Nations people in the Constitution, and the debate I have heard across the chamber absolutely highlights that that is the goal of everyone in this chamber—   Constitutional recognition. It's a worthy and long-overdue aim, and I'm pleased to hear so many support that.

Currently, our Constitution doesn't contain any references to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. However, it does allow for our parliament to make laws that relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We've heard the importance of being recognised as the first Australians in the Constitution is important to many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This change will reflect the real history of our land and at last include all of its people. We should be incredibly proud of that history, a history where we have the longest living connection to land, sea and sky of anywhere of the world in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, a history that spans over 60,000 years. Secondly, it will provide First Nations people with the ability to have an enduring Voice to Parliament on policies and legislation that will directly impact them—a Voice embedded in our Constitution that cannot be overturned by future governments.

The establishment of this Voice to Parliament will ensure that the Constitution reflects the historical truth of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' longstanding and continuing place in Australia, and provides an institution to improve their lives. The Voice is an invitation from our First Nations people to say, 'Can we try something different?' It is a recognition that over the last couple of hundred years we have made decisions on behalf of First Nations people, and some that were not so good for them. This is simply an acknowledgement that we can and should do better, an invitation that at its heart says, 'Can you listen to us when you are making decisions about us?' I speak to a lot of Aboriginal people in my own electorate, and one of the most basic things they say to me is: 'We've tried it your way. Can you try it our way for a change? Make decisions with us, not for us.' When it boils down to that, it isn't much to ask that we have a Voice to Parliament and to the government of the day so that First Nations people can have a say in the laws that impact them.

Now is the time for our communities to have that say. Now is the time for the Australian public to have that vote. There has been a lot of discussion about detail, there has been a lot of discussion saying, 'We need to know more,' and 'There's not enough time.' This debate has gone on for decades. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was delivered in May 2017, and we are already six years down the track with no investment. Now is the time that we should do this. To people out there asking for information, there will be a lot of information as a referendum date is set. It will come forward. Not only will there be information on the process of a referendum and how people can be involved in a campaign if they wish to be but there will also be the public information pamphlet as well. There is more to come, but this is not the end of the story. This isn't the only thing to do. The referendum at its heart gives a power to parliament to make laws. Following that referendum, if we are serious about a Voice to Parliament, we then go out and consult with First Nations people and how they want this Voice to work for them. What are the things they want to talk about? Some of the discussions we've heard have said, 'Show us the legislation now. Isn't that the exact top-down approach we're trying to avoid and that the Voice asked us not to do any more?

I've heard from members across the parliament who say that not all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people agree with the Voice. Absolutely! Not all Greeks agree with an issue that impacts them. Not all Italians agree. Not all English migrants agree. That is just another move to say: 'If they can't agree amongst themselves, then surely we should find something else to do instead.' This is about moving everyone forward with the consensus that came to this parliament from First Nations people themselves. It was presented to then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who was succeeded by Prime Minister Morrison and then by Prime Minister Albanese.

We have to act. We cannot continue to kick the can down the road and say: 'We'll get to it at another point.' Now is the time to do something different, because we know that on every metric we are failing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. There are worse housing outcomes, worse health outcomes, and worse educational and social outcomes. We can and should do more. The referendum will move this country forward. It will, in my opinion, give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a feeling of belonging in this country, a feeling that their voice is being listened to by parliament, a feeling that, even if it's not perfect, it's another step in the right direction.

I look forward to the many conversations that are going to take place over the coming months and hearing from people with a variety of different views. I will end my reflections as I started them. This has to be a debate that, at its heart, is about respect, because I believe everyone in this chamber and everyone across Australia believes that recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our Constitution is long overdue. But I also believe that we need a mechanism to make sure that that voice can't be changed going forward, which is why this constitutional amendment is so important for all of us. I hope that the debate remains respectful and takes into account a wide variety of views. Hopefully, that will lead to some fantastic outcomes across our country.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 and, in so doing, make clear my views on the question that will be put to the Australian people at the upcoming referendum. At the outset, let me reiterate the Liberal Party's position that all Australians deserve to have their say on that question—not big business, not big sporting codes, not political parties. All those bodies and more will make their views known and will put forward the case for yes or no. But, ultimately, it will be the Australian people who decide. The outcome is in their hands.

Whilst I will be voting yes to this bill, I will be voting no to the Prime Minister's question. The Prime Minister's proposed reform of the Constitution is unsound. It is my strong view that a yes vote will not result in better outcomes for Indigenous Australians, but it could result in worse outcomes for all Australians.

The term 'outcomes for Indigenous Australians' is often used in this debate, and it is used in the context of closing the gap in Indigenous disadvantage. We should pause and ask ourselves what this means and what we seek. In my view, it means measures that help children to feel safe in their own homes and beds, help women to be safe from violence and sexual assault, support families to stay together in secure housing, bring down the disproportionately high rates of smoking and health conditions such as type 2 diabetes and kidney disease, normalise going to school and work as a regular part of everyday life, and lower the rates of Indigenous incarceration. While these outcomes are practical in nature, there is, of course, a spiritual, moral and ethical dimension to closing the gap, but the work needed to advance these practical outcomes illustrates that the mission of reconciliation remains unfinished.

The overwhelming majority of Australians want to see the gaps closed. They want to see these better outcomes realised, and they want the reconciliation journey to continue apace. You can want all of that but still vote no because you do not believe that this referendum question is the right one. As my friend the member for Berowra often says, people of goodwill can disagree. My own local church parish leader, Father Peter MacLeod-Miller, who wrote to me over the weekend, noted: 'It would be a tragedy if the referendum left us more divided than we have been before and more fearful of offering a range of perspectives because of righteous intolerance.'

People of goodwill can disagree, and in this referendum people of goodwill will disagree. But, increasingly, this Prime Minister acts as the self-proclaimed moral arbiter of Australia's national conscience, not as a leader seeking consensus. Again and again, when given the opportunity to provide the detail, the Prime Minister takes the low road and hurls insults instead. Regardless of whether 'yes' narrowly wins or narrowly loses, millions of Australians will vote 'no', and they deserve better than their Prime Minister referring to them as 'undertakers preparing the grave to bury Uluru', 'Chicken Littles' or anything else with such deplorable connotations. We cannot be in a situation, either, where those on the edges of radical politics belittle and demean Indigenous Australians, blaming them for their suffering and ignoring the realities of what has caused them their pain. Hardliners on both sides of this referendum need to take a long, hard look at the words they choose, because language matters; discourse matters. And there is a special obligation on the Prime Minister to keep this debate respectful, because, if he continues to descend into the gutter, how on earth can he lecture anyone else about the evils of joining him there?

I do believe there is a lack of understanding in society today about intergenerational trauma and how it cascades through generations. We have examples in our own history. When young men came back from the war, some were unable to manage relationships or show love for their children. Those children endured very difficult childhoods, and, in turn, were not always able to shake the lingering effects from their own decisions. Some turned to alcohol and drugs in order to cope, and that continued the pain in their own families.

But trauma in our Indigenous communities is especially severe and protracted. That is why at the heart of closing the gap is the need to break the cycle. Just because you did not personally experience dispossession, loss of identity and loss of country does not mean that you are not affected; nor does it mean you carry no burden.

