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

I present government responses to the dissenting report to the first report of 2021 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works; and to the advisory report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and the advisory report of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum, on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 and the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 respectively. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document s read as follows—

Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works — Report 1/2021—Dissenting r eport — Government Response.

MAY 2023

1. Background

1.1 Public Works Committee Act 1969

Under the Public Works Committee Act 1969 (the Act), the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works (the Committee) is required to inquire into and report on public works referred to it through either house of Parliament. Referrals are made pursuant to Section 18 of the Act, and by practice are made by the Minister for Finance or their delegate in the House of Representatives or the Senate.

Section 17 of the Act requires that the Committee consider and report on:

1.2 Australian War Memorial

The Australian War Memorial (the Memorial) forms the core of the nation's tribute to all those Australians who served in conflict and operations including honouring the sacrifice of the more than 103,000 Australian men and women who died serving their country.

Operating as a shrine, archive and museum its mission is to help Australians to remember, interpret and understand the Australian experience of conflict and operations and its enduring impact on Australian society.

1.3 Australian War Memorial Developm ent Project

In 2018, following approval of a 'Two Stage Capital Works Approval', the Australian Government funded the Australian War Memorial to implement a $498.7m Development Project (the Project).

The Project involves the construction of new works, the refurbishment of the Main Memorial Building (Main Building) and the Bean Building, new and upgraded galleries, and improvements to the public realm.

The works will enable the Memorial to meet its obligations to Government and the Australian people as detailed in the Australian War Memorial Act 1980 (the Act). The new build and refurbishment works will provide additional and improved space for galleries, visitor circulation and amenity, address accessibility constraints, increase storage of National Collection objects including archives, and improve support services.

2. Project Approvals

As with any major project a series of approvals were required to examine the suitability of the Project prior to delivery. In the case of these works the following major approvals are required:

Figure 1: AWM Development Project Approvals Process

[The figure could not be reproduced in the Transcript]

2.1 Medium Works Approval

Following funding approval by the Australian Government the Memorial submitted a 'Medium Works Approval' request to the Committee in March 2019 relating to an 'Early Works Package' for the Project.

The submission sought approval to commence procurement activities for design and management consultants and to develop submissions for early Government approvals such as the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and a future Major Works Submission to the Committee.

This Medium Works referral was approved in May 2019.

2.2 Major Works Approval

On Thursday, 30 April 2020 pursuant to subsection 18(4) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, General the Honorable David Hurley AC DSC (Retd), Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, referred the Australian War Memorial Project to the Committee for consideration and report.

Following referral, public comment on the inquiry was sought, this involved publicising the inquiry on the Committee's website and via media release.

The Committee received 77 submissions, one confidential submission, and one confidential supplementary submission. On 14 July 2020, the Committee conducted a project briefing, public and in camera hearings.

In February 2021 the Committee released its report on the inquiry and recommended that:

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to Section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the following proposed works: Australian War Memorial Development Project.

3. Dissenting Report

Whilst the Committee recommended implementation of the Project a Dissenting Report was submitted by two members, Mr Tony Zappia MP and Mr David Smith MP, Australian Labor Party.

The Australian Government notes the Dissenting Report contained within the Standing Committee on Public Works Report 1/2021 regarding the Australian War Memorial Development Project.

3.1 Dissenting Report Recommendation 1

Dissenting Report Recommendation 1

Labor members support in principle the intent behind the AWM development project.

The Australian Government notes the Dissenting Report—Recommendation 1.

3.2 Dissenting Report Recommendation 2

Dissenting Report Recommendation 2

Labor members believe that the Government should consult further on this issue and consider alternative approa ches that do not involve the complete demolition of the existing Anzac Hall.

The Australian Government does not support Recommendation 2.

This recommendation is irreconcilable with the full Committee's recommendation to implement the submitted scope of works including the replacement of Anzac Hall.

3.2.1 Project Consultation

The Australian Government notes that the Project has been subject to extensive consultation through the Environmental Protection Biodiversity and Conservation {EPBC) Act 1999, the National Capital Authority (NCA) and, of course, the Committee itself.

