2023-06-16 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Friday, 16 June 2023

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Community Affairs Legislation Committee 1 Meeting 1 BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1 09:31 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to the routine of business today, as circulated. Leave not granted. Senator H6X Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Birmingham moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to routine of business today be moved immediately and be determined without amendment or debate. President and colleagues, the motion I seek to move today is a simple one. It would seek to give precedence during the bulk of government business time today, starting immediately, to the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. The effect of this motion would be to ensure we start debate on the Constitution alteration bill earlier today than would otherwise be the case. It would not change the open-ended nature of today's debate. It would not in any way compromise the commitment that we have given as the Liberal Party and that exists, I think, across this chamber to ensure this bill passes through the chamber so that Australians ultimately get to have their say in relation to this proposal. What this motion would do is help to ensure that, when we are debating something as serious, important and significant as amending Australia's Constitution, we minimise the extent to which detailed consideration of that debate drags on into the night and potentially the early hours of the next morning. It would ensure that the debate started now, as soon as this motion passed, and that we actually had more of that debate occurring through the normal, considered time of the Senate during daylight hours. It would also ensure that we would not trade off the timely and proper consideration of the Constitution alteration bill with consideration of other matters—particularly the budget and appropriations bills—currently subject to guillotine. Those bills can still be considered next week through the normal course of events, as would be appropriate. I would ask particularly the Greens and the crossbench, but also the government, to consider what is the best-practice approach for how we approach and consider amending Australia's Constitution, and what is the best-practice way for this Senate chamber to give the most thoughtful and serious consideration to budget and appropriations bills and Constitution alteration bills. What we can best do for that is ensure that we get on with the Constitution alteration bill. It should not be a bill that is essentially only considered by night in the Senate. We have facilitated during the course of the week an agreement across the Senate chamber for additional hours for speeches in the second reading debate to continue, and there are still a good number of those to be concluded. But then we will move into the committee stage, and in that committee stage there will rightly be questions asked about the effect of the Constitution alteration bill. There are also, as I understand it, from some parts of the crossbench and potentially some other senators amendments that will be proposed to the Constitution alteration bill. Far better that we get to those matters several hours earlier than that we face the situation of them being dealt with later and later at night or possibly even into tomorrow. That's the effect of this. Then, next week, with a full Senate sitting week and the confidence that the Constitution alteration bill, in one form or another, will have passed this chamber, we can have considered debate in relation to the appropriation bills, budget matters, and the other bills that are before us and currently subject to the government guillotine. I implore the government to think about this as a sensible way forward. It's not seeking to be obstructionist. It is seeking to ensure, consistent with many of the debates we've had in this chamber about needing to operate in a family-friendly way and about needing to operate the chamber in ways that bring out the best of possible debates, that on something such as the Constitution alteration bill that that is what we do. It is disappointing that the approach of legislation by exhaustion has been adopted for this by having the open-ended debate tonight, but we respect the government's desire to have this bill concluded during this week of settings and we are not seeking to vary that. We are simply seeking to ensure that we have the type of considered debate that amending Australia's Constitution best warrants. I say to the Greens and the rest of the crossbench: if you want to ensure that we have thoughtful debate and can move through it in the most orderly way possible, I urge you to support this motion. 09:37 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders or, indeed, the amendment that's been circulated. I would say that the hours motion that set up the week passed the Senate without any senator opposing it. There was no opposition to that when it was set up. There has been no request to the government to change the order of business for today. It is a bit ironic that the first thing we do in order to get to a bill is delay getting to the bill through a suspension motion. The program as it is set up, as agreed by this entire Senate on, I think, Tuesday, has on it the Creative Australia Bill 2023 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023, both of which have a very small number of speakers listed. We could proceed very quickly to the Constitution alteration bill this morning if the speakers' lists are adhered to. So on the argument that Senator Birmingham put about the need to have the debate on this important piece of legislation—and it is important, which is why we have extended hours so senators are able to make their contributions, and they have been doing so over the last two nights—it could be commenced within the next half an hour, if people chose that. So I think the argument that Senator Birmingham out about the importance of having this debate done in the normal course of the day can be delivered without the delay that he seeks to impose through trying to reorder the program and delay actually getting to the government's program today. I think we saw this the last time we sat on a Friday. There was another attempt to reorder the program. It might be something that we just have to live with on Fridays. But the program as it's set out was agreed by everybody. Nobody opposed it. The Creative Australia Bill 2023 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 are non-controversial bills. We should get to them as soon as we can. Then people should be able to move straight into the Constitution alteration bill debate. The importance of this bill is reflected in the fact that the Senate will sit until this bill is complete, because we don't want to cut off debate on this bill; we want everyone to have an opportunity to have a say. We understand that people want a committee stage, and that's why the hours arrangement was set up. Then we have the appropriation bill, which, as I understand, more than 10 coalition speakers or perhaps more have already spoken on. So, the program as set out is a reasonable pathway to get through a Friday sitting day. It meets all the issues that have been raised by Senator Birmingham in terms of having time to talk and the importance of the Constitution alteration bill. It allows for all of that—if we were able to just get on with it, which is what I would urge the Senate to do. And I would say to those on the crossbench: thank you for your support for the hours motion that we moved on Tuesday. I would urge you to stick with that, because it is trying to balance up what we took as the will of the chamber. This government isn't about imposing just our view. We reached out to find out what people wanted—how they wanted to handle bills. We took that feedback, and that is what is reflected in the program today, to deal with a number of bills so that next week, when we will still have about 20 other bills to deal with, it can be dealt with in an orderly way, and we could manage to pass a few of those less-controversial bills this week, along with allowing every person in this chamber to have as much time as they would like on the Constitution alteration bill. I see no reason why we can't be commencing that bill by 10 o'clock today, if the Senate chooses to do so. 09:41 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Well, let's get some facts on the record here. First of all, if you recall when the motion was put forward to guillotine debate on a number of bills on the second day of a sitting fortnight, I rose and made a contribution. My contribution was very clear: that the opposition didn't support this motion; however, we recognise that there were enough numbers in this chamber for it to go through and therefore, in the interest of not wasting time, we let it go through. But let me make it very, very, very clear: I have been, and the opposition has been, clearly misrepresented in here. The Manager of Government Business in this place just rose and said that there was no objection to that motion. I quite clearly put on the record the objection of the opposition on that particular motion. I made it very clear that we understood that the will of the chamber was going to be for it to go through and we wouldn't vote against it. Senator RUSTON 243273 But I would say to the minister—who is quite clearly interjecting—that you can't come in here and try to rewrite history just for your own benefit. We were very clear about the fact that we thought it was absolutely incompetent of those opposite that they thought that it was okay to come into this chamber on the second day of a sitting fortnight and start to guillotine bills. It just goes to show the contempt with which those opposite hold this chamber. But I would also put on the record the fact that in posing our views to the chamber I have reached out to the manager this week on a number of occasions and said I was quite happy to sit down and work with the government to make sure we facilitated the passage of non-controversial legislation to make sure the government's agenda was easily put through where we were able to agree. I have not had one meeting with the manager. You also make the comment that in the next half an hour we could get back onto the constitutional bill. But you fail to realise that we can't get back to the appropriations bill because you have basically gagged any further debate about some budget bills. I mean, what is the contempt that this government holds this chamber in, that it actually gags debate on something as important as that? But probably more than anything, the contempt with which they are using this bill, a bill to change the Constitution—probably the most important bill that any of us will ever have the opportunity to debate in this place; it changes the founding document of our country—as some sort of political football to play games with, to block bills, gag bills and guillotine bills is contemptuous. It is just absolutely contemptuous of those opposite that they would seek to do that on a bill of such extraordinary importance. So what do they do? They come in here today and decide that the most important thing that we're going to debate on this day, when we're about to make a really extraordinary decision to change our Constitution, is the Creative Australia Bill 2023 and the Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. They think these are somehow more important for us to be debating on this day. In the process of doing this, you're going to kick debate on this extraordinarily important bill into the wee hours of tomorrow morning. You have so many questions to answer. I'm not holding out a great deal of hope tonight that we'll get any answers to the questions that we are going to be asking you about this really important bill. For the last 12 months since you've been in government you haven't been able to answer anything at all about this bill. So we're not holding out any hope. I think the most egregious thing that we have seen happen here is that, despite the fact that you went to the election with the catchcry of transparency, scrutiny, accountability—that's what you told the Australian public, that this was going to be a better place for that—you seek to come in here and guillotine bills. We've got all of next week. Obviously, as we have said on a number of occasions, we're happy to sit down with the government and talk to you about how we'll facilitate your right to run the agenda of this place. We're happy to do that. But you come in here and start to guillotine important bills—Treasury bills, appropriations bills—in the first week of a sitting fortnight. I say to those opposite: have a little think about how this reflects on you. You've had offers of support. You've had offers to make things happen, but, instead, you come in here, you use your numbers to impose your view on the chamber by getting those at the other end to support you. You are running your agenda, so don't come in here and say that you are facilitating the will of the chamber when you won't even speak to the alternative government. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam. Government senators interjecting— 09:46 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I'm so pleased to receive such a warm welcome from my colleagues to make a contribution to this very important debate! I didn't realise I had such a fan club in the government, but I guess that's a vote of confidence in me. I will turn to the issues at hand, as I talk to this very important issue— Senator DUNIAM 263418 Oh, President. Honestly! The suspension we're debating that was moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is a very important one. I was sitting here listening to this debate—and I've not yet been able to give my contribution on the constitution alteration bill that's currently before the chamber— Senator Polley e5x You can now. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I will just take those interjections, because the point I want to make here is that the government are saying it's either/or—you can either debate your constitutional amendment bill, the most important bill, chances are, that we will pass in a generation, to give Australians their say, or you can do the job that you'd normally be doing, which is debating and considering tax and appropriations bills. They're saying, 'If you shut up and sit down, we could get on with it.' But, hang on, we're got other legislation before we get to that bill, which is so critically important, which the government put on the agenda and which the Manager of Opposition Business said we took issue with. Sure, there wasn't a division the other day, but the views were very clearly put on record. To suggest, somehow, that we're going to sign up and let it sail on through, and zip our mouths shut and let you lot impose your agenda on this place is wrong, so we will take issue with that. Senator Bilyk HZB It's a good attempt. Senator Polley e5x No, it's not. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator DUNIAM 263418 My Tasmanian colleagues, who are amazing orators at the best of times, want to interject on me about the importance of this debate and the need for us to actually allocate appropriate time to legislation that is on the red, TLAB bill, which, of course, is incredibly important, but it's an either/or proposition here: 'You get two minutes on this if you like and then we can move on.' We could be done by 10, we were told, which is in 11 minutes time. No, that's not okay. We aren't just going to shut up and allow you to do what you are doing, and that is run a steamroller through this place just so we can get on with the rest of it. We have another sitting week next week too, so we could actually factor that into the timing of debate in this place. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. We didn't have to have a suspension on this. We could have probably dealt with the motion if leave had been granted. We wouldn't be having this debate now. Perhaps take some responsibility for your actions. We're trying to make the case to the Australian Greens and the crossbench so that your colleagues understand what the leadership group of the government in the Senate are doing as well. I don't think some opposite understand exactly what's going on. It is a truncation of debate, and that is a bad thing to happen in this chamber. I don't think— Senator Bilyk HZB Did your government guillotine anything? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Bilyk! Senator DUNIAM 263418 Thank you, President. I really am appreciative of that protection. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, that's not appropriate. Senator DUNIAM 263418 No doubt we will have an extensive committee stage on the constitutional alteration bill, because there are many important questions that the people of Australia have asked the opposition to put on the record because they can't get the answers to these questions. Of course, it's an open-ended debate, but wouldn't it be better to be doing it while the sun is still up rather than late into the night? If we structured the agenda appropriately—and the Australian Greens could be a party to this as well—we'd be able to facilitate that, rather than sign up to the agenda here that the Australian government put in place. They signed up the Australian Greens in truncating that debate. I don't accept that it's an either/or proposition. If you shut up on these bills, don't interrogate them, don't have a look at what's being proposed here and just let them sail through with no debate, no questions, no scrutiny and no interrogation of the facts, you can get on with the other one. This is exactly what they've done. They've structured it this way so that we do shut down debate, there is no interrogation of the facts and there's no scrutiny of the government. It's an either/or proposition; you can't have both. Senator Hughes 273828 How's that transparency? Senator DUNIAM 263418 I take the interjection from Senator Hughes. Prime Minister Albanese said he would usher in this new era of transparency, but he's doing it under the cover of darkness for certain bills and making us shut up on other ones. It is not a good approach to government, and it treats this chamber with contempt. So I echo the calls from the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and implore the crossbench to support our motion that's seeking to suspend the standing orders. Senator DUNIAM 263418 That's an excellent point, Senator Hanson-Young. She understands where I'm coming from—sometimes. (Time expired) 09:52 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I rise to speak to this suspension motion. This week we have wanted to get the Voice referendum legislation through this place. We wanted to do it in a way so that senators across the chamber could have their say. Unfortunately, the Albanese government has dismissed the usual practice for constitutional change in this country—holding a people's convention so that both sides of what is often complex arguments can have their views respectfully aired and then having individual Australian citizens go to the ballot box and quietly make their own determination about whether or not they think that's a good thing to do to our Constitution. Changing our founding document is an incredibly serious thing to do. Truncating the debate outside of this place is the decision of the government. They said they'd be transparent, but on this question they've been anything but. The lack of detail is now beginning to show as the Australian public's mind turns to the referendum question. They are concerned about the lack of detail. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, you are getting into debate about a bill; this debate is about the suspension. Senator McKENZIE 207825 Thank you for the guidance, Madam President, but I'm trying to make the case that, given the government's refusal to give the Australian people detail or a platform on which to interrogate and prosecute this potential change to our Constitution, the only place for that to happen in a respectful and transparent way is the Australian parliament—its committees and both chambers. We've seen another attempt by the Albanese government to truncate debate and to hide from the Australian people genuine concerns from people who just happen to not agree with them. The last time I checked it's not Cuba, North Korea or Beijing; it's the Australian democracy where different ideas should be allowed to be expressed in a respectful way and listened to. Yet when it comes to the inquiry into the bill before the Senate today—fast and furious as it was when the question was so serious—here we are, sitting on a Friday. People have cancelled their plans, ready to have the conversation that had to be had, to debate not just the Voice but also the other bills that the government—who have a right to set the agenda; they won the election; they manage the chamber—have put on the red. So I ask the chamber: when did we become the chamber of shutting down debate on the most serious questions we are asked? These are not bills that have no consequence. This is changing our founding document. Government senators interjecting— Senator McKENZIE 207825 And those opposite laugh merrily about genuine concerns of senators on this side of the chamber, and hopefully on the crossbench, who want to allow any senator in this place the time to make their contribution to the second reading debate and to actually ask the minister responsible as many questions as they need to about the detail. They also need to give the Senate the chance to contribute, to apply the transparency and scrutiny that this chamber is renowned for, not just in our country but globally. The appropriation bills that are now going to be subject to a guillotine, it would seem, are bills that people actually wanted to have a say on, about how this government is approaching their fiscal management of the economy as Australians are hurting. They wanted to have their say on the TLAB as well. We have come in here, when we've put everything aside to get the job done—because that is the question that was put to us earlier in the week, about staying here as senators, as the Senate, to complete the referendum legislation—and we are now seeing the government again seeking to guillotine, on a Friday. I'm happy to stay the weekend, and I'm sure other senators are, to make sure we can fulfil our very important job in this democracy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McKenzie. Senator O'Sullivan. Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Sullivan, before you start, I'm going to ask those on my right: if you wish to speak you can seek the call. Senator Watt 245759 No, we want to— The 10000 Senator Watt! But if you are listening, please listen in silence. Senator O'Sullivan. 09:57 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia President, thank you very much for raising that issue in the chamber here today, because the irony is that this lot over here are complaining about us having a debate on the suspension and, well, we wouldn't be debating a suspension if leave hadn't been denied. We could have taken this straight to a vote. But, instead, we are here debating this point. And I want to concur with the comments that have been made in this debate by my colleagues already, starting with our leader over here, and all my other excellent colleagues who raised important points, because this is, of course, a critical issue. Being able to get to the debate on the Constitution amendment is vital, as is being able to do it at a sensible hour of the day, when we're all of clear mind to be able to put questions and hopefully get back answers. But we know we don't actually get those questions answered in this place when we put them; that often is the case. So, we want to be able to get to it. I wanted to raise a particular issue in relation to the guillotining, because I got only about 30 seconds into my speech on the appropriation bill before the time of day shifted to a hard marker and I was in continuation. So, I'm not going to be able to continue with the speech I wanted to deliver in relation to critiquing the budget, because of the arrangement that you've put here today. And I think it's very disappointing that we're not provided with the opportunity to properly debate these important things—firstly, in the daylight hours, the Constitution alteration bill, and secondly, a proper debate about the appropriation bill. Many colleagues of mine were to follow me, were after me on the speakers' list. They wanted to make a contribution in relation to the appropriation bill but are not going to be afforded the opportunity today. There are some very serious issues that are not being addressed by this government in relation to the economy and in relation to the budget. The budget expenditure is not aimed at actually reducing inflation, and there are some very serious issues. I'm very disappointed that we don't have the opportunity to have a discussion about productivity, for example, and the lack of productivity in our economy. We heard the Reserve Bank governor speak last week about that as one of the key reasons behind the pressure that's on inflation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Sullivan, may I remind you that you are drifting off the topic of the suspension. Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Thank you. I appreciate your guidance, President. The point that I'm making is that the suspension debate is about the guillotining of important topics that are listed here on the red today and of important legislation that needs to be debated. Truncating it and shifting things around in the way that it has been done—and with the time markers that are there throughout the day—is preventing us from having a fulsome debate about these critical issues. I look forward to getting to the Constitution alteration bill later today— Senator Scarr 282997 At 2 am! Senator 283585 at whatever time that might be. It might be at 2 am, Senator Scarr—that's right. Hopefully it's not that far into the evening, because there are some very serious issues that need to be examined and questions that really should be answered. Maybe I won't hold my breath, but I am hopeful that we will be able to hear some answers, because Australians really do have big questions about the operation of the Voice and the implications for our democracy. Those are questions that are very much on people's minds. We have to respect the Australian people and their ability to think things through. Here in this place that's what we need to be able to do: to ask questions and have them answered in a way that's satisfactory—not just deflecting but actually dealing with the issues that are before us. I would encourage the Senate to consider supporting this suspension motion, because it will enable us to expeditiously get through the agenda today—not taking anything off the agenda—in a way that's sufficient to enable us to properly debate it and consider all the issues that are before us in a timely and efficient way. The PRES 112096 The time for this debate has expired. The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham to suspend standing orders be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [10:07]
(The President—Senator Lines)

23 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Gallagher, K. R. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 8 BILLS Creative Australia Bill 2023, Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 8

Creative Australia Bill 2023

Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 8 10:09 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Australia's enduring embrace of the arts and culture has entered a new era. Under the Albanese Labor government, a new national cultural policy named Revive will jump-start and revitalise the Australian arts, entertainment and culture scene for the next five years. This ambitious and comprehensive plan for the arts will empower homegrown talent to prosper, unlocking new job opportunities, including in my home state of Tasmania, as well as increasing engagement between local communities and the Australian artist. After a decade of coalition neglect, denial and delay of an effective arts policy, the Albanese Labor government's blueprint will revive purpose and a big-picture vision back into the arts. Let's be clear. This plan will produce real-world positive results for countless hardworking Australians and their communities through investing $286 million over a four-year period in an industry that employs over 400,000 Australians and produces $17 billion for our economy. Most importantly for me, coming from Tasmania, it invests in our local economies in rural and regional areas. This visionary outlook is the centrepiece of the Creative Australia Bill, a proposed piece of legislation that rewrites governance for the arts by re-forming Creative Australia with a relevant agenda, illustrated by its corresponding plan to establish Music Australia and Creative Workplaces. Over the past decades, spanning back to 1975, federal support and advice for the arts has been heralded by the Australia Council. The body performs an important duty in uplifting Australian creative arts on a domestic and international level, as well as supporting the sector with industry-leading research and advocacy on its behalf. The Albanese government is heartened to build on its long-held Labor values of supporting artists and reinforcing federal commitments to the creative industry by restoring Creative Australia in an expanded capacity. At this juncture I would just like to acknowledge the extremely hard work and leadership of Minister Tony Burke in his consultation leading up to the last election and his ongoing hard work and commitment to this important sector. Have no doubt; this bill builds on our vision for reviving Creative Australia, reversing the harmful Brandis cuts to the arts. Establishing Music Australia and Creative Workplaces will only support and grow this vital sector. The Creative Australia Bill is the product of extensive consultation, as I said, on the ground, with Australian artists responding in over 1,200 submissions and authentic input from 14 town hall meetings held across the country while drafting a new national cultural policy. The two bodies under Creative Australia, Music Australia and Creative Workplaces, will perform essential duties that will keep our Revive plan for the arts on track. Music Australia will provide critical support to the Australian contemporary music scene and make room for its growth, including through establishing a strategic vision for the sector, facilitating industry collaboration, funding training and skills development, and supporting the cultural exportation of Australia art. Creative Workplaces will be the foundation of support for artists, industry workers and creative organisations in their workplaces, overseeing crucial safety standards on sets and guiding elevated matters into being appropriately addressed by the relevant mechanisms—such a stark contrast to the past decade of neglect by the previous coalition government. Further to Labor's longstanding dedication to defending workplace rights and protections in any industry, including the arts, Creative Workplaces will have the authority to set fair pay and conditions for the arts sector. Make no mistake: federal government support for creative organisations will be contingent on following these standards rigorously and upholding the labour rights of their workers, in addition to forming these long-awaited bodies that will provide direct support for the industry and assemble a blueprint for effectively implementing the Albanese Labor government's revived plan for the arts. We are committed to keeping the direction of Creative Australia on track for the long-term future of this vital sector. That is precisely why this bill provides for new councils to guide the work of both Music Australia and Creative Workplaces, ensuring that new services and programs are delivered effectively and with proper oversight. Our work in delivering for the arts sector, time and time again, will be done with that oversight. We will relentlessly carry out our duties in government to continue enriching Australia's vibrant, creative communities, particularly in representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural art. A completing bill will be introduced later this year that will complement this bill. After consultation with relevant communities we'll establish the First Nations and Writers Australia body within Creative Australia that aligns with the Albanese Labor government's vision for elevating Australian art. Ultimately this bill represents a continuing and ambitious commitment to significantly improve the quality of federal involvement in every aspect of the arts sector, which will unequivocally result in wide-ranging benefits for Australian artists, arts organisations and our greater community. We are doing this work now to pave the way for immediate support for jobs and quality content for this industry. Passing this bill in the winter sittings will enable Creative Australia to start its work without delay for the benefits of the arts and artists as soon as 1 July. Labor's lock-step support for Australian artists under its successive governments and most recently under the Albanese Labor government could not be more important after a decade of, in contrast, deliberate neglect of the arts sector by the federal coalition. The arts sector has endured years, starting under Tony Abbott's exceptionally cruel government, of successful spending cuts and has been a victim of the delusions of grandeur under the coalition—most appallingly, when former minister George Brandis shamelessly transferred more than $100 million from the Australia Council to his personal— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator Polley. Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 I have a point of order. That's just a shameless personal reflection on my good friend George Brandis, who served with great distinction in this chamber, and I would ask the senator to withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Thank you, Senator Scarr. I think, Senator Polley, you were skirting on the edge of reflecting on a former colleague in this place, and I would advise you to be very careful in how you do so and perhaps consider reframing your remarks. Senator POLLEY e5x Thank you for that guidance, Acting Deputy President Chandler. These are not my words; these are the words from the arts sector. But if people are offended because I referred to the delusion of the former minister, who gutted $100 million from the Australia Council, to his personal favourite arts sector—which is on the record—then I have already withdrawn my comments. This is not to mention— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator Polley. Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 A point of order: I was hoping that, with a gentle prompt, the good senator—a good friend of mine—would moderate the language, but in fact it went in the opposite direction. To impute that the previous minister actually made decisions based on his 'personal favourites' is an inappropriate imputation. I would ask the senator to assist the chamber by withdrawing. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Yes. Thank you, Senator Scarr. Senator Brown? Senator Carol Brown F49 On the point of order, I think it's quite clear that Senator Polley is actually reporting the facts of what has occurred. There was an inquiry that was actually set up and voted on in this chamber, with every single other senator voting to have an inquiry. Senator Brandis had the dubious honour of having a number of inquiries set up around the arts funding. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Brown, are you getting to the point of order? Senator Carol Brown F49 I am saying that Senator Polley's comments are quite in order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Thank you. I have taken advice from the Clerk. Senator Polley, I've reminded you once already to be very mindful of the language that you are using when reflecting on previous senators who have served in this place. In assisting the chamber, it might be helpful for you to continue on with your remarks without further reflecting on those individuals. Senator POLLEY e5x Thank you for that guidance. Senator Catryna Bilyk actually chaired the inquiry into that matter, so if people are offended because we are actually putting some facts on the record then I apologise that you don't like to hear the truth and you don't like transparency. Quite frankly, it is well-recorded within this chamber's contribution of the facts that over the last decade the coalition government did gut the arts sector, did not support it. We now have a minister who is committed and has consulted with the sector and has a clear vision for the future of the arts sector in this country. We believe Australian stories should be told. We believe that Australian children should know about their history, their culture. And we believe that we have the world's best artists and creativity in this country, and we're very proud of it. We know that the coalition government slashed Creative Australia altogether, with no replacement, and they utterly failed to even acknowledge the lived experience of Australian artists for a decade. They're the facts that are now on the public record once again. Let's be very clear: the opposition should be ashamed of themselves for deliberately excluding artists from federal cost-of-living support during the pandemic. You never supported them during the pandemic, so how can you come here now and cry foul about me putting on the record what you did when you were in government? Artists went through the toughest time, but, as usual, you come in here and you cry crocodile tears. Well, let me assure the Australian artists and the Australian arts community that that support, the support that they are now getting from the Albanese Labor government, will continue to go beyond the five years that we have budgeted for now. We actually have a minister who is embedded into the music sector, who has a real interest in artists, and we will deliver on our National Cultural Policy and its inclusive roadmap for enriching Australia's art and culture, spanning all areas of government policy—ranging from the cultural exchange in foreign affairs, to health and particularly to education and creating Australian jobs that I feel so passionately about. I note Senator Brown, Senator Bilyk and my good friend Senator Jonathon Duniam who likes to promote my TikTok videos are here. When you are based in a beautiful state like Tasmania, and in particular in Launceston, you'll know the arts have had a profoundly positive impact on our local communities, touching the lives of Tasmanians and generating unparalleled job opportunities for aspiring artists. I dare to say that the arts sector's centre of the universe is in Launceston, in the north of the state, but it goes out across the entire state. I am proud of the diverse, vibrant, remarkable range of creative arts content produced locally in my home community and my home state of Tasmania. Senator Henderson ZN4 What about the $1 billion of coalition spend? Senator POLLEY e5x In fact, Senator Henderson, you might want to listen and learn something about what creative artistic involvement actually does for our community, including Tasmania's award-winning Blue Rocket Productions; the historic Princess Theatre in Launceston; the new Bay of Fires series, starring Marta Dusseldorp, which was produced in Tasmania; and Launceston's BOFA Film Festival. Senator Duniam 263418 Why don't you talk about the Princess Theatre? Senator Henderson ZN4 Did you mention the funding for the Princess Theatre? The ACTING DEPUTY PRE 264449 Order. Senator POLLEY e5x Those in the coalition may not like the Albanese Labor government and the fact that we recognise the significance of this sector—and we recognise the sanctimonious attitude of those opposite—but we believe that the arts are essential within our community, not just from an economic point of view but from a cultural point of view. We have a vision that we will take forward, and we are proud to do that. It will be known as Revive , and the reason we chose that name is because it was in desperate need of support and revival. Our artists create, as I said, not just for our local economies or in terms of jobs. More importantly, they're educators of our culture, and the impact that they have on our generations cannot be underestimated. So we acknowledge the outstanding commitment that is made by artists. We feel for them, that they were neglected during the pandemic by those opposite. But we have taken a very strong stand; we have consulted with them, and we've laid out our vision with them. We are now going to leave a footprint that others can walk in behind as we go forward. Senator Duniam 263418 You're leaving a footprint—that's for sure! Senator Scarr 282997 You're leaving a TikTok behind! Senator Marielle Smith 281603 You're just jealous, Senator Scarr. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order. Senator POLLEY e5x Again, I just want to congratulate Tony Burke, as the Minister for the Arts. He has actually got the commitment and is able to ensure that the investment is going to be there going forward. I commend this bill. Those on the other side can laugh about what we've been able to put together going forward, but, if I were on their side of the chamber, I would be hanging my head in shame at the neglect that this sector felt over the last decade. I would be ashamed to say that I was a colleague of someone like the former minister, for his neglect and the way that he gutted the Australian arts sector. Senator POLLEY e5x Shame on him. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Before I call Senator Bilyk, senators, I know that this is clearly a very emotional debate this morning. But please refrain as much as possible from heckling each other across the chamber. Those on my right and my left were doing that quite consistently through Senator Polley's contribution, and I think she and Senator Bilyk should be heard in polite silence. Senator Bilyk. 10:27 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I stand before you today to advocate for the passage of the Creative Australia Bill 2023 and the Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. This legislation not only acknowledges the immense cultural and economic value of the creative arts sector but also demonstrates the Albanese government's commitment to fostering a vibrant and sustainable future for Australian creativity. The creative arts industry is the lifeblood of our nation's cultural identity, and it plays a pivotal role in shaping our society. From literature and visual arts to film, music and performing arts, our creative sector enriches our lives, stimulates critical thinking and reflects the diversity of our communities. It is after all only through the telling of our unique and diverse stories that we can truly understand and appreciate our identity as a nation. The Creative Australia bill is founded on the belief that the arts are not just a mere luxury for the elite but a fundamental pillar of all sectors of society. It recognises that the arts have the power to ignite imagination, challenge perceptions and foster social cohesion. By supporting and investing in the arts, we are investing in the very essence of what it means to be Australian, in a diverse, vibrant and culturally rich nation. It's important to note that the arts and cultural industry is not just an expression of our identity and values. As I've said, it is a vital economic force that generates jobs, stimulates tourism and drives innovation. As an industry, it contributes $17 billion to our annual economy and provides employment opportunities for an estimated 400,000 Australians. I'm really proud that historically it has been Labor. It has been Labor governments that have consistently supported and championed the arts in Australia. The Whitlam government was the first to truly recognise the immense importance of the arts. In his 1972 campaign speech, Whitlam outlined his arts policy as being guided by four main objectives: to promote a standard of excellence in the arts, to widen access to the arts in the community generally, to help establish and express an Australian identity through the arts and to promote an awareness of Australian culture abroad. That was truly visionary. It reflected a new confidence and maturity and inspired us to embrace our unique national identity, challenging the prevailing cultural cringe which persisted amongst Australians at the time. Upon winning government, Whitlam's election promise to the arts was fulfilled with the establishment of the Australia Council for the Arts in 1975. A key initiative, the Australia Council has continued to provide vital support for artists and arts organisations through grants, fellowships and funding for major arts institutions up until this very day. The Whitlam government also established the National Gallery of Australia. With free entry, this world-class gallery provided unprecedented access to the public, inspiring generations of Australians ever since. In 1975, the government established the Australian Film Commission, providing substantial grants to feature films, documentaries, television and short-film projects. This crucial support provided by the AFC revived the stagnating Australian film industry. This directly led to the renaissance of Australian cinema in the 1970s and 1980s, allowing for the expression of a new and confident cultural identity to a much wider audience, both here and abroad. It's worth noting that without this funding from the AFC some of Australia's most iconic and critically acclaimed films, including Picnic at Hanging Rock, Gallipoli and The Last Wave may never have seen the light of day. In 1973, the Australian Film and Television School was established. Now known as the Australian Film Television and Radio School, the school continues to be celebrated internationally as one of the top film schools in the world. This school has been responsible for launching the careers of countless cinematographers, documentary makers, editors, animators and directors, many of whom have found great success in Hollywood and elsewhere around the globe. Amongst its highly acclaimed alumni are directors Gillian Armstrong and Phillip Noyce, responsible for telling our uniquely Australian stories such as My Brilliant Career and Rabbit-Proof Fence to a global audience. The Whitlam government was the first to introduce minimum Australian music content for commercial radio stations. It also established what would later become triple J, a station specifically designed to support and promote Australian music and connect with young Australians. The legacy of this great institution of youth culture and music cannot be underestimated. Since commencement, it has unearthed and promoted countless Australian music artists, many of whom have since found success on the international stage. Triple J continues to play a vital role in providing a pathway for young and emerging musicians to tell their stories in reaching our cultural identity, both at home and abroad. The strong foundations to Australian arts and culture of the Whitlam government continued to be built upon under the Hawke and Keating Labor governments. Reaffirming its true relationship with the arts was the implementation of the Creative Nation policy in 1994. Not only did Creative Nation provide significant funding for the arts and cultural industries, this landmark policy also had the distinction of being the first Commonwealth cultural policy document in Australia's history. The impact of this policy was profound. It changed the way Australians saw themselves and their place in the world by redefining culture as 'that which gives us a sense of ourselves' rather than something only for the elites to enjoy. At its heart, it sought to recognise and embrace multiculturalism in Australia. Describing Australian culture as 'now an exotic hybrid' in the document's preamble, it highlighted the importance of Indigenous and migrant cultures in creating a national cultural identity. It therefore marks an important step in changing of the narrative of Australian identity, one which sought to include non-white Australians in the national project. This was emphasised by the funding and establishment of the Australian National Institute for Indigenous Performing Arts as well as the creation of a database for Chinese, Japanese and Korean language texts in Australia, allowing for a much more inclusive approach to the arts for all Australians. It should be noted that Creative Nation was as much an economic policy as it was a cultural one; the economic benefits of the arts could not be ignored. The Creative Nation policy therefore reframed how the cultural industry was perceived. No longer would it be viewed as art for art's sake, but rather as a vital contributor to Australia's economic success. From Creative Nation onwards, art was for everyone rather than just the elite. Cultural engagement was vital not only to the aspirations of the nation but to the economy as well. The Gillard government further expanded the Creative Nation policy in 2013, reaffirming the centrality of the arts to our national identity, social cohesion and economic success. This expanded policy also recognised the importance of keeping pace with the emergence of new digital platforms, providing additional support to the innovative development of new creative content in creative industries. The Albanese government is proud to build upon the proud legacy and visionary commitment to the arts of previous Labor governments with the introduction of the Creative Australia Bill 2023. It recognises the invaluable role of the creative sector in our society and seeks to provide it with the necessary resources and infrastructure for it to thrive. Unlike the previous government, the Albanese government has listened to the voice of the creative arts. We have listened to their voices at 14 town hall meetings attended by 800 stakeholders, and I was very pleased to attend the first town hall meeting in Hobart. And we've heard their voices in the more than 1,200 submissions to the National Cultural Policy inquiry. This extensive consultation has led us to the formation of the government's National Cultural Policy, Revive, and the establishment of Creative Australia—restoring, modernising and expanding the Australia Council, created, as I said, under the Whitlam government in 1975. This legislation will strengthen the capacity of the Australia Council and provide greater strategic oversight and engagement across the sector. Importantly, it will ensure that funding decisions will continue to be made based on artistic merit and at arm's length from the government. Labor's approach to the arts stands in stark contrast to that of the previous government. Artists and arts organisations were breathing a sigh of relief when we were elected to government, because they finally had a government that values their work, not just for its economic output but for the contribution it makes to cultural expression and national identity, and to enhancing the lives of Australians. This is what has been missing from arts policy for almost a decade, under the governments led by former prime ministers Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison. What was also missing under the Liberals and Nationals was any sense of an overarching framework of a coherent and principles based approach to arts policy. That framework, that coherence, existed back when we had the Keating government's Creative Nation and the Gillard government's Creative Australia, demonstrating that Labor is the only true friend of the arts in government. Under the Albanese Labor government, the notion of an overarching approach being embedded into every aspect of arts policy is back again, with our National Cultural Policy, Revive, and its five pillars—a place for every story and a story for every place. To illustrate what a radical shift in attitude to the arts this is, it's worth reflecting on the chaos and vandalism of the previous government when it came to arts policy, and on the damage that was done after a decade of those opposite in power. The Liberals and Nationals led a government that axed the federal arts department in December 2019. It axed the department! I've had a number of meetings with organisations such as Screen Producers Australia, and I admire the strong advocacy and representations they give for their industry. Prior to the last election they made quite clear the damage that was being done to screen production by the suspension of local content quotas for Australian drama, documentary and children's programs, and also the failure of the previous government to make any serious efforts to introduce Australian content quotas for video and on-demand streaming services. The screen production industry in Australia includes actors, directors, writers, producers, set crews and graphic artists, to name a few. They compete with a global industry that achieves massive economies of scale, including countries that have their very own generous local content quotas. For our industry, it's like being an amateur boxer taking on the heavyweight champion with one hand tied behind their back. During the COVID pandemic the previous government made the future very uncertain for 50,000 professional artists and 600,000 arts workers by refusing to extend JobKeeper eligibility to many artists and arts organisations, including some that lost 100 per cent of their revenue. When museums, galleries, theatres, television studios and live music venues closed their doors, when concerts, festivals and exhibitions were cancelled, many of the artists they supported got no help from those opposite. The previous government shelled out over $19 billion in JobKeeper payments to companies whose revenue went up, but their lack of support for the arts industry demonstrated the utter contempt they have for arts and artists. Under enormous pressure, the package for the arts industry was eventually boosted by $250 million. But this wasn't delivered until several months into the pandemic, after significant public pressure. Compare this funding for the entire multibillion-dollar arts sector to the $100 million that the previous government gave to zoos. I also vividly recall, when I was a member of the legal and constitutional affairs committee, taking the lead for Labor on an inquiry into the then government's savage cuts to the arts under Minister George Brandis. The government at that time cut $105 million from the Australia Council for the Arts, an independent body that made merit based decisions about arts funding, and directed it to their little slush fund, Catalyst—a slush fund that was so doled out at the whim of the minister. The inquiry held a series of public hearings across Australia, attended by possibly hundreds of witnesses. Witness after witness lined up to defend the Australia Council and highlight the shortsightedness of the coalition government's policy. With all their efforts to find a witness on the other side—and they went to a lot of effort to find a witness favourable to their position—the government was only able to produce—do you know how many? One witness, out of hundreds—and, I've got to say, he wasn't particularly credible at that. Granted, Catalyst was eventually shut down and the funding was returned to the Australia Council, but only after significant pressure was applied by thousands of furious artists and arts organisations across Australia. In summation, the Creative Australia Bill 2023 is more than just legislation; it's a bold declaration of Labor's strong heritage of commitment to the arts and an acknowledgement of the transformative power that creativity holds. It's a call to action to embrace and support our artists, to nurture our cultural institutions and to recognise the vital role the arts play in our collective identity and our economy. Let's build a creative Australia together, a nation that values and celebrates its artists, a nation that fosters innovation and creativity. (Time expired) 10:42 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I wasn't going to speak in relation to this piece of legislation, the Creative Australia Bill 2023 and the related bill, but I was moved to speak to defend my very good friend ex-senator George Brandis, who was the Leader of the Government in the Senate and was the arts minister. I can remember when George Brandis was appointed arts minister and was appointed sports minister at the same time—and, I must say, it was the subject of some reflection by those of us who have known George for a long time that he was appointed sports minister as well as arts minister! I can remember congratulating him when he was appointed arts minister, and I think he was absolutely outstanding as an arts minister. The feedback I received not from politicians, not from senators, but from those involved in the arts in Queensland, was that he was considered an outstanding arts minister—just as my party, the Liberal Party, has produced many outstanding arts ministers at all levels of government over the decades. The first point I want to make is: if you listened to those opposite—for those in the gallery listening to this debate and no doubt the millions of people at home listening to the debate—you would have thought the coalition government spent no money on arts. That's what you would think—that we did nothing, that it was a barren wasteland, that it was a desert devoid of all culture. The reality—and this isn't just political rhetoric, not Senator Bilyk's political rhetoric; these are the facts—is that, in the 2021-22 financial year, the coalition government delivered record arts funding. Would you have known that from the speeches you heard from those opposite? You would have thought we didn't give a brass razoo to the arts. But, in fact, we delivered record arts funding of over $1 billion. No Labor government has ever matched this level of funding for the arts. It was over $1 billion in 2021-22. I saw the impact of that in the region in Queensland where my office is based. I have gone to regional art galleries who've been able to put on exhibitions from local artists, including the wonderful art gallery of Toogoolawah in the Somerset region. They were able to put on those exhibitions because of the support that they received from the coalition government. The cinemas were able to keep their doors open during the COVID pandemic because of the support they got from the coalition government. My main point with respect to the policy we are hearing from those opposite—and this is the main difference between Labor and the coalition in terms of policy on this point—is that we philosophically believe any money provided by the government in relation to supporting the arts should actually go to the artist. That's what we believe. The money that's coming from government—that's taxpayers' money—should be delivered in the most efficient and effective way possible to the artists. For the theatre companies, the ballet companies, the opera companies, the symphonies all across Australia, the regional art galleries and whatever—we should get as much money as we can as efficiently and effectively to the artists, not build layers of bureaucracy for people sitting in offices in Canberra to determine what the culture of Australia should be. That culture is determined by the people of Australia. To the extent that the government provides support for the arts, it should be delivered directly to the artists and the performing companies themselves so that they can display their creativity and have support to express their creativity, rather than bureaucrats in Canberra determining what their creative output should be. That's our main philosophical concern. Senator Duniam 263418 It's directed art. Senator SCARR 282997 Directed art—that's right. Bureaucratic art—we don't want that. People should go back and have a look at some of the turgid art that was produced over the years and came out of the old Soviet Union. That was state dictated art. There was that brutalist architecture, devoid of any humanity, devoid of any art. That's the art you get out of bureaucracy. Give the funding to the grassroots, to all those wonderful artists out there. Give the money to the grassroots as effectively and efficiently as possible. Deliver it to them. But what we are seeing here is an increase in bureaucracy. According to the budget, the average number of staff at the Australia Council will increase by 32 per cent—from an estimated 108 in 2022-23 to 143. What are these people going to be doing? Our Public Service does a wonderful job in this city—absolutely—and they have to do what the ministers dictate. To the extent the ministers want to set a government dictated cultural policy and dictate how we should be creative, I guess the public servants just have to do their best—but what are all these people going to be doing? What are these extra 35 people going to be doing? Why don't we give the money direct to the artists, to the performers and to the venues? There are wonderful venues in my home state of Queensland which need support. This is where the money should be going—not to bureaucracy but to the performers, the theatres and those who need that support, especially young performers starting on their artistic journeys. I congratulate each and every one of them. The next Peter Weir and the next great painters—we should be supporting them at the grassroots level. That's our basic philosophical objection to the approach of the government in relation to this matter. In conclusion, I would like to pay my respects to, and say something positive about, the previous arts minister, Minister Fletcher. I think he did an outstanding job as arts minister. I was listening reasonably carefully, between my interjections, and I noted that there wasn't much said about then minister Fletcher by those opposite. But I think he did do an outstanding job as arts minister, especially during the COVID pandemic, which was a very, very difficult time. In my discussions with him, conveying the concerns of my constituents in my home state of Queensland, he took his responsibilities in that regard extremely seriously. I would like to see the great work that then minister Fletcher discharged in that role built upon, not detracted from, during the term of this parliament and during the course of this government. 