The apology was an important moment in our country's history. I was proud to support it then and I'm proud to support it now. As I said at the time:

The lessons we learn in very early childhood are the lessons we carry with us all our lives. Not having proper parenting very early on, not knowing your family and not knowing who you are are obstacles many find impossible to overcome. The pain of rejection and loss do not go away.

Knowing all of this, some say that it is nevertheless not our fault and we should not apologise. If previous parliaments are no longer around to say sorry, then it is up to us as the present parliament to apologise.

In 22 years as a federal parliamentarian, I have travelled to many Indigenous communities across the country. No-one can deny the enormous gap in living standards that exist between most non-Indigenous Australians compared with our First Australians. There is much more work to be done, and all Australians must be engaged in bridging the divide in distance and understanding for a more unified and confident nation.

As environment minister, I ruled against a go-kart track on the top of Mount Panorama, recognising the sacredness of the songlines that link the tops of all mountains for Indigenous peoples. Listening to different views from local tribes, I also made a decision that the remains of Mungo Man and Mungo Lady needed to be re-interred in unmarked graves, rather than continuing to be kept like scientific experiments in a safe at the tourist lodge, to the real distress of their descendants. In both of these situations, not every Aboriginal person agreed with either the decisions I made or with each other. As with most complex social issues, people think differently.

How, therefore, do you capture deeply-held convictions and unique bonds of connection, kinship and country? I do not believe the answer lies in the proposal advanced by the Prime Minister. I do not believe that the path forward is through a group of appointed national leaders residing at the top of our system of government with an unlimited, untested ability to interact not just with elected representatives but across the full spectrum of executive government and with supreme authority gifted by the Constitution. How can this group of just 20 have the detailed understanding, networks or even decision-making capability to reach across, and provide advice on, the myriad bespoke challenges in each and every local community? And how can a top-down bureaucracy be better than a bottom-up, community-led, locally-empowered Voice—one which speaks with local authority and local purpose, from every Indigenous community across Australia, backed by legislation, in this parliament? This is why I was and remain such a strong supporter of local and regional voices as prescribed, initiated and undertaken by the previous Liberal government. I see this as a critical step towards improving the trajectory of people's lives.

Recently Senator Kerrynne Liddle and I visited a family living on a concrete slab on the edge of Alice Springs. Originally travelling from an outstation, they had been there for months so that one of their own could receive medical treatment at the Alice Springs Hospital. It was confronting to see people in modern Australia living in such squalor and hopelessness. It made me angry. Unfortunately, the situation would have continued if not for national media attention bringing a necessary and urgent response. On one level, the family was let down by the government. On another, they were let down by the Aboriginal council charged with assisting them. Disadvantaged communities need practical action to make a difference today, and the Voice won't do that.

The desperation of remote communities that have so little is often invisible to those living in the cities. But that is exactly what this Prime Minister seeks to disingenuously appeal to—the enormous goodwill and good nature of all Australians. The Prime Minister constantly implies that, if you are horrified by reports of Indigenous children in crisis and you want to do something to help, you must vote for the Voice because it will help. But, sadly, it will not. It will add an extraordinary layer of bureaucracy to every single decision the government makes, adding time, adding complexity and keeping communities waiting even longer for real measures that make a real difference.

I know that the argument of too much bureaucracy is dismissed by 'yes' advocates as a dreary political answer to a challenging moral question, but you can see what excessive bureaucracy has done to Aboriginal Australians in the past. It has prevented decisions being made precisely because of just how many competing issues and areas of responsibility are involved. Those issues won't go away with the Voice; they will actually become entrenched.

There have been well-meaning efforts over many years to bring together all levels of government in one place, and I saw this in western New South Wales with a COAG initiative called the Murdi Paaki trial. I encourage people to read the evaluation not because it necessarily failed but because it is a clear demonstration of just how difficult and challenging Indigenous policy is. In this case, 16 community action plans were delayed and not finalised. People couldn't agree. If this doesn't point to the need for local and regional voices then I don't know what does. If you read this evaluation and superimpose a national Canberra led voice over the top, how could it be anything but counterproductive?

When I go to the ballot box later this year and vote no I will do so with conviction but with a heavy heart. If the question were different and about enshrining Indigenous Australians as our First Australians in the Constitution, the recognition that enjoys bipartisan support in this place, and this was accompanied by legislated local and regional voices than I would enthusiastically vote yes. As Father Peter also noted in his letter to me: 'National leadership under our system of government affords the flexible option of legislation without permanent constitutional amendment.' The truth is that, by pursuing his my-way-or-the-highway approach, the Prime Minister is putting the whole mission of reconciliation at risk. If the Prime Minister wants to achieve what he says he does, his first duty should be to bring all Australians with him. There's no stopwatch in this process. There's no call to action that says it must be completed in the next few months. The timeline is entirely the Prime Minister's.

I appeal to the Prime Minister: if you look into your heart and the heart of the nation you lead and you see division, misunderstanding and, yes, even fear, do not rush to failure. Instead of insulting and demeaning the millions of Australians who are going to vote no, I urge the Prime Minister to work constructively with the opposition to legislate what we can agree on and then go to the Australian people with a referendum question that enjoys bipartisan support—constitutional recognition backed by legislated voices.

As I said on the day that the opposition leader and I announced our party's position on the Voice, it was a day of many yeses—yes to constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians, yes to local and regional voices, yes to better outcomes for Indigenous Australians, yes to Indigenous Australians having their say and yes to uniting this country behind doing everything that we as a parliament can to strengthen outcomes for Indigenous Australians but a no to dividing Australians.

To all Australians I say this: it's okay to vote no and still remain part of the national effort to help your Indigenous brothers and sisters as you look on with anguish at what is happening in their communities. It's okay to vote no and still demand better action from all politicians when it comes to closing the gap. It's okay to vote no full stop. And it's okay to vote yes, too. What is not okay is to feel a moral compulsion and a coercive guilt to vote a certain way because of the tenor of this debate. It's not okay for the Prime Minister to bully you into a decision. It's time for the Prime Minister to stop the insults and the moral blackmail. That's what will divide our country and tear at the fabric of our beautiful nation. Significantly changing our country's Constitution cannot be allowed to proceed just on the vibe. The Prime Minister has deliberately starved Australians of crucial details at every juncture. He has been deliberately tricky.

An increasing number of Australians—I believe them to be a majority—feel they do not have enough information to ratify the permanent change to our Constitution that the Prime Minister demands. This isn't even about tinkering with an existing section. Australians aren't being asked to make modest revisions or improvements to words already there; they're being asked to enshrine an entirely new section. This is exactly why the High Court would be eventually called to interpret the Voice's full scope and powers, and no-one can predict the outcome of that interpretation on our system of government.

I've made my personal views known in the speech, but, as I said at the outset, this is going to be for each and every Australian to decide. Irrespective of the final result, I will continue to pray that we stay together as a country true to the spirit that has made us who we are and what we are. Ours is a story that enmeshes an Indigenous history, a British liberal democratic inheritance and the most incredible mosaic of multiculturalism anywhere on earth. As Australians approach this greatly consequential national debate, we cannot lose sight of the importance of every single part of our national story. That is how we stay strong, that is how we stay together and that is how we advance the next chapter of our unique Australian story, advancing Australia fair together, one and free.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Constitution is well crafted. It's an excellent document written after a decade of deliberation by men of great wisdom and foresight. It has largely withstood the test of time, serving Australia well even after considerable global and generational changes. But the Constitution was not perfect, as the eight changes made by the Australian people since 1901 have demonstrated. Interestingly, none of the delegates to the constitutional conventions in the late 19th century were women, and none were Indigenous. Those groups were treated as unequals, which is one of the great failings of our constitutional founders.

