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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to questions without notice asked by Senators Cash and Thorpe today relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

What we've got here, what has been revealed through the debate and public discourse, is that we are seeing some significant gaps with the aspirations of those that really do want to make a difference to the lives of Indigenous people across this country. I've stood here in this place and talked about the experience that I've got and my deep, abiding commitment to closing the gap and to seeing the disparity that exists between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians eliminated. To me, it's not just something that we should see shrink; it's something that we should all strive to see absolutely eliminated. It's not right that life expectancy is cut short and that abuse and other issues, such as those of educational attainment and child mortality, continue to exist. Absolutely we must listen to those that our programs can influence and affect. We should be getting their advice.

But what we're seeing with this government is a big gap between the aspirations of those who do want to see the lives of Indigenous people improved and what's actually being pushed, dealt with and delivered by way of this referendum question that we have now legislated and that's going to be going before us. The gap that needs to be addressed is, of course, with those issues that I was talking about, but what we have is a big gap between those aspirations and what's actually being proposed.

What we know is that we're seeing that, particularly from those who are proponents of the Voice—like Mr Mayo, who is a union official, I'd say, based on the things that I've seen. I didn't really know much of him before, but, having seen what he says, he's certainly a radical Labor unionist who speaks out, and, no doubt, speaks his mind, but what we are seeing is him prosecuting arguments that really go against the grain and against the civil discourse that is necessary when addressing such important issues as closing the gap. We know that the Voice is risky because it's going to impact upon our democracy. But it's also risky because of the types of people that are behind it and the things that they're espousing the Voice will be able to do.

We are seeing a big disconnect between what those on the other side are saying is a 'modest' proposal, and those on the outside who are calling for the Voice saying that it's going to have a really big impact. They don't seem to go hand in hand. How can it be 'modest', on the one hand, but, on the other hand, have a really big impact? Proponents of the Voice, part of the Referendum Council—many of them—have called for Australia Day to be moved, or maybe even be abolished. So there is a big disconnect between this idea that it's just a 'modest' proposal and those saying that this is going to be something that will make a big difference. Now, I don't think you can have both. You can't have both.

There are ways that this government could address the intent and the motivation—the real, positive motivation—of those that bring forward these ideas, that we could have better representation and that we could have a better connection between the ideas of addressing and closing the gap and the actual implementation. But that's not what's being proposed here.

We know that the Voice is risky. We know that the Voice is unknown, because the government is not giving us detail. It's like someone going for a job interview and signing the contract without knowing what the wages are going to be, without knowing the hours they will work and perhaps not even knowing what the duties of the job are. So it's crazy—it really is—to expect that Australians can make a decision on one of the most important things that they'll ever have to make a decision on, and that is, of course, the Constitution of this country, when what we're being asked to do is to sign a blank cheque. It's unknown.

And of course what we're seeing is that it's dividing Australians. Now, at best, what those that are supporting the Voice could hope for is that maybe 50 or 51 per cent of Australians will support it. Well, that is a divided nation, and it's not something that I think we should be pursuing.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite can't have it both ways in terms of decrying a lack of detail—asking, 'Where is the detail?'—without admitting that you don't actually know or have any regard for how this place actually works.

How can something be modest and have a big impact in this place? Well, that is exactly how we work. Can I draw the attention of those opposite to, for example, the modest prospect of having a parliamentary committee inquiry. One of those resulted in the Bringing them home report, which told the legacy of the stolen generations and the impact on First Nations people across our nation. That was a modest proposal, of having a parliamentary committee listen to those stories and bring evidence forward to the parliament. There's no need to see the Voice as any more radical a prospect than an enhancement of how our parliament brings that evidence forward. There was another modest prospect that had a big impact: a committee inquiry about people having their babies taken and its report on past adoption practices.

So when we see a modest administrative and parliamentary proposal for taking evidence and talking to Indigenous communities to bring forth evidence, views and opinions into this place so that they can be deliberated on and discussed, and so that people can have a forthright expression of views and a diversity of views—including through a voice to parliament—that does have a big impact. When those opposite say, 'It can't have a big impact and be modest at the same time,' do they not understand how this place works to start with? Do they not understand that we are here to create an institution that interfaces with our Constitution and this parliament and that all the existing protocols and approaches—which they will get a chance to participate in legislating for—have form and function, and that we can choose how and when we will extend those institutional arrangements to a Voice to parliament by legislating in this place? It's not rocket science. Parliament does it all the time. We did it with the Auditor-General Act, where we have a parliamentary officer who has the power to take documents and gather evidence from government departments, and then bring their views back to the parliament. They report to the parliament and obliges the parliament to list those documents and discuss them, and obliges the government to make a governmental response.