10:50 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I table a correction to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Creative Australia Bill 2023, which will be circulated in the chamber. I thank all those who have contributed to this debate and acknowledge the support that has been given across the chamber. Some questions have been asked during contributions, which I will go to during my summing-up contribution. The legislation demonstrates a strong commitment to support arts and culture, and it is clear from the debate that arts is crucial to everything that we do. It strengthens communities, enhances health and wellbeing and provides the skills of the future. The formation of Creative Australia through this bill transforms Australia's principal arts funding body into a modern entity that is able to harness the current opportunities available to the art and entertainment sector by bringing together public, philanthropic and commercial support for the arts. This is a strategic shift that will create greater leverage opportunities in the arts. Creative Australia will provide more support to our valued art and culture sector through restoring the Brandis cuts and increasing funding and services for artists, arts workers and businesses. Through this legislation, artists, entertainers, arts workers and arts organisations will be better supported. Audiences will have greater access to Australian stories through new music, literature, performances and other creative practices and can be inspired or moved by the sounds and sights they hear and see. Revive, the government's national cultural policy, this Creative Australia Bill and the government's record investment in the arts sector sets a new course for Australia's arts and culture sector. The beating heart of our nation's creativity is not bound within a room for a small number of elites to deem what they believe is worthy. Creativity is something that flows through the veins of our nation. The Creative Australia Bill will transform the Australia Council into Creative Australia and position it as an enhanced entity with expanded functions and responsibilities and new governance structures. As the centrepiece of Revive, Creative Australia will deliver on a bold new agenda for the creative sector and be the champion for Australian stories and arts practised both here and across the world. The bill is not about creating more arts officials or extra layers of bureaucracy. I understand this is a concern that was raised by Senator Henderson, Senator Davey and, of course, Senator Scarr. It's not about creating more arts officials or an extra layer of bureaucracy; it's about bringing government funded arts, arts philanthropy and the commercial art sectors together in one organisation. The formation of Creative Australia through the bill transforms Australia's principal arts funding body into a modern entity, as I've said. A new board will be appointed under the legislation which will be the governing and accountable authority for Creative Australia. The board will retain the name 'Australia Council Board' to maintain its connection to the creation of the Australia Council by the Whitlam government in 1975. A staged approach has been agreed by government to enable Creative Australia to scale up responsibly and to implement new functions. The bill allows Creative Australia to begin with the Music Australia and Creative Workplaces councils; the stage elements for First Nations arts and culture, and for writers, will come later. First Nations First will be established following an extensive consultation process, and its functions will consider the needs of the sector to deliver Creative Australia's First Nations First funding program. It will identify and plan for strategic investments and will commence activities in 2024. Writers Australia will be established in line with the commencement of funding by mid-2025. To support our artists to tell our stories, we must improve the quality of Commonwealth investment in the arts sector and strengthen and streamline access to support, including for artists and art organisations. The Creative Australia Bill 2023, with the expanded functions of Music Australia and Creative Workplaces, along with the dedicated councils, is key to delivering on this commitment. I again also want to touch on the issue and concerns about extra bureaucrats. The agency has a very efficient track record of spending only five per cent on administrative costs, and of course we value the work of public servants; their work will be critical. So I think I can assure Senator Scarr, in particular, about efficient and effective management by public servants. There was a question about board appointments, I think maybe from Senator Henderson. Minister Burke has made many comments about the importance of skills based board appointments. Section 22(3) of this bill specifically says that the minister must be: … satisfied that the person has appropriate qualifications, knowledge, skills or experience. Again, I remind senators that Revive is backed by a $286 million funding package and that it is new money, of which $199 million is going to Creative Australia. And the correction that I just tabled, Senator Henderson, clarifies that the minister's directions are not subject to disallowance. The word 'not' has been added. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Scarr, I think the minister had concluded. Are you wanting to make a point of order? Senator Scarr 282997 On indulgence, I'm seeking a clarification about that last point made on the explanatory memorandum. I sit on the scrutiny committee, so I watch this very closely. Is it moving from being subject to disallowance to not being subject to disallowance? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 We're not in the committee stage, Senator Scarr. Minister? Senator CAROL BROWN F49 My understanding is that the bill says 'not', and that it was just missed out in the explanatory memorandum. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Henderson, we're not in committee stage at the moment, and I'm about to move the question on the second reading. If a committee stage is required to clarify this issue then we'll do that, but I'm not going to have extensive debate across the chamber on this matter; it's not timely. The question is that the bills now be read a second time. Question agreed to. Bills read a second time. In Committee 16 11:00 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I just seek some clarification in relation to the correction to the explanatory memorandum. I obviously did hear Senator Brown's explanation, but, to just give us comfort, are you able to direct the chamber to the provision in the bill that makes it clear that the directions referred to in clause 14, which allows for the minister to give directions to the board in relation to the performance of functions and powers of Creative Australia, are not subject to disallowance? I appreciate you made that statement, but I would like you to confirm that please, given where we are in the proceedings. 11:00 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Senator Henderson, on page 12—in section 14 titled 'Ministerial directions'—there's a note that says: Section 42 (disallowance) and Part 4 of Chapter 3 (sunsetting) of the Legislation Act 2003 do not apply to the directions (see regulations made for the purposes of paragraphs 44(2)(b) and 54(2)(b) of that Act). It says 'do not apply'. 11:01 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Minister, why is it that those directions aren't subject to disallowance? I make this point, as I said perhaps inappropriately in the previous session of this deliberation, that the disallowance procedures and processes of the Senate are of great importance. They provide an opportunity for the Senate to act as a check and balance in circumstances where a minister gives an overreaching direction—and it could be a minister of any political persuasion. By not allowing or permitting the disallowance process to apply in the Senate, you are depriving the chamber of its ability to act as a check and balance on the executive power. Why is that considered appropriate? 11:02 Sen F49 Tasmania ator CAROL BROWN (—) (): This part of the legislation is just continuing what is currently the practice. 11:02 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Minister, if something were inappropriate in the past, why is that the basis for it to continue in the future? 11:02 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania We never suggested it was inappropriate in the past, and we don't think it's inappropriate now. 11:02 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland The question I've got is in relation to its appropriateness. The point I made is that the minister actually giving directions with respect to the functions and powers of this body is quite a powerful executive ability to influence the operations of this body. It's an opportunity for the minister to influence. It's an opportunity for the minister to wield executive power. Why is it that that instrument through which executive power is wielded is not subject to a disallowance process? Isn't it appropriate that in performing its function as a house of review that the Senate has the power to access and utilise the disallowance process if appropriate? As someone who has given great service to this chamber over many years, the minister well knows that it's very rare for the Senate to actually ultimately disallow an instrument, but the fact that the power is there is extraordinarily important for the scrutiny process. So what is the particular basis upon which it is said that it is appropriate for there to be no disallowance process? 11:04 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I repeat that we are continuing the same process and the same procedures that were in place under the last government. Okay? 11:04 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I also wanted to seek clarity in relation to why the minister requires such a wide-ranging power in relation to giving directions to the board about the performance, functions and powers of Creative Australia. As we know, the board is called the Australia Council Board, and it is very confusing as to why there was this name change. The Australia Council of course was established by former prime minister Gough Whitlam. Putting that to one side, could you explain why the minister is seeking such wide-ranging powers which are not subject to disallowance? 11:05 Sen F49 Tasmania ator CAROL BROWN (—) (): This bill is not seeking any more than what has been put in place under the previous minister. I appreciate your comment about former prime minister Whitlam. Again, I think we might be on the same song sheet here, because we both appreciate—I don't want to quote you incorrectly—and support the work of Prime Minister Whitlam in this arts area. Of course, the Australia Council Board retains the link to that great work. Again, I'll say that the issue that we are currently debating is about the words and processes in place, which are the same as what the former government had. We supported that and we see that there isn't a need to change it in any way. 11:07 Senator ZN4 Victoria HENDERSON () (): Minister, you might be able to clarify this. This may be from an earlier version of the bill, but there is an online version of the bill that doesn't include this note in relation to the disallowance. The note says 'Section 42 (disallowance)' et cetera. Are you able to clarify when that note, which is in provision 14, was added to the bill? It appears that it was not part of the original bill when it was first introduced. Is that correct? 11:07 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania It was part of the original bill that was tabled in the House of Representatives. Again, I'll say that the clause we're debating is one that was there and operating under the previous government. 11:07 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I want to go back to the reasons for not making this disallowable. You've talked about precedent, and I'm not sure that I necessarily concur with you on that. But, in any event, why does the minister require these unfettered powers? Are you able to explain, with respect to the way the board functions and the way the board is governed, why the minister needs these powers which should not be subject to disallowance? 11:08 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I've answered this question before, and I'll say again that the practice that we're putting in place here is the same practice that your government had in place. You had no issue with it when you were in government, and it's exactly the same situation here now. 11:09 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Minister, I remind you that this is the establishment of a new entity, with the board confusingly being called the Australia Council Board. So this is a decision of your government. Again, I ask: could you specifically address my question as to why the minister needs these powers which should not be subject to disallowance? I'd appreciate if you could go directly to the question, please. 11:09 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I've already answered the question. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Third Reading 17 11:10 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That these bills be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 17

Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023

Second Reading 17 11:11 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. The coalition will support this bill, as the intention of the bill is to implement what are essentially a number of budget measures of the former coalition government, so it is only right that we would support this bill. The bill supports our primary producers, it supports small business, it enables support for homeownership and it also provides relief to low-income earners who are struggling with inflation, particularly those low-income earners that are struggling with persistent inflation—inflation that we've seen, over the last three quarters, with a seven in front of it and inflation that is not simply a global phenomenon but a domestic phenomenon that, to a very large extent, is being driven by the decisions made by this government. So it is only right to support those low-income earners who are struggling from the effects of inflation, from the effects of a cost-of-living crisis and from the effects of a decline in their standard of living. This is a marked contrast to the government's budget because—let's face it—it was a budget that left Australians behind. This bill has five schedules. It's a Treasury laws ominous bill. The first schedule amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to index low-income and family Medicare levy thresholds in line with the Consumer Price Index. This will increase the number of people who fall under those thresholds who would otherwise be captured due to inflation. Schedule 2 addresses a grandfathering issue from the sale of the Commonwealth Bank, which may seem like a long time ago, but that issue prohibits the future sale of the Commonwealth Bank's superannuation fund to another asset. Schedule 3 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to allow primary producers to treat carbon abatement income as primary production income for the purposes of the Farm Management Deposits Scheme and assessing income tax averaging arrangements for primary producers. Schedule 4 amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to reduce the GDP adjustment factor for the 2023-24 income tax year. This is the lever that is used to calculate PAYG, pay-as-you-go, and GST instalments that are payable to the taxpayer. This measure implements the 'Small business support—helping small business manage tax instalments and improve cash flow' measure from the 2023-24 budget. Schedule 5 amends the NHFIC Act to allow NHFIC to be given direction in its investment mandate with regard to eligibility for the home guarantees. This is achieved by putting into NHFIC's objects early access to the housing market for Australians who have not owned real estate for 10 years. Schedule 4 of the bill is one that I think is worth further investigation. It builds on the coalition's commitment in our March 2022 budget to support small businesses with their cash flow by adjusting GDP adjustment factors that the ATO uses to calculate PAYG and GST instalments. This will be revenue neutral over time, while supporting small business to keep more of their own cash—certainly something that we know small businesses are struggling with right now. Cash flow for small business has really reached crisis point. Energy prices are going up. Rents are going up. Small businesses are finding it harder and harder to employ more Australians because wages are going up. Maintaining the viability of a small business now is becoming more and more difficult each and every day. That is why cash flow is critical . We know that cash flow is one of the very biggest challenges for any small business. This legislation is long overdue. It builds on the coalition's strong record of supporting small businesses' access to finance and assistance to improve their cash flow. A number of measures taken under the previous coalition government included establishing a payments time reporting framework to name and shame the late payers to small business, to help small businesses manage their cash flow when dealing with competitive tensions or the disproportionate scale of large businesses dealing with small businesses. We also established payment times that connected procurement policy to ensure that, when the government contracts small businesses, government contractors pay those small businesses in the supply chain on government terms. It is profoundly important for government to be a procurer of best practice. We also shifted payment times for government contracts to 30 days, or five days if they used e-invoicing. E-invoicing can be one of the potentially great productivity leaps if grasped by both government and the private sector. We also shifted from monthly to quarterly BAS reporting for small and medium enterprises. And, of course, we restored and expanded the instant asset write-off, which allowed small businesses to make investments in assets that can create productivity and profitability in their business and instantly write-off the entire value of those assets, rather than depreciating them over time. We also cut the small-business tax rate to 25 per cent, and we increased the small-business tax offset for sole traders. The coalition supported Australian small businesses with over $35.8 billion of cash-flow relief throughout COVID, something that we know we heard much about in a post-COVID world. So many small businesses came to us and said, 'Without the support that the coalition government gave us, we would simply not be around today.' Now the challenge is to make sure these businesses aren't just around today but around tomorrow as well. This is all the more important because of how the government has treated small business in the latest budget. They have decimated the instant asset write-off and reduced the asset value cap essentially down to 2018 levels. Can you imagine trying to buy an oven or a refrigerator today? Of course you're going to pay so much more for it than you would have in 2018, and yet that's where the instant asset write-off level is now, thanks to this government. They've also ended the loss carry-back scheme—again, something that is profoundly important, particularly for those small businesses that make profits in some years and losses in others, in helping them manage their cash flows. They've also abolished the entrepreneurs program. How are we supposed to have a productive society, a productive economy if we don't encourage that next generation of young people—of older Australians as well—to start their own businesses, to take a risk, to make that big leap, to turn that kernel of an idea into a business opportunity? They've also excluded more than 2.5 million small businesses from energy bill relief. One of the greatest costs that small businesses are facing right now is, of course, the rising cost of energy. In fact, the headlines in the newspapers today reported that Australians are now facing higher energy prices than almost anywhere else in the world. This is a government that is intent on leaving small business behind, but it's not just small business; it is also first homeowners. This bill specifically enables the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to build on the previous government's work to ensure that homeownership remains in reach of many ordinary Australians. The bill will allow NHFIC to support Australians who have not held a property interest in Australia in the preceding 10 years. This includes divorced women, older women and long-term renters, and it will allow Australians to re-enter the property market and achieve that great Australian dream of owning your own home—so important, particularly, for older women. We know that one of the greatest economic indicators of security in retirement is homeownership. The expansion of eligibility recognises the importance of stable and secure housing and provides a foundation for social and economic wellbeing. But the reality is that we're seeing a government that's abandoned homeownership as a goal, just as it has with inflation, just as it has with productivity. They have raised the white flag on the great Australian dream of homeownership. A year after the election, the government's Help to Buy Scheme, which was central, a signature policy in the lead up to the election, is nowhere to be seen. The coalition left the government with a housing sector that was in a strong shape. More Australians were getting into homes. More Australians were building homes. More homes were being built. And there was a huge pipeline of residential construction in place. This has all just disappeared in 12 short months. So, while this is a welcome measure, it's not sufficient for a government that is leaving behind the Australians who are renting and who are saving and who are trying to get ahead. The bill also makes a small measure, a very routine measure admittedly, to adjust Australian families on middle incomes with the cost of impacts of inflation. This is notably only to the extent that it was missing in the budget last month. It was a budget that made it very clear that Labor has no plans to help Australians with the cost-of-living crisis. It was a budget that made clear that in a cost-of-living crisis Labor's only plans are to put further fuel on the inflation fire. After less than a year in office, government spending will, in fact, increase by $185 billion. That is an expansionary budget in anyone's mind. Labor can't spend its way out of a cost-of-living crisis. This measure stands in stark contrast with what's actually needed in Australia right now and what they did not receive just a few Tuesdays ago. What Australia needed was a budget that actively reduced inflation, that has as a priority a specific objective of producing inflation. But, in fact, the budget just a few Tuesdays ago actively removed the objective of reducing inflation from its fiscal strategy. It was there in October with the first budget that Labor delivered, but it was actively removed by May. Labor raised the white flag. They said: 'Inflation isn't our problem. That is not something we can deal with. We don't know what to do here. The RBA will have to do all of the heavy lifting.' By contrast to this bill, the budget obviously makes life much harder for Australians—for small businesses, families, self-funded retirees and mortgage holders. There is a small indexation change to the Medicare levy, but that certainly doesn't make up for the pressures that Australian families are feeling under Labor's inflation. Unlike this Albanese government, a typical Australian family with kids now will be around $25,000 a year worse off than they were just one year ago. That's not the sort of money that you can find down the back of the couch. It is not small change. Labor need to take responsibility for this. Labor will not build a stronger economy and they didn't deliver a budget that was fair to all Australians. The budget in fact failed hardworking Australians right at a time when they needed a plan to address inflation and the cost-of-living crisis. There is no plan to address the unprecedented increase in net overseas migration that will see 1.5 million new migrants come into Australia over the next five years. The budget cuts infrastructure spending. It increases migration and cuts infrastructure spending. It doesn't address public enemy No. 1, which is inflation. It fails to address congestion. It fails to address housing and rental prices. It is failing to address the liveability and amenity of our towns and suburbs. The coalition wants Australians to do well. Indeed, Australians deserve better. But, at the moment, we're being held back by a government that has no economic plan for the future. It has no economic plan to deal with public enemy No. 1—to slay the inflation dragon. There is no such thing as cost-of-living relief for all Australians unless you can bring inflation down. Unless this government can address inflation, it is not doing its job. It is threatening the standard of living for all Australians. So we will support this bill because it reflects coalition measures— (Time expired) 11:26 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I am glad to rise today to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. While I thoroughly support the measures in this bill to help small business, the fact of the matter is the bill doesn't go far enough. It does nothing to help the people in this country who get out of bed every day, put their noses to the grindstone and actually produce goods and services. I noticed before that my colleague Senator Hume raised the very pertinent issue that it does nothing to deal with inflation. What causes inflation? It's when either demand is higher than supply or supply isn't high enough. What we have here is a budget that has 400,000 migrants coming into this country—that will increase demand—while at the same time it is cutting the infrastructure that supplies the goods and services. How is that going to help inflation? If you want to increase supply, you have to build infrastructure. That is the way it has always been done in this country. Those of you who know your history about