There is no denial or dispute that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people inhabited this land prior to European settlement. As such, they have an exclusive and unique place in Australian history. Regrettably, the Australian Constitution never recognised that reality. Even worse, Indigenous Australians were cast aside and downtrodden for decades. Australian history is littered with examples of Indigenous Australians being oppressed, enslaved and even killed. Disgracefully, children were forcibly removed from their families in an attempt to erase Indigenous existence from this land and to destroy their culture and their spirit.

That's why this legislation is so important. It addresses in some part and attempts to right, to the extent that it's possible, the wrongs of the past. Importantly and contrary to those who say this proposal to create a constitutionally enshrined Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice will be divisive, the proposal will, after around 240-odd years, serve to bring people together and, indeed, to rectify those past failings.

Since 1788, Australia has not been one nation, and it certainly has not been for all Australians. The terminology 'First Nations people' implies that there is division, and that division has been a consistent feature of Australian society ever since European settlement. The original section 51(xxvi) of the Australian Constitution until 1967 singled out Aboriginal people and specifically empowered the parliament to make laws with respect to 'the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any state, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws'. The words 'other than the Aboriginal race in any state' were subsequently removed, after the 1967 referendum.

By way of another example, the Defence Act 1903 prevented Indigenous Australians from military service. However, hundreds of Indigenous Australians did serve, but they were paid less and treated as unequals during that service, and at the end of their service they were denied access to soldier settlement schemes, unlike all the other soldiers.

Both in law and in everyday life, the discrimination against Indigenous Australians is a cause of shame in Australia's otherwise relatively proud history. I have nevertheless been heartened by the many gracious, sincere and respectful contributions to this debate, from all sides, which I believe were made from the heart—and excuse the pun. I believe that many of the speakers to date have spoken with absolute sincerity and with belief and conviction in what they have been saying. However, there have been matters raised that I will attempt to respond to in the time that I have, because I think they might go to the heart of the concerns that are raised with me as I get around my own community.

The first is the argument that the debate has become one of emotion, one where emotional rhetoric is starting to dominate part of the discourse that I hear in and around the community. Well, can I say, this is indeed an emotional subject. Nearly 240 years of injustices and disadvantage evoke emotion and passion. That's the reality. So, if people get emotional about it then I believe there's good reason for that. But, more importantly, passion in my view indicates that people are sincere and genuine about what they are speaking about, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. It means people have absolute conviction about what they are saying. I have particularly noted that those who make the claim of emotion the most are themselves relying heavily on a fear campaign of divisiveness and special rights. Fear is the most effective emotional tool used in any campaign right now, and it has been used successfully time and time again. Again, I see fear being brought into this debate, and in my view that is a much more negative side of talking about emotion than what I hear from those who speak passionately about the changes that are needed.

The second objection raised is that there has been insufficient time to consider the proposal. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was considered, debated and delivered six years ago, in May 2017. Since then it has been discussed and debated extensively, just as debate about Indigenous disempowerment, discrimination and wrongdoings have taken up so much of parliamentary debate over the years—indeed, perhaps more so than just about any other topic I can think of. Importantly, there have been four critical reports since 2012, all about this very issue. So, I question whether those who argue that more time is required are sincere in that particular argument.

But, separate to that, I genuinely believe it is highly unlikely that an extension of time would have elicited more views or changed the views of the legal experts who have provided advice or the community leaders who have taken an interest in the Voice proposal, have followed the debate and have made a submission. I propose this question: does anyone in this place realistically suggest that their view would have changed if more time had been allocated?

The constitutional change proposed has also been described as divisive. Personally, I do not accept that description. I believe the proposal in fact does the opposite. The Close the Gap title does not apply to any other sector of our society. That makes it very clear in my mind that we are already a divided society and we on this side are trying to bridge that gap, which is in fact why the title is there. The divisions have always been there. Indigenous Australians are the only sector of society for whom we already have numerous sector-specific laws, including for land rights, education, government procurement policies, health, employment and so on. There are a number of laws which specifically address Indigenous disadvantage. The Indigenous peoples of this land are not only disadvantaged but their issues need to be addressed separately. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have, as I have said from the outset, a unique place in our society.

It is also claimed that insufficient detail is known about the Voice. Again, all I can say to people who make that statement is, if you want to take the time to have a look at what is proposed, there is now plenty of literature out there. Whether you go to the website voice.gov.au or whether you simply ring up your member of parliament or any other group who has been following this this debate, that information is now available. It clearly spells out what is proposed. If the Voice proposal is supported, there will be subsequent legislation relating to the administrative functions of the Voice as a body and also perhaps other details. But that subsequent legislation doesn't change the Constitution. That can be changed by subsequent governments if it isn't fit for purpose, so any fear that we might have got it wrong in that respect can be addressed as we deal with any issues that arise. The critical question before parliament right now is the proposed change to the Constitution itself. Because, as we know, with all sections of the Constitution, what is written into the Constitution are matters of principle. It is the foundation of our laws. It doesn't then go to the specifics of the laws, which are dealt with by parliament on a daily basis. So it is the principle that we are asking people to vote on here.

There have also been concerns about High Court challenges if the Voice is allowed to make representations to executive government. I hear the comments from people whose views I respect greatly, but those claims have now refuted by several eminent legal experts. Just as importantly, the intent of this legislation has been made clear by the explanatory memorandum and the Attorney-General's second reading speed. There has always existed in this country a longstanding convention that if and when grey areas of law arise, the courts will rely on the intent of the legislation as spelled out in the explanatory memorandum and the minister's second reading speed. So it makes it clear that those concerns that have been raised about representations to executive government are unfounded. Frankly, I believe that they are simply being used to raise more fear in the minds of voters.

In conclusion, when land rights were first mooted, I can recall a very serious and, I thought at the time, genuine fear campaign about the risk to everybody's property rights. Those risks never eventuated. When the notion of terra nullius was dismissed by the High Court in 1993, the same concerns were raised. Again, those fears were unfounded. Equally, when the Wik native title legislation was challenged in the courts—that was to do with native title rights co-existing with pastoral leaseholders—those fears were unfounded. I certainly recall when the apology was being mooted all the arguments about how this would lead to a plethora of financial claims against the government. It never happened. I say the same about the fears that are being raised about this legislation. I do not believe that they are justified or that they will happen. Ultimately, the Australian people will decide, and that is how it should be, because only a decision of the Australian people will be acceptable and provide enduring change.

Whilst not enshrined in the Constitution, every other sector of society has a representative body that provides advice and makes representations to government about matters that affect their sector. The constitutional recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people acknowledges their unique place in Australian history, which, unlike in New Zealand, Canada and the USA, where similar British settlement took place, their Indigenous rights were recognised through the establishment of treaties. In Australia, that never happened, and that is why this legislation and this recognition within the Constitution becomes so important.

We now have an opportunity to make the amendments that are necessary to do that. The constitutional change will ensure ongoing certainty, which is, again, one of the concerns that have been raised with me about how we've plenty of voices for all Australians in this place right now. We cannot guarantee that into the future unless something like this is written into the Constitution, which will, indeed, make it enduring.

