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

My question is for the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I have repeatedly asked the government to provide the legal advice they received around the impacts of the Voice to Parliament on the sovereignty of the First Peoples of this land. I was directed to the Referendum Working Group statement from February this year, which simply stated: 'All members of the expert group agreed that the draft provision would not affect the sovereignty of any group or body.' Given that my repeated requests for this directly to the minister remain unanswered, can you please provide me with the definition of 'sovereignty' that was used for this assessment?

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

Thank you, Senator Thorpe. You're right; you have repeatedly asked this question. In fact, I think I answered it in estimates many months ago, when you asked the question of me and the officials who were there. And we do keep telling you, but I know that you keep coming back with that question. The fact is that the expert panel on the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples sought advice on this issue. The advice was simple—that is, that constitutional recognition does not in any way foreclose on First Nations sovereignty. The Uluru statement is clear that enshrining a voice to parliament in the Constitution is linked to recognising the ancient sovereignty of our First Nations peoples. The Uluru statement states, as I'm sure you're aware:

With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia's nationhood.

That's why the Albanese government is looking forward to working with the community and all sides of politics, and I recognise there are people on all sides of politics who support recognising our First Peoples in our Constitution and there are people on all sides of politics who support doing that through a voice to parliament. We look forward to working with everyone who supports that occurring, everyone in the broader community and First Nations people, the overwhelming majority of whom support recognition and a voice to parliament. We look forward to working with all of them to achieve a voice to parliament in the Constitution through the referendum that we'll be having later this year.

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

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe?

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

Just on relevance: the question was around the definition that was used to determine what sovereignty of First Nations people was. It was about the definition, which I still have not received.

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

Thank you, Senator Thorpe. I will draw the minister to that part of your question. Minister, please continue.

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

Unfortunately, Senator Thorpe, every time we have attempted to answer your questions about sovereignty—you obviously have a very strong view on this, and I know you have an agenda politically around the Voice to Parliament and it is based on this question of sovereignty. Every time we answer the question you're not satisfied with that answer, and you come back effectively asking the same question. We keep saying this to you.

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

Senator Thorpe, did you want to raise—

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

Just in terms of relevance: it's about definition.

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

Yes, Senator Thorpe, I have drawn the minister to that part of your question.

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

What is the definition of 'sovereignty' that the government are using?

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

Senator Thorpe, I can draw ministers to the question. I can't put words into their mouths. Senator Watt, you have a second left! Senator Thorpe, first supplementary?

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

It seems to me that a thorough legal analysis, especially on something so important as our sovereignty since time immemorial, is impossible without actually defining what sovereignty is. Can you please provide me with the definition that is commonly used by the government in respect of First Nations sovereignty?

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

Thank you, Senator Thorpe. All I can do is repeat what I've already said, which is that the expert panel on these issues has sought advice on the issue, and the advice was categorical that constitutional recognition does not interfere with or foreclose on First Nations sovereignty. I have just reminded myself of the members of that expert group—

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

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe?

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

Relevance: definition. How did the referendum group come up with the definition? Is it a colonial sovereignty or is it First Peoples sovereignty? What's the definition?

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

Senator Thorpe, when you raise a point of order you do not repeat the question. You've raised the point of order. I think the minister is answering the question, and I'm going to invite him to continue.

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

Senator Thorpe, as I have done before, I'm happy to get the relevant minister's office to engage with you on this particular point. But I remind all the chamber that the constitutional expert group, who has categorically said that your concern is unfounded, includes former justice of the High Court of Australia Kenneth Hayne, former—

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

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe.

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

In terms of relevance, there is no evidence to what the minister is suggesting. We want evidence about the interpretation of First Nations sovereignty.

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

Senator Thorpe, the point of raising a point of relevance is for either you to ask me to agree with you that the minister is not being relevant and draw him or her to that part of the question or I can advise you that in my view the question is being answered. It's not a debating time—there's plenty of other opportunity to do that—and that's what you're starting to do. Minister Watt, please continue.

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

As I say, I know, Senator Thorpe, that you have an agenda on this point to oppose the Voice to Parliament, and whatever we say won't convince you, but a former justice of the High Court of Australia along with several leading scholars in constitutional law from a number of different universities found there was evidence to say that this won't interfere with sovereignty. (Time expired)

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

Senator Thorpe, second supplementary?

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

The government has committed to a treaty with First Nations people, which they declined yesterday, mind you. A treaty can only be negotiated between sovereigns. Does the government thereby acknowledge the sovereignty of First Peoples in this country?

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

As has been articulated in the Uluru statement itself, the government does acknowledge this issue. As we say, and as the expert panel has said, the Voice to Parliament does not interfere with the sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As I say—

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

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe.

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

President, let me get this right. Relevance: on the question, does the government thereby acknowledge the sovereignty of First Nations people?

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

You may not agree with the minister's response, but, in this case, the minister is being relevant, and I'm going to invite him to continue his answer.

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

I have already answered the question in my opening points by the remarks that I made around sovereignty. And, again, Senator Thorpe, with the greatest of respect, I know that nothing we say to you will convince you of this point because your agenda is to oppose the Voice—

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

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe.

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

Point of order: I don't know what it is, but it's not personal. I'm asking for the black sovereign movement out there who haven't ceded their sovereignty and who are watching right now about whether the government acknowledges the sovereignty of First Nations people, because you can't have a treaty without one.

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

Senator Thorpe, please resume your seat. Once again you are getting into a debate rather than calling a point of order. I agree with you that the minister should stick to the question and not—

Senator Thorpe, I am attempting to answer your point. I will ask the minister to refrain from making a personal reference to you and to stick to your question. Thank you, Minister.

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

As you probably know, Senator Thorpe, I did study law at university and I practised as a lawyer, but I'm not a professor of constitutional law. I'm not a former High Court judge of Australia. I'm not a former vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University. I'm not one of the people in the expert group on the Voice who have all said that the issue you're talking about is not a concern.

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

Minister, please resume your seat.

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

Relevance.

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

The minister is being relevant, and I will listen carefully.

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

Telling me his resume—

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

Senator Thorpe, please don't argue. I've ruled on it. Senator Watt, please continue.

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

My point is: I can't think of a more eminent group to advise this parliament on these matters. We have listened to their advice, and I would encourage everyone to do so. (Time expired)