the early colony will know that for the first 17 years of the colony Australia relied on foreign debt. When that foreign debt was repatriated when they had the drought of 1805, they started in rum. That literally went topsy-turvy until Governor Lachlan Macquarie came. He was the first governor to see Australia as a country and not a colony. He knew that any country had to control its own currency. He issued the 'holey dollar'. He got a heap of Spanish peso and punched a hole in the middle of that peso and called it the 'holey dollar' and the 'dump'. With that he built infrastructure, some of which still stands in Sydney today—the Sydney Hospital and the Sydney barracks. If we want to actually fix the inflation crisis in this country, we need to do what Lachlan Macquarie did and we need to build infrastructure. But that is not what's happening in this budget. They have pulled infrastructure works. They have pulled infrastructure for things like Hells Gate Dam up in North Queensland that's going to provide hydropower and more irrigation to irrigate the soil. That would produce more fruit and vegetables and cropping and things like that. Instead, they are going to put money into what are known as 'renewables', which they aren't. They are going to import billions and billions of dollars of 'unreliables'. We could build hydro. I'd back hydropower, by the way. I don't want to turn my back on hydro. That is genuine renewable power because the water comes from the sky. No-one has to build a solar panel or a windmill to get that water. No-one has to build anything other than a dam, and those dams can last hundreds of years. Whilst they do have a little bit of an environmental impact, I think their footprint is quite low. The problem with this budget is that we are not dealing with the underlying issue of supply and demand. Instead, what this government has done is take no fiscal measures whatsoever, when it's otherwise known that you can use quantitative easing. Instead, what they are relying on is the RBA to use this brutal measure of qualitative easing of something like 12 interest rate rises in 13 months—I'll stand to be corrected on that. Who's going to pay for that? I'll tell you who's going to pay for that. I'll tell you who's going to suffer the most from that. It's the battlers. It's the people who actually get out of bed every day and put their nose to the grindstone. What do those people do? They supply goods and services. That's the other thing about this particular budget. There is nothing in it to cut taxes from the bottom up for the battlers. If you want to increase supply, cut taxes on the people who supply the goods and services. That would be another way to deal with inflation, but we are not doing that—no. We are not giving any tax cut at all to the people who actually need it the most. We're going to let bracket creep jump up another seven per cent. This doesn't help them at all. This is the other thing. I tell you, don't start me on Treasury. I could be here all day. They do not model secondary impacts. Why doesn't Treasury model the velocity of money? If they did that, they would realise that tax cuts for low-income earners cost next to nothing. How do we know that? Because, under the Howard-Costello government, they constantly cut income taxes right throughout the income tax spectrum. That's what we need to be doing. I look forward to next year's budget because we will finally get the Morrison government's income tax cuts coming through, and they are desperately needed. Senator RENNICK 283596 Senator McKim, I'll take that interjection, but I will say this: when you've got inflation at seven per cent, it won't be long before we go up. Up to 150 grand, everyone is going to be appreciated. I mean, 150 grand doesn't get you very far these days, either. But, as I've said, I've always supported income tax cuts right throughout the entire bracket because, as I've always said, businesses get a tax deduction for the cost of doing business, so the workers should get a tax deduction for the cost of living. It is completely nonsensical in this country that we tax someone on, say, 50 grand, who pays six grand in tax and six grand in super. They're actually going backwards. So that's something that we can look at. The other thing that really concerns me is the fact that we are trying to kill the very goose that lays the golden egg. Of course, that is the royalties and the company profits from things like coal, iron ore, gas and gold. We have to acknowledge the vast and massive contribution to all the budgets in this country of our mining sector, which has been holding up this country. A large reason for the budget surplus is that the iron ore and coal prices are so high. I think coal prices have slipped back a bit. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres, what's your point of order? Senator Ayres 16913 Reluctant as I am to constrain the remarks, there's a point of relevance here. The 10000 It's not about relevance. You either have a point of order, and I haven't heard anything that Senator Rennick has said— Senator Ayres 16913 The point of order is that Senator Rennick's comments go to the budget. That is not what this measure is about. The PRESIDENT 112096 That's not a point of order for his contribution. All senators are able to put forward wide-ranging propositions. At the beginning of Senator Rennick's contribution, he was talking about the treasury laws amendment bill, and I think he's being relevant. Senator Rennick, could I just draw something to your attention. I appreciate that we all have our styles, but, when you tap the desk, it's picked up by the microphone. Thank you. Please continue. Senator RENNICK 283596 I apologise for my tapping. I get very passionate about the hardworking people of this country. I must admit I tend to go off because I love this country and I love the people in this country who put their nose to the grindstone. When I stood up, I did initially refer to small business. All of these measures that I'm talking about help small business because, when we have more people in productive sectors, when we have higher velocity money and when we are more productive, we can have a lower, flatter tax rate for everyone and we can have greater government revenue to help those people who need help in the economy as well. I guess what I'm trying to do in this speech is look at measures that are going to improve productivity and lift the standard of living for every person in this country. Quite frankly, that should be the centre of everyone's mind no matter what bill they are talking on, so I thank you for your indulgence, President. Of course, we are used to seeing this from the other side of the chamber, constantly trying to shut down solutions. This side of chamber, the coalition, believes in productivity and believes in building this country up so that we give our children the same opportunities that our forefathers gave to us. I say this every day. I wake up every day and I get out of bed I am so grateful for the sacrifices not only of our forefathers, but of the people out there today. If you're listening out there on ABC Radio, I just want you to know that we are incredibly grateful for all the hard work you do. As the words of our national anthem say, it is 'wealth for toil'. I will never forget that. As someone with 25 years experience analysing balance sheets et cetera, you'd always look at the wages, you'd always look at those people who go out there—it never ceases to amaze me the ideas in some of the small businesses out there, the ideas they come up with and the innovation. That's what we want to do because when you're bogged down with what the other side loves to push all the time—this self-loathing, this guilt, this fear, this fearmongering—you get weighed down with it. You start wondering, 'Do I really want to try to start a business in this country if I'm going to have this constant fearmongering and so on?' I had an interesting article sent to me this morning about how the birth rate has dropped in last 18 months. They were blaming it on climate change. I just thought to myself, 'You people are delusional.' An opposition s enator interjecting— Senator RENNICK 283596 Yes, it's a Sydney Morning Herald article. I'll send it to you later. I thought, 'You people are delusional.' I have to do my preselection speech in a couple of weeks and it's on my mind— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator RENNICK 283596 Hang on! People often say about the coalition that we don't believe in young people, but do you know what? I do believe in young people. The reason why I ran for parliament— Senator RENNICK 283596 No, listen to this, Senator McKim— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, you are well and truly off the topic now. Senator RENNICK 283596 Okay; I'll come back. What I want to talk about is the importance of innovation and incentives. That's what this budget lacks, incentives to drive enthusiasm to invest into this country. That is a legitimate issue that this budget does not address, incentives to build infrastructure. The more dams you have, the more power stations you have, the better the roads you have means you will push down the cost of doing business, which deals with inflation. You can sit there and think that's a funny proposition, Senator Ayres, but it is actually a genuine issue, and it relates to this budget. We don't have enough of it in this country. What we get instead is this constant vilification of the very goose that laid the golden egg in this budget, which is our iron ore industry, our coal industry, our gas industry and our gold industry. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, I am going to draw you back to the bill. I have given you a fair go. You started off on the Treasury laws amendment bill and I've allowed you to drift a little, but in the last few minutes I'm going to draw you back. Senator RENNICK 283596 Okay, I'll come back to the budget again. The PRESIDENT 112096 It's the Treasury laws amendment bill. Senator RENNICK 283596 Yes, the Treasury laws amendment bill. There are measures in here for small business, but there aren't enough. That's what I said initially. We basically need to reduce the red tape. We need to stop imposing on small business these laws around carbon capture et cetera, because they're not helping small business at all. They're imposing a great compliance burden, as well as an economic burden, on people because the price of gas, for example, the price of energy is going to kill them. That's what this Treasury laws amendment bill doesn't deal with. It doesn't deal with the cost of living. It doesn't deal with inflation. It doesn't deal with increased rents. There are many small businesses out in regional Queensland who can't actually get workers because either there's not enough housing or rents are too high. What did this budget do with regard to that? Nothing. It has not dealt with that at all. I will conclude my remarks by saying that we need greater innovation in this country, and we need the Albanese government to get off the back of the people who produce goods and services in this country. Producing goods and services will increase supply, which will help drive down inflation. We can't continue to rely on the blunt instrument of the RBA, that cruel measure. I am happy to recommend this bill, and I will finish with that. 11:40 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. It is a bill that amends several acts and introduces budget decisions of the government, including in relation to changes to superannuation, in relation to the taxation treatment affecting primary producers and in relation to housing. What we've seen from this Labor government, given effect by the budget, is broken promises to the Australian people—in particular, Labor's pre-election promises not to introduce new taxes or changes to superannuation. In the budget we saw Labor massively increase the burden on our trucking industry. The trucking tax, which will be implemented over the next three years, will put an additional $1.6 billion on the industry which carts every single product from our ports to people, and from our producers to ports. The cost of every single item is going to go up as a result of this Labor government's decision to tax the trucking industry over the next three years—an absolute shame. With the cost of fuel going through the roof, the inability to find drivers and the cost of maintenance and spare parts going through the roof, to put an additional $1.6 billion over these small and medium enterprises, in the main, is absolutely indicative of this government's inability to make a decision that puts downward pressure on inflation and puts downward pressure on the cost of living. Every decision they're making, whether it's on industrial relations or whether it is in agriculture—we saw in the recent budget a farming tax on our primary producers, when food inflation in this country is already at eight per cent and going up. Every mum or dad or senior Australian that heads to the supermarket and fills their trolley knows it is getting harder and harder every week to pay for that. What things do they take out of the trolley and what things can they keep in it? These are actual decisions families are making right now. We haven't seen economic conditions like this for decades, and the Reserve Bank, as other senators have made clear, is having to do the heavy lifting to fight inflation. What should be happening is the monetary policy and fiscal policy of the government working in harmony, supporting each other. Instead, because of this government's failure to increase productivity, to put downward pressure on inflation, to decrease government spending instead of increasing, we've got an additional $185 billion being spent by the federal government over the next five years. That's what's happening; instead of not spending money, they've increased to the tune of $185 billion. So what does the Reserve Bank have to keep doing? Putting up rates, because we have to slow down the inflation dragon, as some are calling it. When you have a high inflationary environment and when inflation expectation becomes embedded, when people expect prices to keep going up, that is when the behaviour of people across the economy changes, and businesses think it's okay. And you know who gets hurt most in a high inflationary environment? Poor people. The government like to talk a big game about helping people, but every single decision they make across a whole raft of portfolios is the wrong one to deal with the pressures our economy is seeing at the moment. The farmers tax, as I spoke about, was a 10 per cent tax on research and development and biosecurity levies, putting at risk the system of agricultural research and development levies begun by the Hon. John Kerin, God rest his soul. He would be rolling in his grave. This is an iconic program in this country where the taxpayer combines with agricultural industries to co-invest in research and development that's actually going to drive forward innovation right across agriculture, from our beef industry to our cotton industry and the like. They're taxing it. Not only does Labor's farmer tax put at risk research and development levies it puts at risk farmers' support for the system of levies of animal and plant biosecurity that was established by the Howard government. During Senate estimates, the coalition was able to expose the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Minister Watt, as he was completely unaware about how the tax that he has implemented across his portfolio even works. Minister Watt had to apologise to the RRAT committee for misleading it in relation to how the farmer tax would apply. As we hear from industry, the new farmer tax will apply not only to research and development levies but to farmers' biosecurity levies as well. The risk here is that farmers seek to reduce their research and development levies or their biosecurity levies to minimise their exposure to Labor's tax, because we know that farmers actually get to vote on setting what those taxes should be. Labor's superannuation reforms will also hit farmers and small businesses, who, under the advice of financial planners and advisors, put their properties into self-managed superannuation funds. Guess what? It's a pretty small farm that's under the superannuation cap—a very small farm. So a lot of primary producers in this country are going to be captured. They're now faced with the prospect that they'll have to pay tax on unrealised increases in the valuation of their properties, and, in many cases, farmland purchased for $500,000 15 years ago may now be valued such that the superannuation balances are notionally more than $3 million and are therefore going to be subject to paying tax. And that's not the lazy money that a farmer and their family will have in their back pocket. They're going to sell half the farm to pay for the tax. This is the level of unmitigated disaster this government seems to wreck as it gallops towards putting in ideological policies without consulting on the people that they are actually going to impact and affect. The superannuation changes and their impact on our primary production sector in this country is a classic example of the Labor Party's inability to consult with particularly those of us that live outside of capital cities. But, increasingly, we're hearing right across the board about the level of consultation. This week we heard from primary producers who got on a bus at 1 am in my home state of Victoria and sat in this gallery to listen to this Senate refuse to allow a Senate inquiry into the impact of transmission lines on their livelihoods, on their communities and on their futures. I am digressing so don't draw me back. I'll go there naturally. This bill also relates to the changes to housing measures. The biggest change to housing availability, as a result of the Labor Party's decision, is their reckless decision to increase arrivals by 1½ million without any plan of where they're going to live or the impact that will have on our already congested suburbs. No idea. They hadn't run a planning ministers' meeting. It was the federal minister's responsibility to call those meetings. They've been in government for 12 months, and they were yet to actually call the planning ministers from the states together to say: 'You know what? We have got a housing crisis.' You don't have to go very far from this place to work that out. It's right across the country. You'd think the first thing you'd do if you are the federal minister and had that power was get on the phone, get a meeting organised by July last year, get the state ministers around the table and start solving this problem on the supply side. How do we get the development pipeline going? How do we get land released and planning approvals done quickly so that we can get the houses built? In the time we've spent debating the housing bill in this place the minister responsible has sat on her hands instead of actually calling state ministers together. It's not a hard job. I've done it before. It's very easy. You have a whole suite of departmental officials to assist you. You would think that would be the No. 1 priority if you were really interested in fixing the housing crisis, instead of having political arguments here with the Greens. The first two budgets of the Labor Party have been shockers for the infrastructure portfolio, which I'm the shadow minister for. It has been 12 months of cuts and delays. It's fantastic to see the South Gippsland Shire Council in the chamber today. They have come all the way from a place I know very well—Leongatha, in my home state of Victoria. The ALGA conference has been on this whole week. Local councils from right around this country have come here and heard a lot from the Labor government about climate change adaptation. Have they heard much about how to repair the shocking roads, particularly in rural and regional communities? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, you are now drifting. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I am. The PRESIDENT 112096 It's the treasury laws amendment bill. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I was going to the infrastructure needs across the community, the role of infrastructure in driving up productivity and, therefore, assisting with the heavy fiscal lifting, and this government's continual decisions to cut and delay investments not just in rural and regional roads but in community programs, such as Building Better Regions. It has taken them 12 months to get their community programs up and running. The guidelines have been released but still no money is flowing into these communities for much-needed social and economic development programs. Importantly, in this type of environment, investing in the right type of infrastructure to get people and products where they need to go as quickly and as easily as possible is what we need to be seeing happen. Everywhere we look they've slashed funding in their budgets and put on hold for three months $120 billion of infrastructure pipeline projects—from roundabouts to port developments, highway and byway duplications and the airport rail link in Melbourne. What a joke! Melbourne is one of the best and most liveable cities in the world. It is a cosmopolitan metropolis. We are one of 10 out of the top 50 countries that don't have a rail link from the CBD to the airport. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, once again I'm really puzzled as to how we got there. Keep coming back to the bill before the Senate. Senator McKENZIE 207825 President, it's about productivity and this government's inability to invest in things that will make the economic situation better. Making a small change to the Medicare levy, as this bill does, is not enough. I hope later on today I get to make a contribution on the appropriation bills because I have a lot more to say about my portfolio responsibilities in infrastructure, transport and regional development, and this government's failure to listen to the regions and invest in the regions. I think Senator Rennick made a very generous contribution about the contribution regional Australia has made to the fiscal position of the government. Despite having deficits for as far as we can see and having a $185 billion increase in government spending over the next five years, they were very happy to announce a small surplus. Do you know what that surplus is on the back of? Rural and regional Australia. Those on that side of the chamber don't want to talk about our fabulous resources industry, our agriculture industry and the men and women in this country who work day in and day out and pay their income tax. So a boon from income tax, because we've got such low unemployment at the moment, and a boon from our resources industry are the only reasons this government can claim a surplus. I hope they're prepared to take the tough fiscal decisions, going forward. The first 12 months from this government has been an absolute shocker in terms of being prepared to make those tough decisions that our economy, our nation and our most vulnerable need them to make. The people who will hurt the most if inflation stays high are our poorest. Instead of talking a big game—you've won the election and it's tough being in government—it's time to act. 11:55 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. Whilst I acknowledge that a number of the measures that are contained in this bill are particularly important, I also acknowledge that it implements a number of measures that the previous coalition government had put forward. The subject I'm particularly interested in talking to in my contribution today is schedule 1 of the act that amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to index low-income and family Medicare thresholds in line with the CPI to increase the number of people under the threshold who would otherwise be captured due to inflation. Can I say at the outset that the coalition, the opposition, supports the regular indexation of Medicare as contained in this legislation. It's very welcome, but it does also draw attention to the fact that a number of other measures and actions have been taken by this government that have weakened our health system and our Medicare system. Today I want to put on the record that we are particularly disappointed in a number of these measures. Firstly, this government came into power promising that they were going to strengthen Medicare. The reality is that since this government's been in office all we've seen is Medicare being weakened. A Strengthening Medicare Taskforce report was released by the government earlier this year which was really articulate in articulating the problems were facing our healthcare system in Australia, although it really didn't provide very much in the way of solutions. But the most disappointing thing about that report was that I don't think anybody in Australia does not realise that the health workforce crisis that is before us is the most urgent thing that we need to be dealing with. The report did not address workforce in any way, shape or form. And whilst the report was very strong on aspiration and very strong on rhetoric and talked a big game about big picture things, it had no specific actions contained in it. There was no funding in it, there were no time lines in it and there was no urgency—no urgency about the most important issue facing Australia's healthcare sector, and that is workforce. We've been hearing from the health minister and from the Prime Minister for months and months and months about the issues around workforce shortages. We've also been hearing from the aged-care minister about the fact that there are workforce shortages. Yet, despite that, we have seen nothing about addressing the workforce crisis—in fact, the counter. We've seen the aged-care minister bring forward the recommendations of the royal commission into aged care by a whole year, requiring 24/7 nurses in aged-care facilities—something that the coalition has always supported, but only supported in the context of the royal commission's recommendations—in the middle of a workforce crisis. So, not only have they failed to recognise the severity of the workforce crisis; they've actually put measures in place that make it worse. In addition, in relation to our doctors, one of the most critical places that we have seen that workforce crisis play out has been around primary care, and the burden on our healthcare system because our primary care system is under such pressure is immense. We see this with ramping at hospitals. We see it with people not being able to get in to see their doctor. We see it through a lack of accessibility to hospital systems. Despite that, we have seen nothing at all about addressing the issue around general practice. Right now we have a great challenge before us, and we have a government that is not doing anything to address these issues. Another area we heard a big game about in the portfolio was urgent care clinics. Of course, addressing the issue that is primary practice is tremendously important. We as an opposition have always said that if there were measures that this government was prepared to put forward that were sensible and were actually going to address the issues—that were going to focus on patients, the consumers in Australia—then of course we would be prepared to support them, But what we've seen, once again, in the announcements around urgent care clinics is a really big game when it comes to the announcement—50 urgent care clinics in Australia within the first year of this government, and right now we don't actually have any new urgent care clinics. All we've got is eight clinics in Victoria that have been rebadged. The Victorian government—Premier Andrews—got up and heralded these new clinics that were established, took full credit for the establishment of a number of care clinics in Victoria, and then a few weeks later the Albanese Labor government stood up and took credit for the exact same things. So, we are in a situation here where, despite all the rhetoric around supporting our healthcare system, supporting our Medicare system, we actually haven't seen very much, apart from a heap of headlines with no substance behind them. In addition, one of the most important things facing Australians at the moment is mental health. We know from speaking to many stakeholders in the sector that we are seeing a huge increase in the number of people reporting being under stress, having anxiety, particularly as a result of the cost-of-living pressures on them. We know that right now we are in a cost-of-living crisis. I think every Australian wakes up every morning and realises that they're worse off than they were this time last year. Australians are seeing escalation in mortgages, escalation in energy bills, escalation every time you go through the supermarket in how much they are paying for everything that is happening to them. It was estimated as part of the budget process that the average Australian family with children is up to $25,000 a year worse off than they were 12 months ago, and this is having a devastating effect on people's mental health. We are seeing an escalation in demand for mental health services, and what does this government do? It cuts the number of sessions that are Medicare subsidised to people who need them, from 20 sessions to 10. Those Medicare subsidised sessions were actually in place for those people who had moderate to severe mental health challenges. So, the most mentally vulnerable in our community have had their access to the support that they previously had cut in half. But I think the worst thing about the decision by this current government to cut those sessions from 20 to 10 is that, despite recommendation 12 of their review—which came out and said that the sessions should remain in place, particularly for those people who needed them the most—the government removed the sessions and then, sometime later, after the backlash from the community and from people who were depending on them, decided they'd hold a round table with stakeholders, which they did earlier this year. They got together a number of stakeholders across the whole mental health sector. And guess what's happened since then? Absolutely nothing. We have seen nothing in response to that round table. We have seen nothing in response to the huge number of concerns, including petitions that were signed to say to the government that these Medicare funded sessions were so important. And despite the minister saying he didn't think this was the best way to provide mental health support—he thought maybe we should come up with a different way of providing additional support to Australians—we have not seen any additional support. The government, once again, is big on the announcement but pretty light on the delivery. So, when we responded to the budget this year, the Leader of the Opposition made the commitment that a coalition government would reinstate those 20 sessions because we understand the cost-of-living pressures that Australians are currently under, with an increase in the number of people who are reporting that they are under stress and have anxiety as a result of cost-of-living pressures. We believe that the onus is on government to make sure people get the support that they need, because the mental health of Australians plays into the wellbeing of Australians, and that should always be an absolute priority of any government. We've also seen measures put through the budget that disproportionately impact rural and regional Australia. The very first thing that this Labor government did in the health sector—its very first policy announcement—was to change the distribution priority area classifications. Instead of what we had previously had, an advantage for rural, regional and remote Australia in getting access to overseas trained doctors and graduates, to have priority, we saw a change that meant that they were actually able to go into other areas which were urban and metropolitan, therefore incentivising doctors who otherwise would have gone to rural and regional areas, who thought, 'It's probably easier; we'll just go to metropolitan areas instead.' The first thing that happened in those areas that were already struggling to get a general practice workforce—the further you get away from the metropolitan area, the further you get away from the GPO, the more likely it is that there is workforce stress—was that doctors were given the incentive to move back to the city. In supporting this bill today, I would say that schedule 1, which relates to the Medicare indexation, which of course we support, just highlights the fact that, despite that particular measure, there are so many other measures in the healthcare sector that have made Australia's healthcare system and Medicare—instead of coming in here and actually delivering on the promise to strengthen Medicare, all this government has done is weaken Medicare. 12:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank senators for their contributions on this bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 26 12:09 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2007, standing in my name: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Page 13 (after line 19), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 6 — Deductible gift recipients — Australians for Unity Ltd Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 1 Section 30-105 (at the end of the table) Add: 2 Section 30-315 (after table item 26A) Insert: 12:09 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I want to place on the record that the Greens do not support this amendment. We are already concerned at the enormous amount of disinformation and lies being spread in relation to the 'no' campaign. We think that this is already wrecking huge damage on the unity of the country and the success of the referendum, which the Greens fully support. Of course, if there was truth in the political advertising, we might feel different about this, but we do not support the idea that people should be able to get a tax deduction by funding disinformation and lies. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Third Reading 27 12:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 27

Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023

Second Reading 27 12:13 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania In 1967, Australians voted resoundingly to fix a fundamental gap in our Constitution to allow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be counted in the population of the country they had cared for, for over 60,000 years. The referendum was a culmination of many years of activism by people who knew that most simple of propositions—what was right and what was wrong. The over 90 per cent of Australians who voted in favour of that referendum and the advocates who campaigned for it would not have anticipated that by 2023 outcomes for First Nations people would be as lacking as they are. This fact makes the Uluru Statement from the Heart the resilient call to action that it is. Fifty-six years later Australians again have the chance to improve our Constitution with the Voice to Parliament, a body that will begin the process of healing our nation. As Minister Burney and the father of reconciliation, Senator Dodson, have made clear, the Voice will do this through two simple themes: recognition and consultation, recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of this country and consultation by listening to the voices of First Nations people about policies that affect them—not to, not for but with. As former prime minister Paul Keating said in his landmark 1992 Redfern address: It comes at a time when we have committed ourselves to succeeding in the test which so far we have always failed. Because, in truth, we cannot confidently say that we have succeeded … if we have not managed to extend opportunity and care, dignity and hope to the indigenous people of Australia … His words are still true more than 30 years later. It is time to change. The Voice begins that change. The simplicity of the Voice cannot distract from the momentous change it will bring. For me, this is the strength of the referendum question—big outcomes from simple changes, a courtesy based on common decency. Enshrining the Voice in our Constitution is a key recommendation from the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the dialogues that guided the statement. There are two reasons for constitutional recognition. Firstly, it means that prioritising policy which impacts Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people does not become a fad that can be swept away on the whim of politicians. It signals that the contribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to the national story in the nation's birth certificate will be there forever. Secondly, it means that our Constitution can be truly ours and a shared document that recognises First Australians' vast existence and contribution to this continent. By recognising First Nations people in our nation's founding document, we can show that the Constitution is not about dictating to First Nations people, not about baseless legislation for First Nations people, but about sharing history with First Nations people—not to, not for, but with. It addresses that shameful doctrine of terra nullius, the doctrine that said Australia was an empty land, a land there for the taking. More than 60,000 years of spirituality, art, politics, religion, land management and law meant nothing when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights were terminated because they were not recognised according to British law. This was the doctrine that past politicians used to justify the taking of children, the forceful seizure of land and the wilful destruction of language and culture. By recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Nations peoples of this country, through the Voice, the lie of terra nullius will be nullified in the document that perpetrated it. It will be consigned to history, where all views that have held back First Nations people belong. The importance of the consultation provided by the Voice cannot be overlooked. Some have said the referendum's themes of recognition and consultation are distinct; they are not. They must be thought of in tandem, complementing each other. By reducing one, the other is reduced. Recognition gains its strength from consultation. Consultation gains its strength from recognition. It is this fact, among others, that led the Referendum Council to conclude that a voice to parliament was a priority. The council found 10 principles to measure each proposal against: whether it did not diminish Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty; whether it involved substantive structural reform; whether it advanced self-determination and the standards established under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; whether it recognised the status and rights of First Nations; whether it told the truth of history; whether it made sure it did not foreclose on future advancement; whether it ensured it did not waste the opportunity to reform; whether it provided a mechanism for First Nations agreement-making; whether it guaranteed it had the support of First Nations; and whether it did not interfere with positive legal arrangement. According to the Referendum Council, a voice to parliament met each of these principles. This led the council in their first report to conclude that the priority of the Voice to Parliament 'is clear from the assessment'. The referendum is the culmination of an historically large democratic process. The Uluru Statement from the Heart, agreed to by 250 delegates, was born out of 13 regional dialogues attended by 1,200 delegates. This is grassroots democracy led by First Nations people at every stage. My home state of Tasmania hosted a regional dialogue in Hobart which endorsed the Voice to Parliament. Some have said that Aboriginal people in Tasmania disagree with the proposed constitutional alterations. I think the overwhelming support from Indigenous Tasmanians during the dialogues debunks this. I've heard in this place and the other that Tasmanians support recognising First Nations people in the Constitution but don't believe that the Voice is the way to do it. Again, this is not what I've been hearing, particularly in the electorate of Braddon. I've been talking regularly with the community across the north-west of Tasmania, down the west coast and on King Island. Many of them proudly tell me that they identify as First Nations people and that their family are First Nations people. I've been hearing the same thing: people are energised by being able to make history, people appreciate a debate that can be put above politics and be decent, and people tell me the Voice is the right thing to do because it is about time and it's a simple courtesy that has the power to make real change in the lives of people who have long suffered in Tasmania. Tasmanians know well the mistreatment of First Nations people. The 'Black Line' was a literal human line that moved across our island state looking for Indigenous people to capture, kill or relocate. Many of us were incorrectly taught at school that, because of actions like these, Truganini was the last Tasmanian Aboriginal person. Some have claimed that the Voice could reignite similar race debates to those seen in Tasmania's dark history. I could not disagree more. In March I hosted a virtual town hall led by Thomas Mayo and my friend and colleague Senator Malarndirri McCarthy. Over 500 people tuned in on a Saturday afternoon to listen, learn and ask questions about the referendum. They told me how excited they were to hear from First Nations people from around Australia—people they would never have had the chance to hear from or talk to. They were grateful and excited that the referendum had provided the opportunity for this conversation. I did not hear anyone worrying that the Voice debate might be initiating race based discrimination. Perhaps this is because each generation—indeed, this generation—is much better informed about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders' culture and accomplishment than any generation before. Tasmanians have told me that they are aware of this and aware of what their generation can do to educate the next. I think this is what Thomas Mayo and Kerry O'Brien were talking about when they said in their most recent book, The Voice to Parliament Handbook: I believe it is up to us to answer their question with our actions now, in our generation. We should not pass on the burdens of our colonial past, nor a constitutional ignorance of our Indigenous heritage to our children, many of whom will become the future leaders of our great nation. If we miss this opportunity, it will be generations before there is another chance. In his address to the Garma Festival, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese talked about the referendum, providing Australians with the opportunity to be heard on the right side of history. So often in the history of First Nations activism, the importance of events is written after the fact. When Vincent Lingiari and his Gurindji brothers and sisters walked off their cattle station at Wave Hill, they didn't know what their case would mean for Indigenous land rights in Australia and how the image of his handful of sand would be etched into the national consciousness. They didn't know that what they were doing would make history; they just knew that it was the right thing to do. This is the spirit in which I hope Australians will take up the call of the referendum. The task ahead is vast and doesn't lack risk, but, as the Prime Minister said at Garma, 'We recognise the risks of failure, but we also recognise the risk of failing to try.' The passage of this bill will put a simple but critical question to the Australian people. I urge all my colleagues to campaign for a strong 'yes' vote. I know that's what I'm doing, and I will vote 'yes'. The success of this referendum will set the course for an empowered future. My optimism is based on the simple fact that as a nation we are only as strong as our ability to walk with those who need it most. As the Uluru statement offers: We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future. 12:24 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales If it's an Indigenous voice to parliament that Australians are looking for, then congratulations to all—we've already succeeded. An Indigenous member of our great Australian community already has access to the same levers that those of us of British ancestry and those of us from all over this planet who now call Australia home have. It is our democratic representative process. This system has allowed for all Australians to have their voices heard through the voting process, and this process, by virtue of our great nation's ability to recognise injustice and to act upon it, allows women and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders the right to vote as well. We can't allow those who seek to divide us to get away with the misappropriation of language. This is crucially important. The goalposts have shifted on what it means to be intolerant. To simply ask questions or to ask for detail or to have a different view on how to address the issues of inequality for Indigenous Australia in a calm, rational and respectful debate is enough to have you branded a racist. These are the people who want to use weasel words, labelling the Voice as an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. This way of framing the discussion implies Indigenous Australians within our own electorates and patron seats don't already have a voice, as if we are here in this place representing all Australians except those of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander ancestry. And more than that, if you disagree with the idea then it also implies that what you're really saying is that you don't think Indigenous people deserve a voice. It is designed to intimidate and manipulate reasonable and honest Australians into compliance out of fear. This idea of a voice denigrates those Indigenous members of parliament in this very chamber and in the other place fighting for the plight of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Those Indigenous members and senators come from across the entire political spectrum. We on this side of the chamber are more than willing to consider what the proposal is, but, as we have said, the choice, as it should be, ultimately rests with the Australian people. But the problem is, once again, there's nothing for them to really consider. There's no detail. There's no plan. There's certainly no transparency from those opposite. The coalition do stand here in good faith. We want to reasonably consider the proposal, but we need the government to come to the table and explain what it is they're hoping to achieve and how it will work practically. After all, it's one thing to have good intentions, even a good idea, but when it comes to taxpayer money and constitutional change we can't simply operate on goodwill and the vibe of an idea. Senator Pratt I0T What's tax law going to be in 100 years? Does the Constitution tell you that? Senator HUGHES 273828 As we can see in this chamber right now, Senator Pratt interjects as we try to have a reasonable debate on this topic. Those opposite in government can't stand to hear anyone's view that differs from their own. As I said, it's one thing to have a good idea, but when it comes to taxpayer money and constitutional change we can't simply operate on goodwill and the vibe. It needs to be grounded in achievable, measurable and practical reality with real outcomes. Surveys are repeatedly showing Australians want detail, and the Prime Minister is repeatedly ducking under the table. The government must set out specific detail. The question is: does the detail even exist? There are so many questions that remain. Who will be eligible to serve on the proposed body? What are the prerequisites for nomination? Will the government clarify the definition of aboriginality to determine who can serve on the body? How will members be elected, chosen or appointed? How many people will make up the body? How much will it cost taxpayers annually? What are its functions and powers? Is it purely advisory or will it have decision-making capabilities? Who will oversee the body and ensure that it is accountable? If needed, can the body be dissolved and reconstituted in extraordinary circumstances? I would have thought these are very reasonable questions. It should be the bare minimum when proposing a change that could have lasting and far-reaching consequences for all Australians. It would be a totally futile, purely symbolic and empty exercise to implement any kind of system without ensuring that it actually worked for all Indigenous Australians. But we know that meaningless symbolism is Labor's lifeblood. Virtue signalling to the high heavens makes it look like you're doing something good without actually having to do the legwork. My colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price has stood in this chamber day in, day out, time and time again, being the Voice for the people of the Northern Territory, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. She represents real regional voices, forgotten Australians who need a voice, yet we don't even know if the Voice is going to be their voice. So whose voice is it then? The inner-city bureaucrats? Only the Indigenous groups who vote red? At present, the referendum is risky, costly and especially divisive. As always, this government says one thing and does another. We live in an age where questions are dangerous and dissent is criminal. If you don't swim with the tide of progressivism, you are the problem. You are not simply an alternative view, you are not still a valid member of the Australian tapestry, you are the enemy and should be forced out of the conversation. We saw that yesterday with a new campaign by GetUp encouraging people against the Voice to make increasingly racist comments to ensure their isolation. Labor has not been upfront with Australians about the risk. Some Voice activists have said this will be the first step to reparations and other radical changes. The Voice, for some, is part of a three-stage process: the Voice, then a treaty and then something called truth-telling. But don't fall for these seemingly innocuous terms. What they really entail is the effective creation of a two-state system within this country that rewrites history and the law and fixes nothing. This isn't scaremongering about something imminent and nefarious. This is a warning about what is possible under Labor's Voice when it lacks the details necessary to safeguard this country from those unintended consequences. Labor has significant form on unintended consequences as a result of their half baked and rushed legislation, and we're seeing the dividends of that on our energy bills currently, on inflation and the cost of living. Australians deserve all of the details before they vote on a permanent change to our Constitution. And we mustn't forget, at a time when Australians are indeed experiencing a cost-of-living crisis, the Voice referendum and the setting up of this body, if it's successful, will be incredibly costly. In the financial year 2023-24, the government has allocated $4.3 billion for the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which has over 1,400 staff. Their role is to advise government on improving the lives of Indigenous Australians. Labor's Voice would basically replicate this. There is no clarity on how the two would interact. This is not to mention the some 109 Indigenous bodies funded by the government in existence already that work to provide outcomes for Indigenous Australians. If the mechanism to address Indigenous outcomes already exists, what are we really voting on? If they don't work, shut them down and use that money to promote this new voice. The government needs to be honest about its agenda here. The Australian people should be asking how much is this going to cost in the end. We've at least got some indication of how much money it's going to cost at a state level. You've got the treaty deals the Queensland government is considering, and they are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. It's not a modest change, and we don't know how the Voice will work, and this is just one state's arrangements. How many extra public servants will be required to service the Voice? What is the anticipated recurrent expenditure? How much will taxpayers spend on motor vehicle fleets, accommodation and travel? We on this side are slow to transfer authority out of the hands of the people and into the hands of courts that do not represent them. But this government wants to jump right in, because it doesn't believe in its heart of hearts that Australians know what's best for them. This voice is divisive. It does not give the voiceless a voice; it amplifies one voice over the others. The big danger with the proposed constitutional amendment is the destruction of equality of citizenship. As Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price says, 'We are one together, not two divided.' Enshrining in our Constitution a body for only one particular group of Australians will mean permanently dividing us by race, and many Indigenous Australians don't want this split. We need to bring Australians together, not divide them as Mr Albanese wants to do. This will divide our country along the lines of race and do nothing to help the most marginalised members of the Indigenous community. The Voice will forever be a symbol of division, rather than an instrument of unity—in fact, it already is. Noel Pearson has warned that voting no would lead to a future of 'almost endless protest'. Pearson even criticised Senator Nampijinpa Price for being trapped in a 'redneck celebrity vortex' and for being used by right-wing thinktanks to 'punch down on blackfellas'—hardly the words of inclusion. In this referendum we will see, as we saw with the same-sex marriage postal survey, those with the affirming view labelling those with alternative views as bigots or, in this case, racists. But the question—and this is why I say, 'Don't fall for the language'—isn't about whether Indigenous people deserve a voice, as the 'yes' proponents pretend is the case. Not many in this country would deny a voice to any Australian. The question is about this idea of creating another bureaucratic body at great cost to give one segment of Australia a greater say than the rest of Australia, undermining the democratic process to, at best, make no difference to the lives of Indigenous Australians and, at worst, circumvent the democratic process to influence policymakers on all matters. This top-down, elitist Canberra voice does nothing to help Indigenous communities on the ground, those who want to build better lives for themselves and their families. We all want better outcomes for the most marginalised people in our community. The simple proposition of whether we are willing to divide our country along the lines of race is something we should all examine closely. The coalition does not believe that that is what Australians want. Prime Minister Albanese is asking Australians to vote for this huge change to our Constitution, without giving them the details of how it will work. Many who advocate for the 'yes' campaign are trying to portray this as no big deal and something that should just be waved through on the vibe. It is a very big deal and it will change our country and the way that we are governed. There is absolutely nothing 'modest'—as Mr Albanese is trying to pass this off as—about changing the nation's rulebook. Our party's position is clear: we support the Australian people having their say, but we do not support this risky, divisive, unknown and permanent change to our Constitution. Our message to all Australians is this: if you don't know, say no. 12:38 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to commend the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 to the house. I want to begin this speech not with my own voice but by once again reading, into the Hansard, the collective voice of those Indigenous people from around the country who gathered at Uluru to chart our nation's path forward towards reconciliation or rebirth. Their words, from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, read: Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs. This our ancestors did, 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 ago. This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or 'mother nature', and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown. How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last two hundred years? With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia's nationhood. Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are alienated from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future. These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is thetorment of our powerlessness. We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country. We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution. Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination. We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history. In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future. The question at the heart of this bill is not a complicated one; it is simple. We should recognise the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who have been custodians of our land for over 60,000 years. Australia's First Nations people are the longest surviving civilisation that our planet knows. In this bill and the referendum that will occur later this year, our nation has an opportunity to cement their place where it ought to always have been: at the heart of our nation's history, culture and, indeed, our political life. Australians have previously faced the question of whether to embrace the ongoing journey of reconciliation with First Nations people. In 1967, Australia voted resoundingly to change the Constitution in favour of counting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our census. Fifty-six years ago, in a decision well overdue, over 90 per cent of Australians voted yes in a referendum, yes to the recognition of peoples who for too long had been subjugated by the laws of the very land of which they had been guardian since time immemorial. I believe in 2023 that we are an even better nation than we were in 1967, and I call on Australia to vote yes in this next step towards the truth-telling that is fundamental to the common good, fundamental to our common humanity, fundamental to our future as a nation. In 1967 Australians made the decision to move forward as a nation, to right a wrong which had stood for far too long. We again have this opportunity to stand together as a nation, to show what ought to be our resounding support for Australia's First Nations people. Seeded deeply in both my faith and my politics is the belief that all humans must be treated with innate dignity. In 1967, the churches were early advocates for the referendum and dramatically improved the uptake of the 'yes' votes. Now I am proud to see again that Australians of many faiths are standing in support of the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians and their Voice to Parliament. When Australia's Catholic bishops endorsed the Uluru Statement from the Heart, they invoked the words of Pope Saint John Paul II, who said to Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Alice Springs in 1986: Your culture, which shows the lasting … dignity of your race, must not be allowed to disappear … Your songs, your stories, your paintings, your dances, your languages, must never be lost. My belief in this bill and the rightness of the notion of a First Nations Voice to Parliament is a reflection of what to me has always been a central calling of my faith: to recognise in fullness and without hesitation the humanity of all those who walk this world with us. For centuries now, grave wrongs have been perpetrated against Australia's Indigenous people. Now, once again, our nation has an opportunity to recognise that innate humanity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, to hear their essential voice in the political and social arena of our nation. It has been heartening to see faith leaders across our country recognise the deeply spiritual core of this undertaking and support it in the way they have. But I am yet to see images in 2023 that show the engagement on the ground of people of all faiths walking this pilgrimage with our brothers and sisters across this great southern land. I call on people of all faiths to stand in solidarity with the First Nations people of this country, and fight alongside them and with them for this Voice. Broad alliances of Australia's Jewish community and advocacy organisations have repeatedly affirmed their support for the Voice. One such statement shared by 16 prominent community groups remarked: Jews have also experienced the deep silence that follows atrocity and genocide, the experience of being abandoned by humanity, the struggle for recognition of confronting truths, and the tormenting powerlessness of not being heard. I call on Jewish Australians to walk with our First Nations brothers and sisters in this time of truth. Many Islamic faith leaders, the advocates of a religion which at its very core centres justice and the calling to stand up against oppression, have also expressed their clear support for the Uluru statement. The Australian National Imams Council's support for the Uluru statement was reflected in this comment: Before 1770, Muslims engaged with the Aboriginal people of this land. They shared resources, engaged in trade and had a respectful relationship. It is a rich history and proud moment for both the Aboriginal and Muslim community. We continue with this respectful engagement and relationship. Australia's Hindu communities have expressed the same support for the Uluru Statement from the Heart, reflecting on the history between Australia's First Nations people and our world's Hindu cultures—a history which spans over 4,000 years. The Upanishads declared: 'Every human must live selflessly and learn to see God in everything everywhere. He who sees God in all and all in God develops the right attitude towards the creation manifest in everyone and everything around you.' Likewise, the Australian Buddhist community has endorsed the success of the Uluru statement and a voice to parliament, and has played an active role in informing the religion's diverse members on the referendum and why it matters. Both Buddhists and First Nations Australians have a core belief in rebirth. I believe this is an opportunity for us to seek the rebirth of our nation. Our nation was born of the Dreaming. It is a gift to all of us, including those of us who followed the arrival of colonists. Our nation has a 60,000-year history. It is only right that this is formally acknowledged in our nation's Constitution. I often wonder how different our country might look if our first settlers had stepped off the boat at Botany Bay to meet First Nations people with compassion, interest and a desire to understand, know and live alongside them. The legacy of the British Empire and the harm inflicted on colonised people has left wounds the world over which may never heal. But we must do what we can to salve them. What I'm certain of is that Australia's history would be richer, and our culture the better for it, if those first moments of meeting between worlds had been guided not by the fear of difference or the need to dominate but instead by the deeply human drive to connect with, to see and to, in fullness and without fear, walk alongside our fellow man. The next phase of our nation's growth will either be stunted by a 'no' vote or be enriched by a generous response to the Uluru statement. Time is an inadequate measure to describe the history of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. There is much we can learn from Indigenous Australians, and a voice to parliament would not only provide them with the opportunity to have a say about how they are governed and how they fit into the complex web of modern Australian culture; a voice would also provide a much richer opportunity for us to learn from the millennia of knowledges which has been passed down through generations. We will soon show our desire or derision for long-quietened voices to be heard. This year, my fellow Australians, we have the opportunity, as did our parents and our grandparents in 1967, to accept the invitation to learn, to listen, to grow and to thrive—one and all. The first settlers failed to do that when they landed in Botany Bay in 1788. We should not let hubris, arrogance and deafness rob us of this opportunity to reconcile. Colleagues, we find ourselves at the centre of a rare moment in history. We are faced with the opportunity to choose what kind of nation we wish to be and whether we want to move forward to develop a new shared language of respect and recognition in our nation. It is rare that we have such a magnificent opportunity to truly chart a new path in our history. We will make a choice this year about limiting or expanding that capacity. We take responsibility for ourselves in our own era, but, in our choice, the die is cast for all those who will come after us. Australians in 2067 will look back on the decisions made in 1967. They will look at the Mabo case in 1992. And they will see what we did in 2023. We will show that we were either led by fear and miserliness or enabled by hope, faith and love to envision a more whole, a more vocal and a more truly unlimited and glorious Australia in our profound and remarkable diversity. One day, probably far sooner than any of us are able to realise, what happened in this chamber and what happens when the results of the referendum are laid bare will be considered as part of our nation's history. Our choices and the words both said and left unsaid will be analysed and invoked by new generations of Australians. My mind turns to what other reality we might be experiencing and what alternative reality Australia's First Nations peoples might be experiencing if the first instinct of those British colonisers had been not to subjugate but to see and to hear the voices of all those whom they encountered and to recognise the immeasurable and immutable humanity in all those who lived and walked these lands for 60,000 years. It is time for us to lift our sights beyond the warnings of eminent lawyers and their voluminous works and words. It is time to hear the voice, to heed the call and to join the chorus of the song masters who sang the Uluru Statement from the Heart into being. The Bible, in Psalm 95, urges us: 'If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts.' Let us not be the generation who go astray in our hearts. Colleagues, this bill has been greatly overcomplicated, so let me repeat what our First Australians are actually seeking: We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country. We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution. …   …   … … walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future. I will be walking alongside First Nations people. I will vote yes, and I urge you to vote yes too. 12:53 Sen 217241 Queensland ator McGRATH () (): As I speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, I would like to talk about why I believe Australians should vote no to the proposed Voice to Parliament. Despite the constant attacks from the 'yes' campaign which are directed at anyone who questions the Voice's merits, it is important that we have an open and honest conversation about this topic. We must consider the potential consequences and evaluate whether this proposal truly aligns with the quintessential Australian values of fairness, unity and democracy. Where the answer to a question about a potential consequence is, 'I don't know,' the safe choice is to vote no. If you don't know, you should vote no. First and foremost, let's talk about how the Voice will be divisive. We all know that addressing the challenges faced by Indigenous Australians is crucial. This is something governments of all levels invest billions of dollars of taxpayers' money in doing each and every year. On this, it's essential to remember that not all Indigenous Australians support this Voice, this model or this change. By enshrining it in the Constitution we run the risk of creating a national divide based on race, because race has no place in our Constitution. This proposal goes against the Australian values of inclusivity and unity. It goes against the boisterous, liberal, multicultural democracy that we've built here. We should strive for a system that treats all Australians equally and doesn't enshrine a permanent divide in our nation. We have seen how this Voice can be divisive in recent days, when a campaign session run by the 'yes' case has shown their ugly sides. It was not just sad; it made me angry to see a GetUp-aligned, pro-Voice campaign telling its supporters to deliberately alienate their fellow Australians as part of a cynical ploy to shame people into voting yes. This ugly attitude, this win-at-all-costs attitude of the 'yes' side, badly marks the 'yes' campaign. No genuine political campaign should seek to provoke racist attacks, which cause harm to so many Australians. This cynical attitude is typical of a 'yes' campaign that likes to talk about uniting Australia but in reality is doing the opposite. It attacks anyone who dares to question it and deliberately seeks to provoke fellow Australians. If the 'yes' campaign was serious about uniting our nation it would cut all ties with this group of GetUp activists. This divide-and-conquer strategy must be rejected. Moreover, let's acknowledge the potential dangers of the Voice. All fair-minded members of this place should agree that constitutional change should be carefully thought through. The Albanese government's approach of figuring out the details after the vote is concerning, to say the least. Our Constitution is not something to be toyed with lightly. Our Constitution is not something to be treated like a draft press release for the Labor Party. We must ensure that any changes are well considered and won't undermine our democratic processes. Running into something without clear plans and details is a recipe for uncertainty and unintended consequences. Unlike previous referenda, there's been no constitutional convention to devise an agreeable and unifying approach. Without this, we've arrived in this place where those who were once advocates for change on the conservative side of politics have been shut out, ignored and alienated. So it's perhaps not surprising that polling on the Voice shows that support continues to decrease and has actually spiralled to under 50 per cent this week. Let's talk about fairness. It's crucial to recognise that within the Indigenous community there are diverse perspectives and not everyone supports a taxpayer funded lobby group enshrined in our Constitution. Fairness means that all Australians, regardless of their background, should have an equal opportunity to participate in our democratic process—fairness for the oldest Australians and for the newest Australian migrant. We must be cautious about creating a system that gives a certain individuals or groups greater influence solely based on their race or ethnicity. Our aim should be to create a level playing field for all Australians. The concerns about Labor's proposed Voice to Parliament are genuine and deserve attention. It is an easy talking point for the other side, but the legitimate question of the government's agenda is actually a very normal part of democracy. Questioning the prime minister's approach is not muddying the waters or sowing doubt. It is actually something you can do in our country. We do have those freedoms. For it to be otherwise would go against our rich democratic tradition. It would go against all those who have given their all so we can continue to live in a free and liberal democracy. But let me make one thing clear. My party, the Queensland Liberal-Nationals, will not be standing for lectures from Labor, from the left, when it comes to Indigenous voices. We have a proud history of embracing Indigenous representation. My party, the Liberal-National party, selected Australia's first Indigenous federal parliamentarian, Neville Bonner, in 1971. Neville Bonner's commitment to Liberal and conservative principles and his advocacy for Indigenous rights set him apart during his time in this place and when he left this building. Despite facing harsh criticism from left-wing activists, he remained steadfast in his beliefs and continued to champion the cause of his community. Bonner's unique position as both an Indigenous activist and a Liberal allowed him to bridge divides and advocate for change within the framework of Liberal values. His legacy serves as a reminder to those left-wing political ideologues that they should not limit anyone's commitment to advancing the rights and wellbeing of Australians. I should also mention that Neville Bonner's great-niece, Senator Joanna Lindgren also served in this place, representing my party, the party of Senator Scarr beside me and the state of Queensland. Not long after Neville Bonner's election, in 1974 we proudly elected Eric Deeral as the first ever Indigenous state MP. Eric Deeral's story was truly remarkable. Coming from humble beginnings, he faced the harsh realities that Indigenous people in North Queensland experienced firsthand. His journey from a young labourer and ringer up to being a passionate advocate for his community led him to public service. In the fierce Cook electorate contest in 1974 he emerged victorious. What set Eric apart was his unwavering dedication to serving all the people of the Cook electorate, regardless of their race or ethnicity. In his maiden speech to the Queensland parliament, he emphasised that his mission was to improve the lives of everyone in Far North Queensland. He championed better infrastructure, such as improved roads, and boosted tourism. He wanted to create employment opportunities. He fought for more schools and increased access to healthcare services, prioritising the wellbeing of his constituents. Eric Deeral embodied the qualities of an exceptional local representative. He didn't need a Voice to Parliament because he was the voice to parliament. Neville Bonner didn't need a Voice to Parliament; he was the voice to parliament. Senator Liddle doesn't need a Voice to Parliament; Senator Liddle is the voice in this parliament. Senator Nampijinpa Price doesn't need a Voice to Parliament because she is the voice to parliament. This is the difference between us and the left. Even after losing his seat in the 1977 state election, Eric Deeral continued his remarkable service to his local community. He served as chairperson of the Aboriginal Coordination Council. He continued to work tirelessly to advocate for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. But Eric's legacy extends far beyond his time in parliament. He opposed the paternalistic policies of the Whitlam government and staunchly advocated for the rights of his fellow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. He argued passionately against handouts, recognising that true empowerment comes from self-reliance and self-respect. We should all pay tribute to Eric and to Neville as being those true warriors for the cause of freedom and also for the cause that is Queensland. We should remember their legacy and we should engage in an open, respectful and empathetic conversation that takes into account the potential consequences, and ensures that any changes we make to the Constitution, or propose to make to our Constitution, uphold our Australian values of fairness, unity and respect for our liberal democracy. Together, this place should be working across the aisle to find alternative approaches that promote inclusivity, empower local and regional communities, and address the challenges faced by Indigenous Australians in a manner that respects the founding principles of our nation. I believe there's a better way forward that will truly unite our country, but it is not by putting race in our Constitution. Race has no place in our Constitution. Our Constitution should be colourblind. Our Constitution should see all Australians for who we are; that we are equal—that whether you've been here since the Dreamtime, or whether you've been here as someone who arrived on the First Fleet or in the waves of immigration that have come to this country, we're all equal, regardless of the colour of our skin. We should look to the soul within people and judge them on that, rather than judge people on the basis of their race. I will be voting against this bill and, I will be working my hardest in Queensland to ensure that Queensland votes no to this proposed constitutional change. 13:07 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I want to begin my contribution to this debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) Bill 2023 by acknowledging the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, who are the traditional custodians of this land—land over which sovereignty has never been ceded. I also want to acknowledge all the First Nations peoples in this chamber from across the political spectrum. I pay particular tribute to the contribution of my colleague Senator Dorinda Cox, a strong Yamatji-Noongar woman and a proud representative of her state of Western Australia who, I might say, has shown genuine leadership in this debate within my own party and in the broader national debate. But let's start by acknowledging the truth that the land we're on was taken by force and is retained by force. But it always was and always will be Aboriginal land. I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of this bill, which will allow for a referendum on whether or not to amend the Australian Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of Australia, and establish an advisory body known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, which will be able to make representations directly to parliament and the executive on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. On one view, how could this possibly be controversial? The Greens were the first party to endorse the Statement from the Heart in full. While we do support this Voice referendum, we acknowledge that it's just one step towards the greater goal of First Nations empowerment and justice. Critically, as Greens, we fully support and are fully committed to progressing the truth-telling and treaty-making elements of the statement alongside the Voice to parliament. Truth, treaty and Voice are the core elements of the Statement from the Heart, and I want to acknowledge that we have so much more to do to achieve that package in this place. Before this year's joint parliamentary committee's recommendation to pass the bill, the 2018 Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples was asked to consider the work of the 2012 expert panel, the previous joint select committee, the Statement from the Heart and the referendum council. That committee also concluded by recommending a detailed design process for both the national Voice and local and regional voices; and that the government consider legislative, executive and constitutional options to establish the Voice, support for truth-telling and a National Resting Place. The parliament has dragged its feet long enough to take meaningful action which addresses these long-standing historical injustices. Now, in 2023, we are still seeing First Nations culture under systemic attack. Language forms an integral part of Indigenous culture and spirituality, and, at the time of colonisation, there were over 250 distinct Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages on this continent. Today, there are still approximately 145 First Nations languages spoken, which is remarkable. Just by comparison, all of Europe just has 24 official languages. First Nations linguistic heritage in this country is under real threat, with some 110 of those languages spoken by so few people that they are critically endangered. Yet we do nothing. That is unacceptable. Culture lives, breaths and stays alive through children and family. Every day, far too many First Nations children are still being taken from their families, from their culture and their country. Some are stolen and put with strangers in out-of-home care and others are locked up in the most inhumane child prisons, which are devastating reminders that the Stolen Generation has still not ended. Where's the outrage about that from those opposed to the Voice? Where's the urgency on that from those who want to campaign 'no' to the Voice? The damage and loss doesn't end at childhood. First Nations people account for 32 per cent of adults incarcerated in this country, despite forming just over three per cent of the population. This is a result of the material and legal bias faced by First Nations people in this country. Where's the outrage about that from those outraged by this constitutional amendment? This structural unfairness is more than unacceptable. To be poor, excluded and silenced on your own land while surrounded by wealth and privilege is downright criminal. And it will be solved only by empowering First Nations peoples to set their own destiny, to build stronger communities and to gain a fair share of this country's wealth for their families, their futures, their kids and their elders. Today, the Australian Constitution does not acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of this country, and it still includes provisions which allow discriminatory laws based on race. When we have coalition MPs saying the Constitution should have no provisions in relation to race, where's the outrage about the current race powers in the Constitution which have only been used to target and discriminate against First Nations peoples? The confected outrage on that point from the coalition is appalling. A successful referendum can and must be the start of what will be decades of positive change for First Nations peoples guided by them that moves us towards truth-telling, treaty-making and self-determination. And I repeat, as Greens, we are committed to working towards this. A constitutionally entrained Voice for First Nations peoples has seen support from all parts of civil society, both within First Nations communities and outside. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders' representative bodies such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body, the First Peoples' Assembly of Victoria, the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, Queensland land councils, Northern Territory land councils, Western Australia land councils and the Coalition of Peaks are just some of the First Nations bodies that have voiced their loud support for these reforms. Australia's Race Discrimination Commissioner, Mr Chin Tan, stated that the Voice is a tool for realising the right to self-determination and one that will 'help better outcomes for First Nations peoples'. The Law Council of Australia, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, Multicultural Australia and many other groups, including professional sports clubs, have raised their support for the Voice to parliament. This referendum is about recognising and respecting the First Peoples of this country and their culture, a culture that is the oldest continuous living culture in the world, a culture that has looked after this land, looked after their kids, looked after their peoples for over 65,000 years. We're just but a blink of the eye. This institution is a blink of the eye in comparison with that history. I also recognise that there are committed, principled and engaged people from First Nations communities who are deeply suspicious of this move towards a voice. They've told me that they are concerned the same self-elected First Nations people who already dominate many of the formal engagement processes with governments also will dominate the Voice. They ask, quite rightly, how will First Nations people on the ground in towns in my home state of New South Wales, like Brewarrina or Bourke or Wilcannia, be heard and represented in this new Voice? They're right to ask these questions, and they're right to be deeply suspicious of any actions taken by this parliament. I understand the scepticism; I understand the pushback. It comes from experience, and it needs to be respected. I've heard from so many First Nations mums and grandmothers who tell me of the fear they have of white government cars driving into their neighbourhoods to steal their kids. I've listened to them tell me of the panic they felt and their desperate moves to hide their kids when FACS or DoCS drive into their street. I've listened to young First Nations young people, who tell me their main engagement with government is being hassled on the street by police when their only crime is being black in public. I've seen First Nations elders crying when their pleas to protect their country from mines, bulldozers and loggers are ignored. The wounds are then torn deep in their culture and spirit. And I've seen, time after time, how this place ignores those cries. You can't hear those truths and be anything other than suspicious of government. This place, this parliament, far more often damages than helps First Nations communities with the laws and decisions it makes and the pleas and the calls that it doesn't listen to. However, we also need to have hope that we can learn from this. Turn the ship around. Start making decisions that empower the people who know best how to advance the interests of First Nations people, which is, of course, First Nations peoples themselves. That is the hope of the Voice, and that's what I'll be voting for. First Nations communities around this country have faced more than two centuries of colonisation, oppression and violence. Today they stand strong and proud and continue to work, and to work bloody hard, to overcome the challenges facing them from our nation's structural and institutional oppression. They're asking us to believe in them and their capacity to decide their own future. The Voice to Parliament is just one step towards achieving meaningful justice for First Nation peoples while we progress truth telling, treaty making and self-determination. I don't think the Voice is a magic solution to all of this, but it is a start. And this referendum will be a moment for the Australian people to say clearly and loudly, 'Yes, we want to walk this walk with First Nations peoples.' Together, we can take that first step on Voice and also travel together along the harder, the longer path of truth telling and treaty making. But all hard journeys start with a first step. Let's take that step today and vote 'yes' on this bill. 13:17 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria I want to acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people and pay my respects to them as the traditional owners of the Canberra region and the land on which Parliament House sits. I also want to acknowledge and pay my respects to the Wurundjeri people, who are the traditional owners of the land where my electorate office is based in Melbourne. When I was thinking about what to say today, I was reminded of something the Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, said about the Voice this week: 'If you're spending billions of dollars a year and you're failing, why keep doing that? Let's try something different. Let's listen to Aboriginal people talk about their future, because I reckon we'll get much better outcomes.' I think this way of looking at the referendum puts the whole question within a frame of common sense, and clearly articulates why we have to do something differently. Over many years, we have spent untold billions of dollars trying to improve the lives of Indigenous people, but we haven't got any better results. In my view, to keep doing the same thing over and over again while hoping for different outcomes is not only foolish, it's dishonest. The Voice offers us a different path. It offers an opportunity to change tack, to let First Nations people into decision-making processes about them and draw new solutions for old problems that so far we have been unable to solve. When I was sitting in the chamber on Wednesday, something Senator Canavan said resonated with me. When talking about something different—in this case consulting locals when energy infrastructure is being built on agricultural land—Senator Canavan said, 'The best decisions are always made when they're made on the basis of advice from people on the ground, at the grassroots, in local communities.' Senator Canavan then went on to say of regional communities: They're trying to get their voice heard. That's all they want. They just want a voice. Senator Canavan and I don't always agree; however, on this point I think he's hit the nail on the head. Policies are better when they are born from the 'advice of people on the ground'. Policies are better when they come from the grassroots. There is