I believe this legislation will prove itself, like previous matters, to be not only enduring but the right decision for the Australian people to make right now.

Anika Wells (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia stands on the shoulders of 1,600 generations of First Nations people. That is our shared history. In my first speech to parliament, I spoke about being in this place to be a good ancestor. It is up to us now to prepare for the generations ahead. Through this legislation and this referendum, the Albanese government is giving all Australians the opportunity to be good ancestors, to accept the invitation from First Nations people to walk with them and to build a better future together and to implement practical and symbolic reform.

The referendum to enshrine Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution will be about two things. It will be about recognising and it will be about listening—recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia with 65,000 years of history and continuous connection to this land, and listening to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples when it comes to laws and policies that affect them.

The Turrbal and Yuggera peoples are the traditional custodians of my electorate of Lilley, on the northern side of the Maiwar, also known as the Brisbane River. Earlier this year I spoke with Lilley local from Deagon and Wemba Wemba First Nations lawyer Eddie Synot about what the Voice means for him. Eddie said: 'Everyone can see there are real issues that we have failed to deal with as a society, issues which are regularly highlighted in this place and in the media. For a long time First Nations people have had unfinished business in this country, and we now have an opportunity to do something about it and to be part of something positive.' I would like to thank Eddie for taking the time to share his perspective with me and with our community.

Sports clubs and codes from right around the country who have benefited from the skills of Indigenous sports stars have backed their First Nations players and the Voice: Football Australia, the Australian Football League, Australian Taekwondo, Badminton Australia, Baseball Australia, Boxing Australia, Cricket Australia, Rugby Australia, Tennis Australia, National Rugby League, Netball Australia, Golf Australia, Deaf Sport Australia, No Limit Boxing, NRL Touch Football Australia, Triathlon Australia, Wheelchair Rugby League, Motorsport Australia, the PGA of Australia, Sport Inclusion Australia and the National Basketball League. Our peak Olympic and Commonwealth Games bodies, the Australian Olympic Committee and the Commonwealth Games Australia, have also backed the Voice.

Last week I heard the member for Cook talk down sports organisations who have gotten behind the Voice. I couldn't disagree more with the member for Cook's sentiment that politics should stay out of sport. Sport is a platform for growth, for conversation and for influence. Sport is a vehicle which unites people, and I commend all of these organisations for coming together to support the Voice. As Senior Australian of the Year and Kungarakany and Iwaidja man Professor Tom Calma said, the fate of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament rests with the people, not the politicians. With that in mind, I cede the rest of my speaking time.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to support the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 and to say that I will campaign every day between now and referendum day for this referendum to pass, because I want our Constitution to recognise First Nations Australians and I want to see a voice to parliament. This bill sets out the proposed alteration to Australia's Constitution which people will vote on later this year. It gives this country a wonderful opportunity, a nation-building opportunity, to recognise 65,000 years of Indigenous history and culture, to listen to Indigenous voices on the issues that affect them, to close the terrible gap in life outcomes and to come together, as Australians with big hearts and generous minds, in a spirit of reconciliation and national unity.

This referendum is the culmination of an extraordinary democratic process. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was born out of a series of regional dialogues—dialogues held in every state and territory—finishing appropriately in the heart of our country, at Uluru. These dialogues involved 1,200 delegates. We've never seen anything quite like it. It was an unprecedented exercise in grassroots democracy, led by First Nations Australians at every stage and building on a much older movement for reconciliation. The Day of Mourning first took place in my electorate in 1938. There were the Yirrkala bark petitions in 1963, the Barunga Statement in 1988 and so many more moments in our history when this perfectly reasonable request was made of us as a nation.

We owe it to the people who participated in these dialogues to take their proposition seriously and not to disrespect their hard work by rejecting it out of hand or by calling it a Canberra voice, when this couldn't be further from the truth. This is a voice to Canberra, not the voice of Canberra. Delegates came from all over the country to Uluru—from big cities and small towns, and from remote communities right across Australia. They came from Redfern in my electorate. There's something deeply unfair about dismissing that contribution, and I really do plead with the Leader of the Opposition, who now acknowledges that he was wrong to reject the apology to the stolen generations: please don't make the same mistake again; please don't turn your back on the rightful request of First Nations Australians for recognition in their own land.

As Minister Burney and the father of reconciliation, Senator Pat Dodson, have both made so clear, this is a referendum about two principles: recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of Australia in our Constitution and listening to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples when it comes to the laws and policies that affect them. It does this by establishing a representative body made up of First Nations people that will advise parliament and decision-makers on relevant topics, and it entrenches that body in the Constitution.

This was a very important point for First Nations peoples at the constitutional convention. The Voice should be rooted in the Constitution so politicians can't sweep it away when they feel like it. But the design of the Voice—its size, its reach, its composition—can be amended by the parliament of the day, just as the original Constitution said that the Commonwealth would be responsible for defence without specifying how big the Army would be or what the chain of command would look like. This referendum will establish the body in principle while leaving room to refine the model as we learn more over time. One thing the Voice doesn't do is give a veto over government laws or decision-making, and I think it's important to combat that misinformation that some people are engaged in.

As I said, this referendum is about recognition and it's about respect. We are so lucky to share this country with the world's oldest continuous cultures. As the Uluru statement puts it, First Nations people have called Australia home:

… according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from 'time immemorial', and according to science more than 60,000 years.

It makes me so proud. I was recently in Paris, where I saw an exhibition of First Nations art. To see these enormous paintings that tell the stories of the songlines; to see the creation of the artists; to be able to show that to the world and to feel pride that this is an example of Australian art and culture; and to have the experience of First Nations people saying to us: 'It can belong to all of us. Recognise this history and culture in our Constitution', is an incredibly moving experience.

There's been a palpable change in my lifetime, as Australians have grown to understand just a little bit about the scale of this history and culture. When I was growing up—and I'm sure other members have experienced this as well—we didn't do acknowledgement of country or welcome to country when we were at school. In fact, I went to our school library to ask my history teacher: 'Who were the people who lived here? Whose land are we on?' My history teacher couldn't tell me. My school library couldn't tell me. I went to the Sutherland library, next door to the council chambers in Sutherland, and I couldn't find out there either. It is incredible to think that. There is no child anywhere in Australia today who couldn't tell you the names of the traditional owners of the land their school is on. What an amazing bit of progress that is.

Yes, it's progress, but that progress comes slowly. It comes at a cost to the elders and others who are teaching and sharing their culture, and fighting for recognition. Many of them have been doing this for their whole lives. Can you imagine how exhausting it must be right now to be a First Nations Australian saying, 'Please recognise us in the founding document of our country'? Can you imagine how exhausting it must be, after decades of activism, to have to make the case, again, that our founding document should admit the clear and certain fact that this was not an empty land; that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are the original inhabitants of this continent; that they carry a special and unbroken connection to our land; that this place is their home and always was and always will be; and that our founding document should reflect that truth?

In 1901, when our Constitution was written, terra nullius was still the uncontested law of this land. Aboriginal people weren't counted in the census or commonly allowed to vote. In 1901 we didn't recognise land rights of any sort. Mabo and Wik destroyed these lies, but that didn't happen for close to a century after our Constitution was written. Our Constitution was written in a different age with a different understanding of First Nations history, and we can't let that misunderstanding remain unchallenged. This referendum is an opportunity to correct the record. It's an opportunity to tell the truth about Australia's First Peoples.