These processes included a cumulative period of more than 6 months during which the public has been able to formally comment on the project between December 2019 and September 2021. These consultations, which appropriately for a place of the Memorial's significance greatly exceeded minimum requirements, have been conducted online and in person around the country by the Memorial, the NCA and the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (now the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water).

Over this near two year period of consultation a total of 7,204 responses to consultation and public comment activities relating to the Project were received. Public comment across these responses demonstrated 71% of those who responded were supportive, 8% neutral and 21% not supportive.

The Australian Government notes, as did the Committee and the Memorial, that there are a range of views in relation to replacement of Anzac Hall. It is evident from public submissions received through the broader approvals process that there is a vocal minority of Australians who strongly objected to the demolition of Anzac Hall.

Their concerns have been widely publicised and carefully listened to at all stages of Project consultation including having had the opportunity to provide public testimony to the Committee. Ultimately however the broader needs of the Memorial to be able to fully honour those who have served takes precedence over the preservation of this 20 year old extension on the Memorial grounds.

The Australian Government is satisfied that consultation on the Project, and specifically the demolition of Anzac Hall, was more than sufficient.

3.2.2 Need for Replacement of Anzac Hall

The Australian Government notes that the need to replace the previous Anzac Hall has been endorsed on financial, heritage, environmental and process grounds through the EPBC Act approval, Committee approval and NCA approval of Project early works including demolition of Anzac Hall.

The Memorial has articulated the reasoning behind this decision through each of these processes, a summary of this reasoning is provided below.

The previous Anzac Hall was opened in 2001. Built according to the needs of the time and wi th the resources available, it was not designed to be modified to provide additional floor space.

Over time, it has become clear that more space is needed to recognise contemporary service and to accommodate the Memorial's growing collection, through which these stories can be told.

The design by Cox Architecture which includes a new Anzac Hall and Glazed Link was chosen as the most viable, least complex, and best value-for-money solution to meet the Memorial's needs for the next 50 years and to allow for e xpansion, if needed, in the future. The proposed design will strengthen and improve connections between the main building and new Anzac Hall galleries, improve the visitor experience and circulation, and create approximately 4,000 square metres of addition al exhibition space, while preserving the heritage of the main Memorial building.

While the previous building has been a valuable part of the Memorial over the past 20 years, the intrinsic value of Anzac Hall is its capacity to tell stories. Replacing Anza c Hall increases the space available to honour Australian servicemen and servicewomen involved in modern conflicts and operations, which is the best outcome for the Memoria l 's future[1].

The Australian Government is satisfied that the replacement of Anzac Hall was necessary to achieve the objectives established by the Australian Government for the funding.

It should also be noted that in the intervening time between the production of the Report by the Committee and the preparation of this response there was a change in Government in May 2022 and, further, that ANZAC Hall itself was demolished in July 2021 as per the Development Project approvals.

3.3 Dissenting Report Recommendation 3

Dissenting Report — Recommendation 3

Labor members believe that the Government should consider a range of lower cost options that would still meet the stated purpose of the proposed works, while achieving better cost- effectiveness and value for money for the taxpayer.

The Australian Government does not support Recommendation 3.

This recommendation is irreconcilable with the full Committee's recommendation to implement the agreed purpose and scope of works. ·

The Australian Government undertook careful and detailed assessment of the Memorial's needs in relation to telling stories of recent Australian Defence Force history as well as those of the past, circulation, access and other issues and the best way to meet them through regular decision making processes.

This included a 'Two Stage Capital Works Approval' process where the Memorial was able to demonstrate the need for the Project and the reasoning behind the delivery methodology submitted to, and approved by, the Committee.

As described by the Department of Finance,

The Two Stage Capital Works Approval Process provides a methodical approach to developing the scope and cost estimate associated with a project, reducing risk and increasing cost certainty. This approach ensures that:

i. the Government achieves m aximum value for money in the investment being made, including that funds are utilised in the most effective, economical, ethical and efficient manner; and

ii. the scope and budget approved is adhered to by entities.[2]

Most importantly in regard to the Dissenting ReportRecommendation 3 is the process undertaken as the first of the two stages—the 2017 Initial Business Case (IBC).