I have no idea yet—because we haven't deliberated on it—about exactly what kinds of arrangements might take place. But that is like you trying to say that those who put the words into the Constitution that the Commonwealth shall have the power to legislate for corporations—which is but one line—should have known what corporations law looks like today! There are thousands of pages of corporations law and but one line in our Constitution! When you ask for detail and you ask: 'Is it modest? Is it big?' I see only one intention coming from you lot—through you, Mr Deputy President. You have either one intention: to prove that you've got no idea how this place works or how our democracy works—how things come about and are turned into law, and how we create form and function in this place—or you have one motivation, which is to obfuscate and completely deny First Nations people a rightful place in our Constitution and a voice to the Australian parliament and the government.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers to questions regarding the Voice and this government's failure to be honest with the Australian people about what this powerful new body will demand. The Labor government is deliberately keeping Australians in the dark about what the Voice will do and what its proponents intend it to do. This is a referendum on the question of changing the Constitution to create a new Canberra based body with the right to make representations on every decision of government which affects citizens of Australia. Some of its proponents have openly said that the Voice will 'punish' any government or political party that does not support one of the demands of the Voice. Mr Thomas Mayo has recently said:

… we are going to use the rulebook of the nation to force them.

He said:

A politician or party that ignores, or legislates against that collective Voice will do so at their peril because we will be organised and ready.

Where were these comments made? At a protest against Australia Day of course! This government would have us believe, according to its answers here today, and in the other place today and yesterday, that the Voice will not ever involve itself in a debate about Australia Day. The government cannot possibly stand behind the accuracy of that statement by their minister. They are proposing to create a body with the constitutional right to be consulted on any matter relevant to Indigenous Australians and yet at the same time claiming that the body will never make representations to government on a debate that many of its proponents engage on every single year.

This is absolutely typical of this government's approach to this referendum. On the one hand they're out there saying to Australians: 'This referendum isn't about the details. Just trust us; we're politicians. We'll sort out the fine print later and you don't need to worry yourself about it.' On the other hand we have the responsible minister not only disparaging members of the opposition for asking relevant questions about how her government's policy will operate but also claiming to know for a fact that the Voice will never make a representation to government that it should change the date of Australia Day. This is just an incredible and, frankly, unbelievable proposition for the minister to put.

What are the people who attend rallies and protests against Australia Day every year going to make of this government's suggestion that the Voice for Indigenous Australians will never make a representation on the date of Australia Day? Although the Albanese government refuses to tell Australians what the Voice will look like, how many members it will have and how they will be appointed, it is easily foreseeable that some of its members—perhaps many of its members—will be strongly against holding Australia Day on 26 January each year. As proponents of this Voice have said, the Voice will 'punish' any party that ignores its representations.

What the minister and this government could have said is that the Albanese government guarantees that it will not change the date of Australia Day—not in this term, not ever. That would be a commitment in line with the wishes of the majority of Australians and, importantly, a commitment that executive government can make because it is within the control of the government. What is not clearly within the control of the government is the guarantee that the Voice will not make a representation on a matter that will be clearly within its scope. It is extremely disappointing that the Labor government are choosing to approach this referendum not just by refusing to answer the questions that Australians have about their proposal but by actually giving answers that they must know are inaccurate at best and misleading at worst.

This referendum is about whether Australians are being told enough about what the Voice will be, how the Voice will work, what the Voice is going to do and what impact it will have—whether we're being told enough to decide to embed that very body into our Constitution forever. The government needs to stop attempting to mislead Australians and properly engage in debate about what the Voice will look like and what it will have the power to do.

This government insists that this referendum to change the Constitution is just a modest request—and we heard that several times here today, we have heard that several times in this place before today and I'm sure that we will hear that a lot more between now and whenever the referendum is going to be conducted—but how can we know that that's the case? How can we know that this is just a modest change when the government that is proposing it can't actually definitively explain to us what the Voice is?

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

There are interesting moments, inflection points, in history that call us to pay attention to when courage lifted nations and fear collapsed nations. Sadly, I think we're at a point—and this is reflected in the nature of the questions that have come across the floor today to the Labor government from those opposite—that absolutely reveals a culture of fear and a poverty of vision that are determined to return Australia to the fearful, chaotic, disparaging and negative conversation that so characterised the last nine years of government in Australia under the Liberal and National parties. That's what happens when miserly, greedy and divisive language and perspectives are allowed to reign.

We've already been on quite a journey to get to the point this week where we were finally able to—quite significantly, with the numbers on this side—advance to a referendum, but we have seen carnage amongst parties in this place when people have had to step aside because of the deafness and the miserliness of colleagues with whom they share a party room. Parties were so frightened to allow people to have their own voice in their own debate that shadow ministers stepped aside so that they could have their voice. The opposition are so frightened of the voices from within their own parties that they are truly lacking in the leadership that this country needs right now to do the right thing—to do the hopeful thing, to do the brave thing and to go on the journey of the heart. They should lift their sights beyond the miserly, beyond the negative and beyond the contested and look to a better vision for this country that isn't replete with the statistics that we hear, year in year out, about what's happening to First Nations people in this country.