That brings me to the second principle that's alive in this proposition, which is consultation. It shouldn't be a controversial point that listening to communities leads to better decisions and better outcomes, but dialogue and conversation will make government more responsive and more relevant to people on the ground. Australia's handling of the HIV crisis led the world because we asked communities at risk to shape our response. When we have been successful at reducing gender inequality, it's because we've asked women what they need. Disability advocates and others have popularised the expression and, more importantly, the practice of 'nothing about me without me', and that's exactly what the Voice is about. It's about building an institution, led by First Nations peoples, that will help governments understand the needs and the experiences of Indigenous communities. It's about doing things differently, because, frankly, what we've been doing up until now hasn't worked as well as it should.

We still have shameful gaps in life expectancy, health outcomes, school completion rates, kids ending up in jail, homeownership, community wealth and so many more areas. The Voice is a tool to help close these gaps, to make better policies and to produce better outcomes. It's a principle I've seen at work in my community in Redfern. Redfern has been a pioneer in Aboriginal-controlled community organisations: the Aboriginal Legal Service, established in 1970; the Aboriginal Medical Service, established in 1971; Mudgin-Gal Women's Place, established in 1992; Wyanga Aboriginal Aged Care Program, established in 1996; Babana Aboriginal Men's Group, established over a decade ago. We've seen the differences in outcomes of quality of service and care when communities are empowered to make decisions over their own lives. It's something the people that I represent in Redfern have fought for and succeeded in for many decades.

When Redfern locals decided they needed to reduce youth crime and get kids to school, they did it with the Clean Slate Without Prejudice program, run by Tribal Warrior and the Redfern local area command of the police. When they saw that some families needed support to keep their kids safely at home and navigate the child protection system, they did it with the H.O.M.E program. When they saw that people leaving prison needed help to reintegrate back into community and never reoffend, they did it with Never Going Back. And when our community decided that services needed to work better together, they coordinated themselves with the empowered communities strategy. We have leaders in Redfern. We have solutions in Redfern. They know what their community needs and they know how to deliver. In the same spirit, the First Nations Voice will advise on these types of issues: health, aged care, justice, housing and education. I have no doubt that this advice will help parliament make more thoughtful and more effective decisions.

As well as seeing firsthand the benefits of self-determination in my electorate, I see it in the environment and water portfolios. Indigenous Australians have actively managed their country with all sorts of methods—controlled burning, established fisheries, management of native vegetation. They have unique experience when it comes to landscape management, and we've tried to value that better over the last year in government by doubling the number of Indigenous rangers because we know this leads to better outcomes on the ground—for rangers, for the communities they live in and, of course, for the environment that is cared for so expertly. We're adding 10 new Indigenous protected areas which now form a crucial part of our national estate. We're doubling funding for Commonwealth national parks, including parks like Uluru, Kata Tjuta and Kakadu, and renegotiating leases with traditional owners to take a joint management approach. We're working better to protect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage by nominating the Murujuga Cultural Landscape for World Heritage listing, as one example, and by systemically changing our cultural heritage laws in a co-design partnership with the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance. The destruction of Juukan Gorge was immoral, but it's shocking to think that it wasn't illegal. Our laws need to reflect the value of Indigenous cultural heritage and need to be much better at protecting it. When we rewrite our environmental laws we will have established a new national standard for First Nations consultation.

This constitutional change is a reasonable proposition. It's a thoughtful proposition that complements our system of government. It's something that can make a practical difference to the lives of Australia's First Peoples. At Uluru, First Nations delegates presented this nation with a gift, with an opportunity. This referendum is a chance for Australia to do something we can all be proud of: build a better country together.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm proud to represent the people of the Tharawal and the Wodi Wodi country in this parliament. I'm proud to rise this evening to support the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 and I'm proud to support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament.

Our Constitution is and must be a living, evolving document which reflects the Australia we actually live in, not the Australia of another time. We've understood this from the beginning. The Constitution was only five years old when the first attempt was made to change it, and by the end of the first decade of federation three referenda had been held and two had passed. Our Constitution was written at the end of the 19th century, and it was grounded in a view of Australian history that began in 1770. It was grounded in a belief that Captain Cook had discovered Australia, an untouched land that was not inhabited by anyone who counted. To put it bluntly, it was grounded in a fiction.

We cannot hold to the view that our Constitution is a perfect document with no need for improvement, updating or adjustment. The running of this country involves dozens of aberrations, workarounds and fix-ups, on a daily basis. All of them are designed to correct, diminish or get around the effect of the Constitution's many imperfections, which the Australian people rightly expect us as a national government to do. There are things that we can't work around, for which we can't put in place a fix-up and which must be changed. Our founding and our foremost document must embrace and protect all of us. The original Constitution did not. In 1901 the First Peoples of Australia were not only ignored; they were expressly and deliberately excluded from Australian life. And for the first 66 years of the Commonwealth, our Constitution gave the government the power to make laws for absolutely everybody except for the First Nations people. It expressly stated that they did not and could not count as Australians.

Fifty-six years ago this Saturday, Australia ended that exclusion, overwhelmingly and comprehensively. In Mabo, the High Court overturned the historical fiction that had given comfort to generations of European settlers—terra nullius, the myth that this land was empty before we arrived. The High Court rejected this as nonsense, and in doing so ensured that the common law of this country would recognise 65,000 years of culture and of belonging to country in the form of native title. The High Court has rectified the common law of Australia. It's up to this parliament and the Australian people to rectify the constitutional law of Australia. Without an acknowledgement of the First Peoples in our Constitution and without giving them a designated place to speak, that original fiction that enabled their exclusion and silenced their voices lingers on.

It's dazzling to contemplate the true history of this continent. It is our great fortune to live in a place where human beings have walked for 65,000 years, to breathe the air that they breathed and to live amongst their descendants. It is indeed an honour. We have among our numbers the oldest continuous cultures in human history. You cannot break a 65,000-year connection to country that is inspired by spirit, story and song. To stand anywhere in this country is to be a part of this great history, the longest continuous thread. Our Constitution can never be whole until that thread has been weaved into it, nor can the story of our country, nor can the sense of ourselves. The Uluru statement is a gift to this country. It's a majestic document grounded in generosity, honesty and hope—hope for a better future.

For over 200 years, our First People have been hurt. They've been ignored and disappointed. Great travesties have been visited upon them. The Uluru statement might have been full of recriminations for the things that have been done, for the indignities, the injustices, the murders, the misappropriations. There might've been demands for the things which must be done, but instead there's a generous offer: the offer to walk together and to pursue a fuller expression of Australia's nationhood. That's what the Voice is going to give us. It will not make right every wrong. It will not prevent every wrong in the future. It does not aspire to do any of those things. But, by opening up a clear and direct line between our First Peoples and our parliament, it will make a real difference in the Australia that we want to live in and it will give us a clear path to the Australia that we want to live in, where there is justice for the First Peoples, who live amongst us. How can this be done other than by listening?