The IBC, a strategic assessment of the need for works, examined options from 'do nothing', to the use of satellite sites for exhibitions (including the Memorial's Treloar Technology Centre at Mitchell), adaptive re-use of existing buildings, and new construction solutions.

The nineteen scenarios examined ranged from those requiring no additional funding to those requiring significant capital and future operating expenditure to implement.

The outcome of the IBC was that Government approved development of a Detailed Business Case (DBC) based on the creation of the additional space on the Memorial's Campbell site through new construction as the only viable solution to the Memorial's needs and long term relevance to the nation.

The second part of the two stage process, the Detailed Business Case, developed this business need into a detailed scope and clear assessment of the required cost estimate, management approach, risks and key deliverables. The resulting DBC was closely examined by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, Department of Finance and Cabinet before being approved for funding in November 2018.

The Australian Government is satisfied that this process, together with close scrutiny by the Committee and ongoing oversight of the Project by the Australian Government and Parliament through annual reports, Senate Estimates etc., ensures that the proposal approved by the wider Committee for implementation is the most cost-effective and best value for money approach.

[1] Australian War Memorial Response to Public Submissions, NCA Main Works Approval, October 2021

[2] Commonwealth Property Management Framework, Capital works

Joint Stand ing Committee on Electoral Matters — Advisory report on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 —Government response.

MAY 2023

Introduction

On 1 December 2022, the Government introduced the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 (the Bill). The Bill proposes to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 to ensure a consistent voter experience across elections and referendums.

On 13 February 2023, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) tabled a report titled Advisory report on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022.

The Bill passed both Houses on 23 March 2023 and was assented to on 27 March 2023. The Government's formal response to the recommendations of the Report follows below.

Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: Advisory report on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022

Majority:

Minority:

Dissenting:

Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Stra it Islander Voice Referendum — Advisory Report on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 —Government response.

MAY 2023

Acknowledgements

The Australian Government acknowledges the traditional owners and custodians of country throughout Australia and acknowledges their continuing connection to land, waters and community. We pay our respects to the people, the cultures and their elders past and present.

The Australian Government thanks the individuals and organisations who contributed to this inquiry, including all those who made submissions and appeared as witnesses, and the members of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum (Committee) and the Committee's secretariat. We particularly acknowledge the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who shared their experiences, views and aspirations with this inquiry.

Introduction

The Australian Government welcomes the Committee's report on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 (Bill).

The Bill recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia in the Australian Constitution through an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice (Voice). Enshrining the Voice in the Constitution is the form of recognition sought in the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Voice would be an enduring institution to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can make representations to the Commonwealth Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters that relate to them, improving the development and implementation of laws and policies.

The referendum that would follow the passage of this Bill through the Parliament is part of the Government's commitment to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full.

The Australian Government's response to the report is set out below. The response addresses the recommendations contained in the report, the dissenting reports and additional comments from members of the Committee.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The Committee recommends that the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 be passed unamended.

The Government supports this recommendation.

The Bill is the product of more than a decade of efforts to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution. It offers both practical and substantive recognition. As the Committee's report makes clear, the Bill is fit for purpose, meets the first request expressed in the Uluru Statement from the Heart and is constitutionally sound.

Moreover, as outlined in the Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights accompanying the Explanatory Memorandum, the Bill:

would promote the rights and freedoms of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples by acknowledging their continuing disadvantage, and h istorical exclusion from participation in the making of decisions, policies and laws that affect them. The Bill does this in a way that would not abrogate or otherwise negatively affect the ability of members of the broader community to enjoy or exercise t heir political, economic, social, cultural or other rights and freedoms.

The Voice, as a representative institution, would enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to express their views to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Com monwealth on issues that relate to them, including their communities. This will ensure that the laws, policies and programs of the Commonwealth are better attuned to empowering Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, addressing disadvantage, and imp roving outcomes.