When I first got to this chamber 'closing the gap' was heard over in the other place. We didn't even stop here in the Senate to pay attention. There's a good indication of why, long ago, we maybe needed a voice where First Nations people were heard. Those statistics may be a good indication of why, if Australia had this vision in 1940 or 1950—or, dare I say, in 1788—it would have been good to actually hear the wisdom and the voices of the people of Australia who were here when the boats arrived. If that had happened, we wouldn't find ourselves in this situation where we're attempting to retrofit some sort of corrective to say, 'Hello. Sorry we missed you in the Constitution. Maybe we should just recognise that you actually were here.' What the Voice is about at its core is constitutional recognition that 65,000 years of history happened before the modern era, if I can call it that, of Australia that is often referred to as the colonialist era.

What we've got is these personal, negative, limiting, pejorative statements made about one person after the other. I've never met Mr Thomas Mayo, but I want to read into the record a short quotation that I found in the time I was waiting to speak. He wrote a book called When the Heart Speaks: Learning the Language of Listening in Australia. He said:

When I told my six-year-old son I was writing a book that would be titled Finding the Heart of the Nation, he asked me, 'Where is the heart of the nation?' I pulled him close, put my hand on his heart and told him, 'The heart of the nation is here.' From the way his smile met his cheeks and his cheeks touched his eyes, I could see he was proud to hear my answer. He understood that the book was for him.

Not for him individually, a Torres Strait Islander boy born on Larrakia country in Darwin. No. It was written for all the children …

This is a voice for Australia, it is for all the children, it is for hope, it is for better and it should be supported.

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've listened to senators taking note of answers and I wish to take note of the same issue, regarding the powers of the Voice. There are some interesting things developing out of this. Very early on Saturday morning, we heard questions from Senator Cash to Senator Watt about the Voice, including, 'Will the Voice have the freedom to determine the issues upon which it makes representations?' Senator Watt replied, 'Yes, it will.' We were confronted yesterday with Minister Burney in the House telling us something quite different when she said:

I can tell you what the Voice will not be giving advice on. It won't be giving advice on parking tickets. It won't be giving advice on changing Australia Day.

So we've got extraordinary confusion with this extraordinarily critical piece of legislation and the referendum. It's something that is going to change our Constitution, and yet once again we have absolutely no clarity from the government in relation to what its powers will be, what it will do, where the line will be and what it will stop. I think, if nothing else, this speaks volumes for where we're up to.

Back when the original Constitution was being debated, the drafters of the Constitution held constitutional conventions which went for hours upon days upon weeks. The document was thrashed out. What we're being told to do here is: 'Trust us on this document. Trust us that it's all going to be alright. It's all about the vibe.' If Labor are so confident about the things the Voice will not do, then why is it that they can't answer basic questions about what it will do? Minister Burney's response yesterday did nothing more than highlight the confusion that the Australian people rightly have in relation to what is being put to us. I suspect the Australian people are aware of that and I suspect the Australian people are too clever for this.

Senator O'Neill said earlier that she was alarmed by a culture of fear that had enveloped this side of the chamber. I'll tell you what—I am very fearful about what this document is going to do. I am very fearful about what this referendum means for the future of Australia. If you go back probably 18 months, I was very quick out of the blocks in relation to this. I said very early, from the beginning, and I said publicly, that I had no time or support for anything which would divide Australians based on race—or divide Australians in any event but certainly based on race. So I am absolutely fearful about where this will go.

The events of the last couple of days have drawn our attention to this character, Thomas Mayo. It's interesting how many members of the government now say what Senator O'Neill said—'I haven't met him.' I think we're going to see increasingly large numbers of them coming out. Seriously, I don't think anyone has met him at the moment! There seem to be photos of him everywhere, but no-one has ever met him. He's like the phantom. He's like the Scarlet Pimpernel! Well, I'll tell you what—if you want real insight into what the Voice is about, have a listen to Thomas. Have a listen to Mr Mayo because he's telling us all about it. He has been captured doing it and he has been caught out. The Australian people are going to understand more and more and more about this guy. If you want to understand the Voice, have a look at this guy. He's a self-described militant who sits on Prime Minister Albanese's own referendum working group, which was responsible for drafting and signing the activist document known as the Uluru Statement. This is the man who said that the Voice was 'a campaign tool to "punish politicians", "abolish colonialist institutions" and'—for those playing at home—'"pay the rent"'. I don't want to pay the rent. It is hardly a modest unifying proposition in anyone's language.

This is unequivocally a very big deal. The Australian people are not to be deterred on this. They're not to have the wool pulled over their eyes. They will work this out. They will understand that. The confusion we've seen around what was said here in the early hours of the morning on Saturday by contrast to what was said yesterday in the House will do nothing to dissuade the Australian people from thinking that this is a very, very bad idea and this is not a very modest proposition. I, for one, have the greatest hope—there is a lot of talk about a culture of fear, but I've got hope as well—that Australians will work this out, they will understand that this is a precursor to further division in this country and that we are all Australians. We are all united under the one flag. That includes Australia Day by the way. That includes all of our Aboriginal Indigenous friends. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.