Sadly, the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters—some of them—do not believe in this thing, and that's why they cavil with it. They tangle themselves in legal and technical arguments and they howl about a lack of detail. They contrive hypotheticals. But strip all of that back and there's one basic truth: they don't believe in this thing and they don't believe in what it means. It's true the Leader of the Opposition boycotted this parliament's apology to the First Australians. He made that active decision to turn his back on that event and eschew all that it meant. He's apologised for that and he was right to do so. It may even be that his views have come some way since that date. But they have not come far enough to be generous. They have not come far enough to believe in this and all that it means, all that it aspires to. We have to lift ourselves beyond the manufacture of fear masquerading as caution and wilfully, knowingly ignorant statements about our Constitution and our history.

To be frank, if you don't feel comfortable acknowledging the whole truth of colonial history and would rather huddle in the shadow of terra nullius, just say so. Just say so. If you don't think First Nations people deserve a constitutionally recognised place in our government, just say so. Just say so. If you don't think First Nations people have anything relevant to say about the social and economic disadvantage that ravages their communities then just say so. Enough of the distractions. Forsake the hypotheticals and the legal tangles and just tell us what really bothers you. The Australian people of today and the future will judge you on those objections.

No referendum in Australian history and probably no public idea since Federation itself has had more eyes and hands on it than the Voice. No referendum since Federation has had more details known about it than the design principles. We know what the Voice is. We know what it's about. We have a proposed question. We have a draft amendment. We have design principles. We know what it will and won't be able to do. It will advise the parliament, but it will not be able to dictate to it. It will guide the parliament, but it will not be able to steer it. It might disagree with the parliament, but it will not be able to veto its work. We know that it is that simple. The proposed amendment is drafted with exactly the same simplicity as the rest of the document it would join. It outlines what it is and what power it has and where those powers end. We know what the Voice is. It has been constructed carefully. It has been constructed thoughtfully by and for the First Nations people of Australia. Rather than talking and telling, it is a product of asking and listening. All it asks us to do is the same.

We regularly attend civic ceremonies and citizenship ceremonies. Towards the end of those ceremonies, everyone stands and we sing the national anthem. There is always that line in the second verse of the national anthem that makes us pause:

For those who've come across the seas

We've boundless plains to share.

We know those boundless plains weren't empty when the Europeans arrived. They were occupied by the oldest continuous culture anywhere on earth. It's time for Australia to step out from the shadows of terra nullius and into the light of a country made whole. Let's get this done.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who have been custodians of this land for more than 65,000 and pay my respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people on whose ancestral lands our parliament meets. I extend that respect to the First Nations people present or those who are watching and listening. I also proudly acknowledge the Wurundjeri Woiwurrung and Bunurong peoples of the Kulin nation, traditional owners of the land on which my electorate of Maribyrnong resides.

Last Friday, it was six years since the Uluru Statement from the Heart was presented, and it has been six years since the Liberal and National parties dismissed it. I acknowledge the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has subsequently expressed his deep regret at his initial rejection. I remember attending the subsequent Garma Festival after the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The sense amongst Indigenous politicians of being let down by politics as usual was palpable but so too was their determination to keep going. Just as our First Nations people had to fight for land rights, the right to vote, to be counted in the census and to have the grief and loss of having children forcibly removed from their families acknowledged, this year our fellow Australians will ask the rest of us to support a change to the Constitution that will right a historic wrong, to finally recognise First Australians in our modern nation's birth certificate, a decision to be embedded in the memory of future generations.

Unfortunately, these words are not without opposition. The instinctive reaction of the coalition six years ago was: 'This idea is different. We weren't expecting it, so we shouldn't do it.' Still they cling to this, as if somehow the previous century of failure was proof of the wisdom of staying the course.

Disingenuous voices saying that they need more detail are—as my colleague the Minister for Indigenous Australians has pointed out—looking for excuses, not answers. We vote in a referendum on a principle, just as we did in the 1967 referendum about whether Aboriginal people should be counted in the census and if the Commonwealth should enact laws for Aboriginal people. In 1967 there was no demand to show how a 'yes' vote would impact every law. In 1967 the referendum did not divide the country. In fact, 90.7 per cent of our fellow Australians who voted then agreed with the principle.

It is fair to say that this nation since Federation has made strides in justice, Indigenous rights and opportunities and law enforcement, but it is also true that there are still giant strides yet to be made. There is still widely accepted recognition amongst all people of goodwill that we need to do better and that we know we can do more. We've failed to remove economic, health and education barriers for Indigenous Australians. But I think there's recognition amongst the vast majority of the Australian people that we have failed to remove barriers less clear to the eye that come from the chasm between words and actions, between promises and results. Indeed, our failings as a society and of our political system have condemned Aboriginal Australians to live in the shadow of disappointment, the shadow of the tyranny of low expectations.

The wait for recognition in our Constitution is painful. The lack of recognition and the lack of empowerment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is a tumour in the health of our society, but it can be cured. Other new frontier societies have taken steps to reach accommodation with their first nations people. Now it's our turn in Australia. We are not going first; we are catching up.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart offers a creative, generous path to recognition. I recall delivering the response to the Closing the gap report as opposition leader in 2018. Already the resistance and misinformation about the Voice had begun. I'm proud that I offered Labor's full-throated support for the big, bold idea that could potentially be the antidote to year after year of incremental disappointment as we failed to close the gap for Indigenous Australians.

Five years ago I stood here and I asked, 'Who are we to tell 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates from 12 regional dialogues to go back to the drawing board and try again because here we don't like it?' I stand in the parliament today, five years later, as this approach to constitutional recognition has now been termed divisive and dangerous, and I ask the same question: who are we to tell people that our failures of the last 120 years should simply be accepted as the antidote for the future?

Tonight I want to say that the key to recognition is not the racist—the never-evers are what they are and, thankfully, they are in the minority—nor is it the undecided Australians, who are still to engage in the Voice referendum, whose questions are sincerely set forth and whose anxieties we can allay. I think the key to constitutional recognition is the quiet conservative, who is perhaps more devoted to the status quo than understanding the fairness of our argument. They are good people, not racists and not mean. They are people who say that they agree with the goal of recognition, but not just this particular method. They are people who believe that they should be able to personally set the timetable for another vote on recognition of Indigenous Australians in the Constitution at another more convenient time. These quiet conservative, good Australians, who live perhaps by an insular concept of time, constantly advise First Nations people to wait for the better words and the more convenient time. Martin Luther King Jr said that the shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than the absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will and that lukewarm acceptance—the convenience of delay—is much more bewildering than outright rejection. Now is the time for strong moral leadership from traditional Liberals through the commitment to the idea of empowerment, not deterred by arguments of propaganda, and wise enough to recognise that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are not asking for, nor shall receive, any special rights through a 'yes' vote.

Let me be clear. The Voice to Parliament will not be a body with the power to veto over the representatives elected by the Australian people. It will not be a third chamber of parliament. It will not be a distraction from the on-the-ground problems nor a peripheral ball to be kicked out of bounds of day-to-day life. My hope is that the quiet 'no' voter takes time to appreciate that our constitutional status quo was never meant to be frozen forever in time. Our constitutional status quo exists for the purpose of establishing fairness and recognition of all Australians. But, when our constitutional status quo becomes a frozen obstacle blocking the flow of progress, then passive, unquestioning rejection of constitutional recognition inhibits our nation's journey to the future. The founding fathers of our Constitution never intended that this document should be frozen in 1901 and should never be able to be changed. To the quite conservative, I ask you to reject the myth that there's no hurry to recognise First Nations people in our Constitution. It is folly to assume that the very flow of time cures all ills and that somehow time will cure it. Time is, of itself, neutral. It can be used either destructively or constructively. Now is the time to lift our Constitution from the museum of 1901 to the modern house of 2023. 'Do nothing-ism' is the valium of progress. The unrecognised cannot remain unrecognised forever. The yearning to be recognised is legitimate. It is not enough to do nothing and ignore the trauma of remaining unrecognised.