Liberal Members' Dissenting Report

Recommendation 1: The proposal for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice should not be adopted in its current form.

The Government does not support this recommendation. As noted above, the Government supports the Committee's recommendation that the Bill be passed unamended.

Recommendation 2: Noting the Coalition will not stand in the way of Australians having their say on the proposal, the Government should amend the drafting of the Constitution A lteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 to address the significant risks identified through the Committee process.

The Government does not support this recommendation.

Amendments to the Bill are not necessary. The Bill is constitutionally sound, and the Voice would enhance our system of representative and responsible government. This is consistent with the submissions and evidence provided by most of the eminent legal experts to the Committee.

In particular, the Solicitor-General's opinion attached to the Attorney-General's submission to the Committee (Solicitor-General's Opinion) stated that proposed section 129 is not just compatible with the system of representative and responsible government prescribed by the Constitution, but an enhancement of that system. The Solicitor-General's Opinion indicated that proposed section 129 would not require the Executive Government to consult with the Voice prior to developing any policy or making any decision. Moreover, the Parliament would be empowered to legislate to specify the extent to which decision-makers within the Executive Government are required to consider representations of the Voice in certain contexts.

Recommendation 3: The People should never again be asked to vote on constitutional amendments that do not have the benefit of detailed public debate, in the form of constitutional conventions or similar.

The Government does not agree with the assertions contained in this recommendation.

Previous referendums have been preceded by a wide range of different processes, reflecting the context of each referendum.

In this case, there has been a comprehensive and lengthy process stretching over more than a decade to determine the right form of constitutional recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. That process has involved consultation with First Nations peoples, as well as parliamentary inquiries and expert reports. This has included the 2012 Final Report of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians, and the 2015 Final Report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

In 2017, a Voice was endorsed as the preferred form of constitutional recognition in the Uluru Statement from the Heart issued at the National Constitutional Convention, following the Uluru Dialogues.

The Referendum Council-led Uluru Dialogues consisted of 12 First Nations Regional Dialogues and one Regional Meeting. The Dialogues engaged 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates from traditional owner groups, community organisations, and key individuals on their views on meaningful recognition.

In 2018, the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples inquired into options for constitutional change, including the proposal to establish a Voice. It recommended, among other things, the Government initiate a process of co- design with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to achieve a design for the Voice that best suited their needs and aspirations.

On 30 July 2022, the Prime Minister, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, released draft text of the constitutional amendment at the Garma Festival for discussion. This draft text drew on the considerable discussion of amendments already in the public domain and provided a further opportunity for the public to engage with the proposed amendment in the lead up to parliamentary consideration.

The draft text was subject to robust scrutiny and testing from the Referendum Working Group, the Constitutional Expert Group and other legal experts. As a result of that process, the Government made changes to the draft text, including to put beyond doubt the broad scope of the Parliament's power to make laws relating to the Voice. The proposal has been subject to further public debate and consideration in the course of this Committee's inquiry, which has affirmed the findings of those earlier consultation processes.

National Members' Dissenting Repor t

The National Members' Dissenting Report contains no specific recommendations. However, the Report states that The Nationals do not support the Report of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum or its recommendations.

The Government does not support the views expressed in this dissenting report.

Additional Comments from Senator Andrew Bragg

Recommendation 1: The 'seven words' model be adopted into the constitutional amendment.

The Government does not support this recommendation.

The 'seven words' model would involve inserting the words 'and the legal effect of its representations' to the end of s 129(iii).

As set out in the Government's response to recommendations 1 and 2 of the Liberal Members' Dissenting Report, amendments to the Bill are not necessary.

Paragraph [35] of the Solicitor-General's Opinion states that this proposed amendment 'was overtaken by the current wording of proposed s 129(iii), which necessarily includes (although it extends beyond) the power to legislate with respect to the legal effect of the Voice's representations.'

Additional Comments from Australian Greens Members

The Additional Comments from Australian Greens Members contain no specific recommendations. The Government notes these additional comments.

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

In respect of the government response to the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum report on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

The report only provided one recommendation. I was one of the only crossbench members to participate in the committee's deliberations, within a short period of time. But we had a very rich and diverse amount of evidence provided, particularly from First Nations people from Orange in New South Wales, from the Torres Strait and from my home state of Western Australia in Boorloo, or Perth. We were able to hear directly from First Nations people about the impact a voice to parliament could provide, particularly around tangible and practical changes. People were saying how there is a longstanding history of doing things that just never worked for First Nations people in this country and that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been asking since the abolishment of ATSIC some 20 years ago to have recognition in the Constitution but also a body that represent our interests. I've spoken about this many times in this chamber.

I spoke yesterday about my visit to the Barunga Festival last weekend and the call for treaty and the call for an overarching body to oversee Aboriginal and Islander issues in this country but also to look at criminal justice and policing issues across Australia. The Barunga statement was very clear that treaty in this country is something that we've been asking for for 35 years. In 1988 the Bagala people in Barunga painted and presented that bark to the then Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, and asked him for treaty. His response on behalf of the Australian government was, 'The Australian people shall have a treaty with the first peoples of this country.' And still we are waiting.

My analysis and my contribution as part of the joint select committee on a Constitution alteration through a voice to parliament was that I supported the one recommendation, the recommendation that this bill pass through both houses of this place and that we make sure that it actually promotes the rights and freedoms of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as per the explanatory memorandum of the bill. It's important that we make sure that we follow this through and that we understand the importance of enshrining this within the Constitution. Democratically, that is up to the Australia people. It's not up to us as politicians. We'll pass this bill, hopefully, in the next week or so, and then it will be up to the Australian public to make that decision. It's not up to us.

Participating in that committee I heard things like that it took 170-odd years for someone Indigenous to be on a local government in country New South Wales. That man had tears in his eyes. I remember his evidence. I remember he went out campaigning for 12 years to be an elected representative. I saw the weariness on his face. But, finally, he was able to be a voice for his local community and local government. But he also said that he believed the work in his community could be bolstered by understanding and representing the local, regional and remote voices that are important and that they also needed to have an elected body. He believes it needs to be elected; it can't be a tap on the shoulder by the minister of someone handpicked or chosen. He believes the Voice needs to be a representative institution and that the representatives of the institution of the Voice would represent not themselves but those issues. That was very, very clear.

I know that there are member for the coalition who disagree about the power of the Voice to speak to the executive government and the importance of that. I myself asked people on the committee and through the deliberations of this committee, 'How important is that for you—for it to speak to the executive government?' They said it was so important because that's where the decisions are made. We don't want the run around anymore. We don't want to talk to the bureaucrats and other people. We want to speak to the executive government of the Commonwealth. We want to make sure all of the laws and the programs and the policies that are being developed are things that we can provide direct input to. It's about time that we started addressing the clear disadvantage that many have spoken about in this chamber on Closing the Gap. We need to continue to try and improve the outcomes for the First Peoples of this country and continue to work on partnerships across states and territories. But, more importantly, we need the federal leadership that is required to understand the disparity and why it exists in this country. It exists because we failed to provide a self-determined, human rights institutionalised approach previously in this country.

I'm very proud that I was able to hear from lots of those witnesses that gave their time to come and sit in front of the committee. I want to acknowledge the chair, Senator Nita Green from the Labor Party; and Mr Keith Wolahan from the Liberal Party, who were leaders of this committee and provided the stewardship. I think that all senators and members who participated in this committee did so with the goodwill of finding that small space of commonality of what we all wanted to achieve, and that shone through. I know that there was a dissenting report from the coalition in relation to the processes and the report from the joint standing committee, but during the deliberations everyone was respectful. Everyone was respectful to each other. Everyone was respectful to our witnesses and to our community and to the people that we heard from. That's the way this place should continue to have our inquiries and our debates. And we should continue to seek what I see to be a resolution, particularly on the constitutional alteration bill that we are now debating in this place.

I look forward to the next part of the journey in relation to truth and treaty as part of fulfilling all elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and this government's commitment to that. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.