Too many dismiss the intractable economic and social tragedies gripping Aboriginal communities. They use it as some kind of permission to turn away and do nothing—to shrug our shoulders and put this in the too-hard basket. Too many people ask how they can be blamed for the sins of those who went before them and say that what's past is past. But the past is not past. 'Past,' according to Shakespeare, 'is prologue,' and nations live with their past. Other nations have come to terms with their past. We might try to concrete over it, but it seeps through like green shoots appearing through the cracks. As much as the noise of our lives and the wonders of the nation we've built distract us, we cannot, and should not, deny that this place we call home has an Aboriginal foundation. We cannot ignore what Henry Reynolds called so beautifully 'the whispering in our hearts'—the whispering that cannot be quieted until all Australians walk together in reconciliation. There is the quiet nagging conscience which says that repeating the same processes in the same way will not give us different outcomes.

We're proud of being the most successful multicultural country in the world, but we also have the oldest continuous culture on earth right here before us, and we need to celebrate it in our Constitution. Our Constitution does not recognise their physical, emotional and spiritual bonds with the lands, sky and waters of our marvellous continent. It does not acknowledge the rich 65,000 years of culture, arts and languages, or their songlines or Dreamtime. By Indigenous people making representations on matters that affect them, we can help preserve their past and shape their future. If we needed to build a railway, we would create the infrastructure. If we are to build a corridor to proper equality, we need to create the constitutional infrastructure. The Voice is integral to that process.

If we pass this referendum, we do it for the Aboriginal people who were excluded from our democracy when we became a federated nation in 1901; for the kids of the summer of 1961 who were banned from the Moree swimming pool because of the colour of their skin; for the brave men and women of the Wave Hill walk-out; for Nicky Winmar, staring down racist hecklers; and for every Aboriginal person who has felt like a refugee in their own country. I have no doubt that, if we step up on the referendum, it won't affect our democracy. A 'yes' vote will not undermine our democracy, but it will affect our national psyche. Recall how you felt in 2017 after the same-sex marriage plebiscite. Whatever your view, there was relief that the nation had arrived at a proposition and the realisation that we didn't miss the opportunity. We can be instrumental in delivering a profound response to historical exclusion. It is our time to step up and demonstrate to our nation and the children of the future generations the country we want to see in the mirror. The Scottish historian and philosopher Thomas Carlyle said, 'No lie can live forever.' We have our chance to correct the record.

In final summary, historic racial unfairness should be excised from Australian life and our Constitution because it is morally wrong. When we vote 'yes', we say to our children—and, indeed, the rest of the world—that Australians are at terms with our past; that we are a modern, inclusive and open-minded nation. We send a message that we acknowledge that our country has a proud Aboriginal history. We say that we want the next generation of our Aboriginal kids to grow up with a better deal than their parents and their grandparents had. It will allow us to create the next chapter of the nation.

I say to Australians who are quietly thinking about voting 'no': do not believe that a 'yes' vote gives our First Nations people extra rights. It just recognises that, after generations of economic and psychological trauma, our First Australians don't start at the same place that the rest of us start from. Please don't accept the argument that every Australian should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, when in fact one group of Australians, by virtue of historical intervention, don't have that pair of boots. That is why we vote 'yes' at the referendum.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

CATHERINE KING (—) (): I think that was a terrific contribution by the member for Maribyrnong, and very heartfelt. I, too, like many of the speakers in this debate, want to begin by acknowledging the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, the traditional custodians of the land on which this House meets. I also acknowledge the traditional owners of the land surrounding my home town of Ballarat, the Wadawurrung and Dja Dja Wurrung people, and I pay respects to elders past and present, and the many, many elders who are emerging. I thank those traditional owners for the generous work that they do across our local community every single day.

When you think about Ballarat, you think about history: you think of gold, the Eureka flag and our Victorian-era streetscapes. That history is real, and we are really proud of it. But it is incomplete. European men and women first arrived on the lands of the Kulin nation in the 1830s. Gold was discovered in 1851. That history doesn't even go back 200 years. It's history so fresh, frankly, that there are photographs of it.

We've been here for the blink of an eye in the history of this incredibly ancient land, and the traditional owners, through the Wadawurrung and Dja Dja Wurrung, have lived on these lands for tens of thousands of years. Their stories are written across our landscapes. From time immemorial, they have lived on country, protected country and cared for country. They are the longest-living culture on this planet. And it is such an incredible gift that we are the custodians of that culture, here in Australia. And, of course, in only a few short years, they were dispossessed. It is a wrong that our nation has spent many years attempting to reckon with.

This year we can help right that historic wrong and take the next step on our long journey to reconciliation. Passing this bill will be a small step on that journey. The bill we are debating this evening, Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, must be passed to hold a referendum to amend the Australian Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia in the Constitution by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

The referendum will be about two things: recognising and listening—recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia, with 65,000 years of history and continuous connection to this land. People often ask me: 'Why are they not recognised in the Constitution now?' If you think back to the time when the Constitution was developed, First Nations people were seen as a dying race, who were not going to be around, so why would you recognise them—particularly in our Constitution? They were being basically driven out; they weren't going to be around. And so, when you hear First Nations people say: 'We are still here, despite all of that history,' that is why it is so deep and meaningful for them to be recognised in the first of our nation's documents, because it is a message of survival. Despite all of that history, despite all that has happened to them, they are still here, and we see them in all of their beauty. And that is what the recognition is about.

The second part is listening to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people when it comes to laws and policies that affect them. That is what Australians will be asked to vote for—recognising and listening to them. That journey has led us to this referendum. It has been long, and the points of debate have been well tested. There has been the expert panel on the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution established in 2010, the 2015 report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, the First Nations constitutional dialogues; the Uluru convention, the referendum council and many more processes. All have led us to this point and have ensured the appropriateness of this question and this amendment we have before us.

This Voice will work alongside existing structures. It will not have a veto power. It will not deliver programs or hold money. It will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It will represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and it will empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to make sure their voices are heard by those of us in the executive and those of us here across this parliament who are making such big decisions. Appearing before the committee inquiry into this bill, Gerald Power, the deputy mayor of the Orange City Council, spoke about what this referendum will mean. He said, 'At the age of 61, I never thought we would even come to this. I thought I would be dead. I thought my son would have to pick it up. My mother died and my ancestors died without having a voice in the Constitution and that lack of a voice was simply because we were never identified as humans.' Why is it so important to have it in the Constitution? It is because it needs to be there. It needs to at least acknowledge that there were humans here and that these are the oldest human cultures on the face of the planet, continuous and ongoing. Let's not wait any longer to recognise. Let's not wait any longer to listen. The connection between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and this land has never been broken, not in the community I represent and not anywhere in this country.

This referendum is the best chance we have to address the injustices of the past and to create change that will deliver a better future. This year our nation can recognise the truth of our history and provide a voice to those who have been ignored for too long. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a generous, generous offer. I will be voting yes. I commend the bill to the House and I encourage all Australians to accept the Uluru Statement from the Heart, to vote yes on the referendum as it is coming up, to accept it with the spirit with which it was made and with which it was offered to the Australian people.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. The work, leadership and stories of countless Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have brought us to this point in our journey to constitutional recognition. I acknowledge and thank them. I would particularly like to acknowledge and thank the Minister for Indigenous Australians. I am proud to be a member of the same caucus and a member of the same cabinet as the member for Barton, and it is a privilege to work with her on this important national project. And I'd like to acknowledge and thank Senator Patrick Dodson in the other place for the work he has done over so many years to advance the cause of reconciliation, including in this term of parliament as Special Envoy for Reconciliation and the Implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I also thank those many non-indigenous Australians who have worked towards constitutional recognition and the development of the Voice.

This bill is a significant and critical step in fulfilling the first request made in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. If approved at the referendum, four simple lines will be inserted into the Constitution. Those lines will finally recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as Australia's First Peoples in our founding legal document after more than 120 years of exclusion and omission. Those lines will enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Constitution. And those lines will ensure that the Voice can make representations to the parliament and the executive government about matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples while allowing the parliament the flexibility to respond as the Voice evolves and the needs of First Nations peoples change.

The Voice is the form of constitutional recognition that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates called for in the Uluru Statement. Through the Voice we will listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to create practical change and make a difference where it matters, in areas like employment, health, education, housing and justice.

I would like to address three issues that were raised by opponents of the bill over the course of this debate. The first is the assertion, the extraordinary assertion, by the Leader of the Opposition that the Voice would somehow put race into the Constitution. As the Prime Minister noted in his speech in the second reading debate, that contribution from the Leader of the Opposition was simply unworthy of the alternative Prime Minister of this nation. I welcome the repudiation of the Leader of the Opposition's misleading comments by some of those opposite, including by the leader of the National Party. This bill would not introduce race into the Constitution. In the words of the former Chief Justice of the High Court Robert French, the proposed constitutional alteration contained in the bill would represent:

… a significant shift away from the existing race based legislative power that the Commonwealth has with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people …

And that is because the proposed alteration would recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples not as a race but as the First Peoples of Australia. How can anyone possibly argue that this is about race?

As I said in my second reading speech, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have occupied the Australian continent for over 60,000 years and represent the oldest continuous living cultures in human history. They have maintained a relationship with Australia's lands, waters and skies since time immemorial. The Australian Constitution has never recognised the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of this country. That is what this bill does. That is what the Voice would do.

This is the form of constitutional recognition sought by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and that leads me to the second issue raised by opponents of the bill—that is, the suggestion that the government should pursue an alternative, merely symbolic, form of constitutional recognition. The history of the debate around constitutional recognition points to two significant problems with this suggestion. The first problem with the idea of symbolic recognition through a constitutional preamble is it has previously been rejected by Australians at a referendum on 6 November 1999. That preamble proposal would have recognised, among other things, the special place of First Nations people 'for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures'. Fewer than 40 per cent of voters nationwide said 'yes' to the preamble and it failed to achieve majority support in any state or territory.

The second problem with the idea of symbolic recognition is that it was consciously rejected during the consultation processes that led to the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Merely symbolic recognition has been comprehensively rejected by First Nations peoples. In the Kirribilli Statement, presented by 39 Indigenous leaders to the then Prime Minister Tony Abbott and then opposition leader Bill Shorten, a key step leading to the Referendum Council and its consultations, clearly stated that an approach to recognition centred on a preamble would not be acceptable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The same view emerged from the First Nations regional dialogues held over six months from late 2016 in 12 locations around Australia. The purpose of the dialogues was to try to reach agreement among First Nations people on whether and how they would like to be recognised in the Australian Constitution.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart clearly reflects the outcomes of those dialogues and the National Constitutional Convention. The statement respectfully requests 'substantive constitutional change and structural reform'. A process to alleviate the torment of powerlessness that is felt by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by offering them a means of influencing their own destiny. This cannot be achieved by symbolic recognition alone.

The language of the Uluru Statement from the Heart is striking, and it reflects the comprehensive process proceeding it, the regional dialogues and the National Constitutional Convention at Uluru. Constitutional recognition through a voice is the request of a broad consensus of First Nations people. It is a considered and generous request that is the result of wide consultation and a robust, inclusive, deliberative process.

The Referendum Council concluded that a preamble alone could not give sufficient recognition to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. A voice offers recognition that would, the council said, have both substantive and symbolic value. The government agrees.

The third issue that has been raised by some members of this House over the course of this debate is whether subsection 129(ii) would require the executive government to consider the Voice's representations or consult the Voice before making decisions and queried whether this could lead to protracted High Court litigation. As outlined in my second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum and confirmed by many of Australia's foremost legal and constitutional experts, section 129 would not have this effect. Subsection 129(i) guarantees the existence of the Voice. Subsection 129(ii) guarantees the Voice's core representation-making function. Subsection 129(iii) confers upon the parliament a broad power to make laws on matters related to the Voice without detracting from the guarantees in subsections 129(i) and 129(ii). Under 129(iii), the parliament will have the power to legislate about whether representations by the Voice need to be considered by the executive government and, if so, in what circumstances. After careful consideration, the government deliberately amended section 129(iii) of the draft provision to make clear the primacy of the parliament.

My submission to the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum enclosed the opinion of the Solicitor-General on proposed section 129. Consistent with the views of the overwhelming consensus of constitutional experts, the Solicitor-General advised that proposed section 129 would empower the parliament to specify in legislation whether and, if so, how executive government decision-makers are legally required to consider relevant representations of the Voice. In short, Australians can have confidence in this constitutional amendment and confidence that constitutional recognition through a voice will work.

The Voice, as proposed in this bill, would amplify the voices of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Should the referendum pass, there will be a public consultation process to settle the design of the Voice, including how it will connect with communities and work alongside existing organisations. The Voice will represent the diversity of views and needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to the national parliament and government.

The design of the Voice would build on the progress of the states and territories in listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It would build on the design work of Professors Calma and Langton, which emphasise the importance of local and regional voices. It would build on the work of the Uluru dialogues. It would build on the Voice design principles agreed by the Referendum Working Group.

If the parliament and the executive government take communities' perspectives into account in developing, enacting and implementing laws and policies, those laws and policies will be better targeted from their inception and lead to improved outcomes. In this way the Voice would help drive change to close the gap.

This bill is the product of a comprehensive and lengthy process to determine the right form of constitutional recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples stretching over more than a decade. This includes the Referendum Council's regional dialogues and the National Constitutional Convention to which I have already referred. In the lead-up to the introduction of this bill, the government established the Referendum Engagement Group, the Referendum Working Group and the Constitutional Expert Group to provide advice on the draft constitutional provision. The Constitutional Expert Group examined, in detail, the proposal put forward by the Prime Minister at the Garma Festival last year and found it to be a solid basis for the constitutional alteration. As a result of this process, the government refined and improved on that proposal—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has the Attorney-General concluded his remarks?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with the resolution agreed earlier, further consideration of the bill is made an order of the day for the next sitting.