power in having a voice. Having heard him say this, it was puzzling to me why Senator Canavan, along with his National colleagues and so many of his Liberal ones, opposes the Voice to Parliament. The fact is all the Voice is seeking to do is provide advice to government from the grassroots of the First Nations community on policies that matter to them. That's exactly the same principle stepped out by the Nationals in this place on Wednesday. Given that, I suppose I'm wondering why, in the opinion of some, it's acceptable for farmers to be consulted on matters that affect them but not Indigenous Australians. After all, that is what the Uluru Statement from the Heart requested, when 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates gathered at Uluru to endorse the Uluru statement and deliver an invitation to our nation to walk along a path of reconciliation to a better future for all. In 1967, Indigenous Australians were counted. Now, in 2023, they seek to be heard. I come to this debate from a legal background. I practiced law for many years and studied law at university. At no point in my career did I think that I would be in the Senate, let alone in the Senate debating a bill for an act to alter the Constitution. Nevertheless, in the whole process of this referendum debate, I have applied that legal background, and it is by looking through that prism that I can see this proposal to change the Constitution is sound and will stand the test of time. But we don't just have to take it from me. I also sat on the committee that inquired in this legislation. I want to take the opportunity to thank Senator Green for chairing that committee process so fairly. What I learned in the committee is that the proposed wording is legally sound and operates as a good reflection of what the alteration seeks to achieve—that is, recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the Constitution and enshrining a body to make representations to government on matters which concern them. Nevertheless, a fair bit of misinformation has been put forward around the referendum, including the claim that the proposal will encourage vast amounts of litigation in the High Court. In the committee, we heard evidence time and time again from constitutional law experts, former judges and chief justices of the High Court as well as leading and respected barristers practising in the High Court. All of them confirmed that the claim that an avalanche of litigation is waiting around the corner should the referendum succeed is highly unlikely and overblown. I trust this evidence. Really, it seems to me the claim about endless High Court legal action being taken as a result of the Voice existing is not much more than a scare campaign designed to frighten and confuse people. I also want to address the claim that there is not enough information about what the Voice will look like. This was a matter we heard a bit about in committee process too. Above all, it is important to remember that the Australian Constitution is a minimalist document. It's a document that is deliberately designed to set out broad powers belonging to the Commonwealth with the intention that the parliament will proceed to legislation detail in line with these powers. For example, in 1901 the Constitution gave the Commonwealth government exclusive powers to make laws relating to Australia's defence. This power is broadly laid out in section 51 of the Constitution. This power does not provide for how many military personnel there should be in the Australian Defence Force. It does not prescribe how many ships there should be in the Royal Australian Navy or where our barracks should be located. It also makes no mention of the Royal Australian Airforce, because, of course, defending Australia from the air in 1901 would have proved difficult given that aeroplanes didn't yet exist. And therein lies the point: the Constitution is designed to be a lasting blueprint for government, while the parliament is designed to debate and to make laws as required to exercise those powers. This set-up has worked well for Australia for 122 years. So, when it comes to the Voice, it only makes sense that a plain and simple power should be inserted into the Constitution, and the Constitution will therefore fulfil its function as a minimalist document. That will allow this parliament, including every senator here to do our job of filling in the shape of the Voice. That is the process we have always followed and it is the process we should follow again. I actually think it is an inherently democratic process that gives the parliament, as the nation's sovereign decision-making body, an important and central role in deciding what the Voice should look like, and I look forward to that debate. But it must be said that all these legal arguments for the Voice pale in comparison with the argument that enshrining the Voice is just the right thing to do. For too long politicians and bureaucrats have made laws and policies for Aboriginal people, not with them. The fact is that it hasn't worked, and it can't go on. The fact is that for generations Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been put down, locked out, abused, vilified, dispossessed and, frankly, murdered. The result of this systemic mistreatment has been political disenfranchisement—or, perhaps put better, the loss of a voice—and this voicelessness has created the reality we confront today. By a long way and by every measure, First Nations people in Australia die younger, are sicker, suicide more frequently, are more incarcerated and have more trouble finding somewhere secure to live than non-Indigenous Australians. There is no dignity in this reality for any of us. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have asked for their voice back so that we can all move forward together, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians taking a rightful and dignified place in our shared future. I support this bill. I say, bring on the referendum to make the Voice the ninth change to the Constitution since Federation. 13:26 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I'm pleased to be able to make a contribution to this debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. It is I think one of most important debates we will have perhaps in my time in this parliament, but it is certainly a very important debate that this generation of Australians will have about the future of this country. At the heart of the debate is a need that we as a country have to break entrenched patterns that divide our nation. It's a divide which is damaging, which creates disadvantage and which, on any objective or even subjective measure, is not right. It's a divide between Australians, created by racial difference. But seeking to deal with this division and these outcomes by way of further division is not the answer. A united, unifying and meaningful approach, where the entire nation is taken on the journey for a solution, is the right way to go. I expect that that's exactly what most Australians hoped for in the conduct of this debate. At this point I'd like to refer to the position taken by the coalition, which is to not support the question in the referendum, while of course allowing Australians to have their say through the passage of this bill, to allow the referendum to take place. But rather than the binary situation we find ourselves in, where it is the approach that is on the table or nothing, we prefer, as has been outlined by a number of my colleagues in this debate—and indeed through the committee process and by the Leader of the Opposition—to have local and regional voices legislated for to enable that grassroots feedback and input to policymaking and decision-making that we talked about earlier, and a truly bipartisan approach to constitutional recognition. That was our hope, and that was what we put on the table as we deliberated on our way forward on this very important and, frankly, very difficult issue for us to deal with as a nation. And we wanted to enact and push forward with that as soon as possible. I should point out that these of course were all part of the recommendations put forward in the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition, a committee process that I participated in, along with Senator Malarndirri McCarthy and Senator Pat Dodson. There are options not being taken—those that I've already mentioned around local and regional voices. As I said, we have in front of us a binary approach, a question that people will have to answer when the referendum rolls around. What concerns me about this debate that we're engaging in in this place and out in the community—what I am truly worried about—is that those who have a question, those who are concerned, those who aren't convinced that what is being proposed by the government is the way forward face a degree of shame, rather than having a question answered, rather than being provided with information that might satisfy those concerns. They are deemed irrelevant; they are deemed— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 It being 1.30, I shall now proceed to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 39 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Tasmania: Mining Industry 39 13:30 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Thank you, Acting Deputy President, and allow me to change gears now to talk about a different matter, equally important! It's the matter of the state of Tasmania, a place of which I am very fond. Today I'm going to take us down to the beautiful West Coast of Tasmania, to a community called Rosebery. I know, Acting Deputy President, that you would be very familiar with that community and its history, and the proud mining history that it has. There are hundreds of Tasmanians employed in the Rosebery MMG mine. Senator Whish-Wilson will know that the mine is facing a difficult future. That's not because of a lack of mineral resources; the West Coast of Tasmania is a resource-rich part of our state. It's also beautiful; it has incredible natural beauty which we do need to protect. Protecting natural beauty, protecting the environment, protecting our economy and making sure that people still have jobs to be able to pay the bills—that are going up, I might add—are critically important, and it's this balance that I want to highlight. At the moment, there are decisions before governments—and I say 'governments' plural; the Tasmanian government and the Australian government—around the approval of further waste management facilities, aka a tailings dam for this mine. The mine has operated for well in excess of a century, sustainably managed and with a bright future—if it has this in place. The federal environment minister does have a question before her about how best to proceed with this. I'm hoping that my Tasmanian Labor colleagues—and I'm calling on them to make sure—do their bit for the hundreds of Tasmanians whose jobs are on the line with the future of this mine hanging in the balance. This tailings dam needs to go ahead. This government needs to work with that company, MMG, to find a way to make sure that there's a future for this mine. If they don't, those jobs will go and it will be on this government's head. So I look forward to working with my Tasmanian Labor colleagues to get the right outcome for this project. South Australia: Eyre Peninsula 39 13:32 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Today I want to talk about the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia. I have stood in this chamber many times before and spoken about various issues, projects, towns and exciting things that happen on the Eyre Peninsula. But today I want to give you an overview—a bit of a snapshot. It takes up 25 per cent of South Australia's land area and is 50 per cent of South Australia's coastline. It has 58,872 people living there and it has an amazing tourism industry—that industry has 551,000 visitor trips per year. People go to this area because it is so beautiful and has so much to offer. We also have a population of First Nations people at 6.7 per cent—much higher than most other places. We have 24 per cent of South Australia's barley crop. We also have 40 per cent of our state's wheat crop. We produce 45 per cent of iron and steel manufacturing and 82 per cent of South Australia's seafood product—most of you have probably tried that, and it's spectacular! The reason I wanted to bring this up today is because I had the delight of having a range of mayors and CEOs from the Eyre Peninsula visit on Tuesday. As many people in this chamber would know, they were all in town for the Australian Local Government Association's National General Assembly. I would like to put a shout-out to those mayors, CEOs and all of the people working across that region for the spectacular job they do in our amazing area. It has spectacular beaches and all sorts of really amazing things to do and places to go. I encourage you all to come and visit. Yates, Mr Dean 39 13:34 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I want to give a shout-out in the Australian Senate today for a good mate of mine—fellow Tasmanian Dean Yates. Dean is a highly experienced and acclaimed journalist who spent 20 years working around the world, including in war zones. Dean, I'm very proud to say, has just finished writing a book. It has taken him seven years. The book is called Line in the Sand and it's a life-changing journey through the body and mind after trauma. It has been highly acclaimed. Chris Hedges, the Pulitzer Prize winning war correspondent for the New York Times, said it's 'destined to become a classic'. Matthew Green, author of Aftershock, described it as 'a clarion call for a new approach to preventing and treating trauma'. Dean was the head of Reuters Baghdad during the Iraq War and was there for five years. Central to this story, and the reason that I'm raising it in the Senate today, is that Dean lost two of his staff to an Apache helicopter gunship attack, commonly now known as 'collateral murder'. The release of the video by WikiLeaks propelled Julian Assange to the international stage. Dean lost two staff members, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, who were shown being blown to pieces in that video. The trauma that Dean suffered, that he has carried throughout his life, has led to severe moral injury and severe PTSD. This book is such an honest account of how Dean has had to come to terms with this and the trauma his family has been through. He talks very broadly about all the veterans and other people he has met on his journey. Dean has become a fierce campaigner for the release of Australian Julian Assange, including giving evidence in the UK trial recently around his extradition trials. If you're interested in press freedoms and if you're interested in trauma, please buy a copy of the book Line in the Sand. Education 40 13:36 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I rise to raise serious concerns about declining standards in Australian schools, which are arguably escalating under the Albanese government. In the May budget papers we learnt that 11 per cent of year 3 students remain in the bottom two bands in NAPLAN for reading, up from 8.6 per cent in 2018. The Australian Education Research Organisation, a very important initiative of the coalition, alarmingly found that 20 per cent of students starting year 7 have the reading ability of a grade 4 student. Review after review tells us that, despite a 60 per cent increase in school funding over two decades, we are seeing school standards slip dramatically. The coalition understands that the key to improved student outcomes is evidence based teaching and learning, including the adoption of explicit instruction and the teaching of phonics in every Australian classroom. The science tells us this is what works. But the Albanese government is asleep at the wheel when it comes to delivering best-practice teaching methods. Teachers are also being severely hampered by an overcrowded and ideologically-driven curriculum which does not allow them to adequately focus on the foundations of education—reading, writing and arithmetic. Students in year 12 have lived through the era of inquiry based learning or 'loose learning', as I call it, which has sent our students backwards. We know this does not work. The biggest disadvantage students face is not learning. At schools like John Paul II outside Hobart I've seen how children are thriving, supported by the most incredible program of highly structured, highly accountable, dynamic and engaging explicit instruction in reading and writing. As I say, we need explicit instruction in every classroom across this country. Workplace Relations 40 13:38 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales If you're an elected representative in this parliament, the public deserves to know what you stand for. I'm for better wages and better working conditions, whether you be an employee or a contractor. It's very clear what those opposite stand for. The Liberals are for low pay and the Nationals are for low pay. They show us each and every day that they're for low pay. They showed us they were for low pay when they turned around and cut penalty rates. They show us they're for low pay when they say no to a fair increase to the minimum wage. They show us they're for low pay when they say no to same job same pay. They show us they're for low pay when they say no to gig workers' rights. They show us they're for low pay when they say no to multi-employer bargaining. They show us they're for low pay when they say no to criminalising wage theft. They show us they're for low pay when they say no to banning pay secrecy clauses. They show us they're for low pay when they say no to banning ads for jobs below the minimum wage. The deputy opposition leader said that fixing those issues was 'terrible'. When was the last time you saw the Liberals or Nationals stand up for your rights at work? Never. But those opposite can still prove me wrong. Later this year, there'll be an opportunity to help some of the most disadvantaged and re-empower Australian workers in their workplace. The Liberals and Nationals can vote for it and they can help us rebuild the middle class that they smashed over the last 10 years, or they could continue being Liberal and Nationals for low pay. Infrastructure 41 13:40 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland There is no better way to create jobs in this country than by building infrastructure. Yet we see the Albanese Labor government cutting funding for infrastructure projects in the latest federal budget. However, they want higher immigration. So, if you want to cut wages, there's no better way to cut wages than to have high immigration while at the same time cutting infrastructure works, because that will impoverish the country. The best example I've ever seen in my lifetime of a government that built infrastructure that created jobs was the Liberal-National government of the sixties and seventies under the auspicious ease of the former treasurer Sir Leo Hielscher, who opened up the coalmines in Central Queensland, opened up the Weipa bauxite deposits in North Queensland, opened up the Gladstone Power Station and opened up the smelter. He did all of those things—and built a number of dams, I might add. If you want to create jobs in this country, you have to build infrastructure to create the jobs. Those projects that were built many years ago, this week, delivered the biggest surplus in any state government's history. I'm speaking today to warn the Labor government not to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. That, of course, is the national resources in this country, which all state and federal governments have been benefiting from for many years. What we should be doing is using those natural resources, like our coal deposits near my home town of Chinchilla, where we have 400 million tonnes of coal and what the Finkel report said in 2017 was the cheapest coal-fired power station in Australia. But what the other side of the chamber want to do is waste billions of dollars importing renewables whilst turning their back on our own industries here in Australia that provide billions and billions of jobs into government coffers and provide cheap and reliable energy. We should be pro-jobs, not pro-nouns. Aged Care 41 13:42 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania At the last election, or during the campaign, the member for Braddon and I went to Queenstown in support of Queenstown's West Coast Council to make a commitment of $3 million to support the expansion of the West Coast District Hospital for four additional aged-care beds. It has been an issue that the West Coast Council and community had been chasing for a period of time. In fact, my colleagues opposite had been chasing us on behalf of the West Coast Council. Those four additional aged-care beds remain important for the community on the west coast of Tasmania. The then opposition, now government, didn't match the $3 million commitment that we made at the time, but I'm urging them to step up and support the Tasmanian government and the Queenstown community to achieve those four additional aged-care beds. The funding is available. The money is there. The coalition put it in the budget before the last election. It has been budgeted for. It would be very easy for Labor to step up and support the West Coast Council, the Tasmanian government, the Queenstown community and those who want to age in their communities on the west coast of Tasmania. It would be very easy for the government to step up and support this project. It's an important one. The Queenstown community deserves it. It's still a priority of the West Coast Council. It's something that the Tasmanian government is happy to facilitate, and all it needs is for the new government to allocate some of the funding that we all know is there to support the Queenstown community to get those extra— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Thank you, Senator Colbeck. Senator O'Neill. PricewaterhouseCoopers 41 13:44 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to continue to make statements about the shameful scandal that is emerging around the practices of those who have been in charge at PwC, PricewaterhouseCoopers. The last time I stood to speak in this chamber about it, I said I would not let the matter rest. That was some time before Australia became aware of the egregious behaviour of one Mr Peter-John Collins, who found a very fertile soil in which he planted information that he'd stolen from the Australian people. He went back and decided he'd grow a money tree for PwC with your information and mine to help multinational companies avoid paying their fair share of tax. I see people in the chamber here today, senators and people who are here as members of the public, who pay their fair share of tax. It's only right that we should expect big companies making lots money off us to pay their fair share. PwC had a different version of events. When they were caught doing this red-handed by the tax office, they tried to avoid scrutiny. Like Harry Potter's invisibility cloak, they used legal professional privilege to try and hide all of the information from the Australian tax office and from the Australian people. It was shameful behaviour. The only thing that escaped was 144 pages of emails which reveal the whole slimy show. The reality is that today, despite a headline a couple of weeks ago which was completely disingenuous, the current leadership of PwC, who've been brought in to clean up this political mess, have not released the names of the people who were involved in those 144 pages of emails. They have not released those names. They have not released the emails. So, currently, around the world, no-one knows where these PwC people have been unleashed. It's got to change. I will continue to pursue this matter. Domestic and Family Violence 42 13:46 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Three days ago, while this parliament was consumed with weaponising the traumatic experiences of women, another woman was killed by violence, in Bedford, Western Australia. On the available records, she was the 17th woman killed by violence in 2023. These records are kept not by government, as they should be, as we do for the road toll, but by a volunteer organisation called Counting Dead Women. Seventeen women have been killed this year by people they know—their partners, their ex-partners and, in several cases, their sons. They were young women, older women, women in cities, women in regional areas, women who left, women who stayed. This epidemic of gendered violence demands our attention. It demands that attitudes change to prevent these murders and it demands that support services be fully funded to help everyone who reaches out for help. Women safety services say they need $1 billion each year to meet demand from women and children and survivors who seek support and safety from violence. Yet, as the department confirmed to me in estimates, the government has allocated less than half of the funding to frontline services that they say they need to not turn people away. We need to do better. Today, I remember the 17 women killed by men's violence so far in 2023: Monique Lezsak, Tatiana Dokhotaru, Heather Ball, Emmerick Lasakar, Lisa Fenwick, Hannah Pringle, Lynne Wright, Jacqui Purton, Margarette Smetheram, Anastasia Slastion, Janet Guthrie, Krystle Monks, Wendy Sleeman, Dayna Isaac, Lindy Lucena and two victims whose names are yet to be released. We will not forget them. This has to stop. We need full funding for those frontline support services now before more women die. Immigration Detention 42 13:48 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania It's going on 10 years since the Australian Labor Party began a program of systemic exile of forced deportation which saw thousands of people detained on Manus Island and Nauru for nothing more than seeking asylum in Australia. We've heard recently that the last of these people will finally leave Nauru by the end of June. Of course, that is a good thing for those people, but we need to be clear that this is by no means the end of the sorry chapter of offshore detention. This dark and bloody chapter in our country's history has not yet had its conclusion written. There are still 82 people in Papua New Guinea who were sent to Manus Island a decade ago. These people witnessed murder and assault. They were dehumanised and brutalised for a decade, and Labor has now adopted the Liberal policy of abrogating all responsibility for these people. Well, let's be very clear about this. It was the Labor Party that sent them to Manus Island to be illegally imprisoned in the first place, and those people remain the responsibility of the Labor Party today. There are hundreds in Australia who were exiled either to Manus Island or Nauru, who are still here in this country, who have no pathway to resettlement in another country, who have no right to permanently stay here and who are still denied that most basic of human rights—a safe place to make a home. Offshore detention will not be over until every single person who was sent to Manus Island or to Nauru gets the freedom, the safety and the durable solution that they deserve and that Australia agreed to provide them when it signed the Refugee Convention. Cost of Living 42 13:50 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Everyone who works in this place has sacrificed something to come here for the extraordinary privilege of representing our communities and, in the case of the Senate, our state. But this has been a particularly tough week to do that. On Monday, we received word that the life of a Queenslander had been lost due to inflexible government regulation of aviation, forcing remote Torres Strait Islander communities into boats on the open sea rather than into commuter aircraft. We have been reflecting on issues that I believe should never have come into the Senate chamber, and, for the people involved, they would have been much better served by the police and appropriate authorities than from being politicised in here. So, to the millions of Australians who are really hurting at the moment, who are struggling with rent costs, interest increases and insurance costs; to the small business operators who are wondering how much longer they can keep their doors open and their employees in jobs because of spiralling electricity costs, transport and freight costs and wages increases on top of another superannuation increase; to the small-business employee who is watching the stress on the boss's face and who wants more hours but is dreading the introduction of another Labor public holiday that will mean that they won't get work on that day—to all those people—I say: we hear you. We are trying to get the government to focus on you, and I want to recommit to you and your family our daily effort to make your lives easier, to get inflation under control, to reduce the bills you pay and to keep your children safer. To every Queenslander who says to me, 'I don't know how you do the politics': we do it for you—to fight to improve your life—because we know you can't afford another energy price increase, more adversarial IR, higher rents and more expensive child care. So we are here working for you. Budget 43 13:52 Senator 281603 South Australia MARIELLE SMITH () (): The parliament is a unique institution, full of its own quirks, standing orders and ways of doing things. When children come and visit us, they go to the Parliamentary Education Office and learn about what's being done. Sometimes, even as a senator, the work we do can be a bit hard to follow. Things move pretty quickly. Sometimes you don't always know how the standing orders work and what's happening. So I thought it would be helpful to just draw the opposition's attention to something which did happen a few weeks ago which they may have missed. It's called a federal budget. It happens about once a year, normally in May. When they're handed down by the Labor Party, they're normally pretty good and worth tuning in to. It's the first sitting week back, actually, since the federal budget was handed down. You wouldn't necessarily know it, so I wanted to just remind you about that interesting little part of our work program here in the Senate, and I'll tell you what's in it. It's a Labor one, which means it's good. We're tripling the bulk-billing incentive and halving the cost of medicine. There is $2 billion for hospitals in South Australia, $500 in energy bill belief for 423,000 households in South Australia and a 15 per cent pay increase for aged-care workers. Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 I think Senator Hughes wants some more tips! I'll tell you more about the budget. It's a really good event. We're increasing income support rates, and there is one of the biggest reforms to rent assistance in decades. There are 13,000 fee-free TAFE places in South Australia and another 300,000 on the way nationally. There is $1 billion for infrastructure, and 270,000 small businesses in SA are benefiting from our reforms. There is also more affordable early learning for 85,000 families around South Australia. The budget is a really interesting part of the work we do here. I encourage you to tune in, especially when it's a Labor budget delivering for South Australians. I'm super proud of it. School kids, that's something to get your head around too. Parliamentary Standards 43 13:54 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Today I want to send a message of love and support to the women, girls and gender diverse people out there, black, brown and white, who have experienced gender based violence and harassment. I have been touched by all the messages of support that I have received over the past 48 hours, and I thank you. To all those who continue to stand up and refuse to stay silent about the ongoing violence and harassment inflicted on the bodies of our women and girls, sister girls and brother boys and other gender diverse folks: I thank you. When we speak about violence, we get asked, 'Why didn't you take it to the police?' We know that the police are not the experts. Eighty-seven per cent of sexual assault cases in Australia go unreported because we don't want to go to the police, yet they are the only body that is fully resourced and funded and wandering the streets 24/7. The experts are our friends, our matriarchs and our sisters who answer our calls in the middle of the night when we are feeling unsafe and look after us. The experts are those working for support services that provide vital assistance and services that are stretched, under-resourced and hard to access. They cannot keep up with the demand. To all those still fighting against the violent colonial system and the conditions that allow gender based violence to continue: may we continue to find strength in solidarity with each other. This country has the capacity to properly fund those support services, legal services and advocacy groups who are saving lives and protecting our community against gender based violence. Agriculture Industry 43 13:56 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise today to talk about the disdain and ignorance with which this federal Labor government and the Labor government in my home state of WA treat the agriculture sector. I'll give you three examples of the disdain, the contempt, that they hold for that sector. We had yesterday and the day before a motion put forward by my good friends Senators Cadell and Colbeck concerning the acquisition of agricultural land—a simple motion to have an inquiry into the issue. Could the federal Labor government find the will to say, 'Yes, this might be an issue that is genuinely of concern to some agricultural producers, and we should have an inquiry into it'? This is not a radical idea. They weren't political terms of reference. It is just an issue that needs to be looked at. But, no, they couldn't support that. In my home state of WA we've had rushed through a parliament that has a significant Labor majority—and I acknowledge that—with no proper consultation, no proper consideration of its impact, Aboriginal heritage legislation which has farmers right across my home state of WA desperately concerned about their ongoing farming operations. Finally, and something very close to my heart, I want to talk about the live export trade in sheep. Just this week we've seen what this Labor government's position on the live export trade, its decision to ban that trade, is doing to business confidence in my home state of WA across all agricultural producers but particularly sheep farmers—a devastating impact—when, at the same time, the evidence shows that the Australian public's support for the live export industry is actually increasing. (Time expired) Workplace Relations: Food Delivery Industry 44 13:58 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I want to pay my respects to the many transport workers who have lost their lives while working in one of Australia's deadliest industries, and to their families and loved ones. The Transport Workers Union are fighting for safe, fair and enforceable standards for transport workers in the gig economy. I commend the ongoing advocacy of the TWU Vic/Tas Branch secretary, Mike McNess, and assistant secretary Mem Suleyman; and the national secretary, Michael Kaine. Not too long ago I met with a delegation from the Transport Workers Union. The group included union reps, industry employers and transport workers. They spoke to us about the challenges facing the sector—namely, the unregulated and insecure gig economy that has led to the unnecessary loss of lives. The delegation shared their stories with many of us in this place. One story from the delegation that was particularly striking was from Mr Dogan, who spoke about his beloved nephew, a food delivery rider who was, tragically, killed while on the job. His family was denied funeral expense cover and never even received a condolence note from Uber Eats. Thank you, Mr Dogan, for so generously sharing your story. The tragedy of your nephew and of the 11 other food delivery drivers who have devastatingly lost their lives since 2017 is not lost on us. Every worker is entitled to security at work. Every worker deserves to get home safe. We'll continue to fight for transport workers to make this a reality. (Time expired) STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT 44 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Questions without Notice 44 14:00 The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I go to question time, yesterday I was asked to consider arguments put by Senators Wong and Birmingham. Yesterday, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong, asked me to consider rulings made in 2014 by President Hogg about the proper scope of questions at question time. The context involves a series of questions asked by opposition senators about statements made by the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, including statements made before she was a minister. In a statement on 19 March 2014, President Hogg said: … ministers must answer questions only insofar as the question relates to ministerial responsibilities—in other words, the public affairs with which the minister is officially connected, proceedings pending in parliament, or any matter of administration for which the minister is responsible in a personal or representative capacity. However, an answer may provide clarification of statements made by ministers—as ministers—even if the statements are not clearly within their ministerial responsibility. This last point draws on an older ruling from President Sibraa that questions may ask for: … clarification of statements made by ministers, even if the statements are not clearly within their ministerial responsibility. Questions are not in order if they ask about statements made by senators when they were not ministers. Sometimes it is not clear whether a question is out of order on this basis. In these circumstances presidents have generally invited ministers to answer questions to the extent that they relate to ministerial responsibility. President Ryan took the view that even when a question was ruled out of order it was fair and reasonable to give the minister an opportunity to respond to any assertion contained in the question. That is the approach that I've adopted this week. If a question is ruled out of order but the minister accepts my invitation to respond, I'm not sure that the standing orders requiring that the answers be directly relevant strictly apply. However, ministers should confine their remarks to matters within their ministerial responsibilities. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 45 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Members of Parliament: Staff 45 14:02 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong. In relation to the settlement of a compensation claim on 13 December 2022, why didn't the Commonwealth or its legal representatives seek any evidence from former ministers or their staff about the matters cited in the claim? 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Scarr for the question. The advice I have is that the claim in question was managed consistently with the Commonwealth's obligation under the Legal Services Directions, and the Commonwealth has settled in accordance with legal principle and practice. In relation to the legal representation point of Senator Cash and Senator Reynolds, that was managed by the Commonwealth consistently with the Parliamentary Business Resources Regulations. Obviously, Senators Cash and Reynolds were under no responsibility to seek this assistance from the government. And I have some further information which goes to the Legal Services Direction 2017, which was issued by the Attorney-General under the Judiciary Act and which sets out the binding rules for Commonwealth legal work. The claim in question was managed in accordance with those principles. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, first supplementary? 14:04 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Thank you, Senator Wong, for that answer. As a follow-up question, can the minister confirm to the chamber that the claim was settled at the very first mediation, which lasted just a single day? And can the minister also confirm that no aspect of this claim ever came before a hearing of a court? 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As I understand it, the matter was obviously settled, and the intrinsic nature of settlements is the fact that they often occur prior to the matter going to any court or other tribunal. I don't have personal knowledge about, and nor does the advice in front of me indicate, how long those discussions were engaged in for. I would make the point that these are matters that are settled in accordance with legal principle and practice, and I'm advised that the parties agreed that the terms of the settlement are confidential. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, a second supplementary? 14:05 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I would note that in many cases—and the opposition leader has legal experience, as I do—claims are settled after court hearings are initiated, and sometimes mediations even occur on the steps of the court. Minister, can you confirm that the Commonwealth agreed to settle the matter without putting any of the claims made to the people involved? 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, in relation to the comments about when settlements occur, it is a very long time since I was a lawyer, but from the dim, dark recesses of my memory I recall that settlements would occur at many, many stages in the process—sometimes, as you know, before proceedings were issued, sometimes shortly after proceedings were issued and sometimes, as you identify, after proceedings had commenced, including hearings. The response I would make to what you've put to me is that the advice I have is that this matter was settled in accordance with legal principle and practice, informed by external legal advice, and model litigant obligations were upheld. Employment 45 14:06 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. After a year in office, under the Albanese Labor government the number of Australians in work remains at record highs. For the first time ever, the number of employed people in Australia has reached 14 million. That's despite a slowing global economy. Can the minister provide the Senate with an update on the latest labour force data, released just yesterday by the ABS, and tell us what it says about the performance of the Australian economy under the Albanese Labor government? 14:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Sheldon, for that question. Many Labor senators, like Senator Sheldon—those on this side—have spent a great deal of their working life advocating for working people and ensuring that working Australians have access to secure, well-paid jobs. So, I'm pleased to take the question from Senator Sheldon. And he's right: yesterday's ABS labour force figures were very good news for Australians, for Australian families and for those wanting to enter the workforce, revealing that the number of employed Australians has reached 14 million—14 million Australians in work. That is a record-breaking figure, accompanied by a reduction in the unemployment rate, which is down to 3.6 per cent. That is an achievement for the Australian people, it is an achievement for the Australian economy, and it reflects the resilience of the economy, which is such a priority for the Albanese Labor government—a government which supports job creation. Since coming into office we have seen 465,000 jobs created under the Albanese government. Importantly, what we are committed to on this side is not a deliberate low-wage policy. We are committed to delivering secure and well-paid jobs. We've also prioritised gender equity in the workplace, and the figures show more women in full-time employment than ever before. The results we've witnessed in the labour force aren't a coincidence. They are influenced by our government's commitment to empowering workers and ensuring their rights and protections, including the policies to address gender pay inequity, paid family and domestic violence leave, a pay increase for aged-care workers, and affordable early childhood education. And, as you know, we are actively working on further reforms to safeguard the rights of working people. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, a first supplementary? 14:09 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales The Albanese Labor government is clearly taking action to help all Australians have access to secure and well-paid jobs. Can the minister please explain to the Senate how the government's policies contribute to continued resilience in the labour market and the Australian economy more broadly? 14:09 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Sheldon. Senator Sheldon is right to ask about resilience because we know that we have challenges ahead, as a consequence of higher interest rates and interest in the global economy. We see markets and economies around the world managing and entering into recession—Europe and New Zealand, for example. We know we have to continue to build on our successes and we have to lay foundations for more secure and well-paid jobs in the future. That's why the government is investing in key sectors to stimulate jobs growth and to drive the economic prosperity of the nation. That's why we're investing in renewable energy, infrastructure and advanced manufacturing. That's why we'll continue to drive the development of innovative industries and technologies, access to education and skills training programs to equip Australian workers today with the necessary tools to thrive in an evolving job market in the future. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, a second supplementary? 14:10 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Unlike the Liberals and Nationals, the Albanese government has taken action to get wages moving. This Labor government is working to create a more prosperous future for all that includes fairer wages and better working protections. Can the minister highlight the key differences in approach between the Albanese government and the 'no-alition' opposite? 14:11 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think Australians know— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU We hear from the interjections how those opposite react to the news of more jobs and more well-paid jobs and a government that seeks to ensure jobs are more secure and more well paid. What we remember is that those opposite believe that low wages are a deliberate design feature. What that shows is what they— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Scarr 282997 What direction are wages going? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I'm waiting for order. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU 'Low wages are a deliberate design feature of our economy'—that's what those opposite truly believe in their heart of hearts. We on this side know that what we have to do at a time of global challenges and challenges in economies around the world—and we know the way ahead does present some choppy waters for Australia—is ensure we focus on how we create the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow and ensure, as far as government can, that they are well paid and that they are secure. (Time expired) Members of Parliament: Staff 47 14:12 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. I refer the minister to her statement to the Senate on Tuesday and subsequent answers in multiple question times. How is it a breach of confidentiality, as the minister has repeatedly claimed, to confirm whether or not the minister received an advance copy of a media broadcast which has subsequently been made public? I ask the minister: did she or did she not receive any advanced copy of content from The Project episode that was broadcast on Monday 15 February 2021? 14:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Payne for the question. I'm going to refer back to my statement and the numerous answers I've given to questions that have been asked of me today. When somebody comes to me with information and asks that it be kept confidential, I intend to keep that confidentiality. I do that not just in this situation; I've done it in hundreds of situations before and indeed I have no doubt I'll be doing it again. It's for the ones that are going to come forward, who I don't know about yet, that I will keep the confidentiality. They need to know that, if they tell me something, it's not going to be aired on the floor of this parliament. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payne, a first supplementary? 14:14 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales The minister has told the Senate that she did 'absolutely nothing' with the information provided to her in advance of The Project broadcast of 15 February 2021. Yet the minister has obfuscated on the question of whether or not she provided feedback in advance of that broadcast. Without revealing the content of communications, but so as to verify the veracity of that claim of doing 'absolutely nothing', did she or did she not provide any feedback in response to the information provided to her? 14:14 Senator GALLAG ING Australian Capital Territory HER (—) (): I refer Senator Payne to the answers I've given already on this. I'm keeping— Senator GALLAGHER ING I did nothing with the information because I was asked to keep the information confidential. I did that. I know it's hard for you to understand that someone, given the nature of the information given to me, would actually do that, but that is what I did. I don't intend to go into any further detail about the— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I refer you to my statement. I'm not going to go into further detail. The two issues that were raised from a parliamentary point of view that I needed to address, and have addressed, were about whether or not I had misled the Senate, which I maintain I didn't. And the second point was whether I had a role in relation to the settlement of the compensation claim, which I didn't. And I don't intend to go any further— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payne, a second supplementary. 14:15 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales The Minister has a duty to be accountable to this chamber and yet the minister has continually used claims of confidentiality in response to questions about a very public media broadcast which the minister asked hundreds of questions about herself. Is the minister hiding behind the excuse of confidentiality because giving a direct answer would confirm that the minister misled the Senate when she said, 'No-one had any knowledge,' and misled the Senate again when she said that she did absolutely nothing with the information? 14:16 Senator GALLA ING Australian Capital Territory GHER (—) (): The answer to that is no, and I have been accountable to the Senate. I have stood here every day, answering questions that relate to something that happened in the previous parliament—a very distressing situation for everyone, as we all know— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, Senator Henderson, I believe Ms Higgins. Now, whatever happened, it has been distressing for a lot of people in this building—as has this week. But the answer to your question is no, and I have been accountable to the Senate on both of those points that I believe needed addressing, which were around the nature of whether I had misled and also if I had a role in the compensation payment. I have been totally accountable to this Senate. Mining Industry 48 14:17 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Wong. Earlier this month, global temperatures crept 1½ degrees above historic averages for the first time in human history. Current coal, oil and gas production continuing in operation will permanently blow the safe 1½ degree limit. We have to wind down production, not expand it, if we're going to have any fighting chance of stopping a climate breakdown. Is the government still going to proceed with its $1.9 billion taxpayer subsidy for developing Middle Arm now that Tamboran have confirmed that it will support their plans to build Australia's biggest-ever gas export hub there? Senator Birmingham H6X Just say yes—that would be welcome! 14:17 Senato 00AOU South Australia r WONG (—) (): In relation to the specific project at Middle Arm, I will get perhaps a little more sophisticated answer than I'm urged to by those opposite. I will try to get a little more information on that, Senator Waters. On the broader proposition which the senator is putting: I understand that the Greens party has a view that the way to deal with climate change in an international global economy is for Australia to shut down its gas exports and to shut down its gas industry. We don't agree. We believe that the task we have been set with—and we wish it were not after so many years of inaction on the other side—is to transition what is a very resource-intensive economy on a pathway to net zero by 2050. And the imperative of that is not only climate; the imperative of that is also jobs. If the majority of the global economy is moving to a net zero by 2050 target, which it is—I think 84 per cent of global GDP has made that commitment—then we have to be able to compete in that world. I outlined in my first government question, the question from Senator Sheldon—as have others—the many investments the government is making in hydrogen and in renewable energy in the transition of the economy that I have described. We don't take the view that you take, that the way to deal with this is just to make sure that we shut down some of those industries overnight. So we have a fundamental difference of policy about how to deal with this. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, a first supplementary? 14:19 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Overnight, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, again called for an end to the use of coal, oil and gas and shamed global fossil fuel companies, who are spending 4c on clean energy or carbon capture for every dollar they are spending on new oil and gas expansion. Why is the government giving these tax-avoiding big polluters billions every year in taxpayer funded subsidies instead of redirecting those billions into stopping the climate crisis? 14:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, I think anybody who looked at the history of this over the last 10 years, and certainly the history of when we were last in government, if they are a fair-minded person, would recognise the commitment that the Australian Labor Party and Labor governments have had to action on climate change. Despite the climate wars, we spent many years on that side of the chamber continuing to argue a position in the face of a climate policy or an energy policy run by Barnaby Joyce and the National Party. The fact that the Liberal Party took that path has been, I think, to the detriment of the country. I refer back to my previous answer, Senator Waters. I don't accept many of the assertions in your question in relation to how you are characterising certain matters, but we do believe— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, a second supplementary? 14:21 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Given that the government insists on keeping those fossil fuel subsidies and on bankrolling the biggest gas terminal in Australia's history, when you go to the next Blue Pacific foreign ministers meeting what will you say to Vanuatu's climate minister and other Pacific leaders who have told Australia to stop investing in fossil fuel projects? 14:21 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I have in my first year as foreign minister visited every member of the Pacific Islands Forum, some of them more than once, and I have said the same things. Firstly, I talk about how, unlike some of our predecessors, we hear and understand that climate change is their No. 1 national security and economic issue. I talk to them about the fact that not only a government but a parliament has been elected that wants to take action on climate change. I talk to them about our need to transition, that we recognise that we have had a great benefit from the resources that Australia has but also understand that where we want to be by 2050 will require a change in our economy at a scale that hasn't been seen since probably the industrial revolution. I am clear with them about our policies, our ambition, our intent and our commitment to act. (Time expired) Women's Economic Security 49 14:23 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. As we know, gender inequality remains a significant issue for women in Australia, with women still on average being paid less, retiring with less and more likely to experience domestic, family and sexual violence as well as harassment and sexual violence in our workplaces. The Albanese government is committed, as we know, to ensuring gender equality and making life better for women in Australia. We have seen it be a priority across everything this government has done from the beginning of its term after a decade in which Australia went backwards on gender equality. So, after a year of genuinely listening to women and taking real action, can the Minister for Women update the Senate on how the Albanese government is improving the lives of women? 14:23 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Pratt for the question and congratulate her on her marriage last weekend. It's good of you to be back here and not on a honeymoon! Since day one when we came to government as Australia's first majority-female federal government, we have taken action to improve women's lives. After a decade of falling behind, we recognised the need for immediate action and investment and we haven't wasted a day. In our first year we have made historic investments in women and women's equality. We have supported women's economic equality through our investments in cheaper child care, to give families more choice over childcare arrangements and support women's workforce participation. Families will benefit from this reform from 1 July. We are modernising and expanding paid parental leave, with the changes to simplify the scheme and making it more flexible and easy to access starting from 1 July. We have supported pay increases in industries overwhelmingly dominated by women, including in aged care, with this pay rise also coming into effect from 1 July. We've supported single parents with $1.9 billion to increase the eligibility for parenting payment single, the majority of whom are women, until their youngest dependent child turns 14. We took action to end the punitive ParentsNext program and are developing a better way to support vulnerable parents. We've made record investments in women's safety, with women accessing 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave. We have invested $2.3 billion in funding for women safety across our two budgets in preventing violence against women and children. We're implementing all recommendations of the Respect@Work report, including by legislating a positive duty, and we have worked across this parliament to implement the recommendations of the Set the standard report to make this place a safer place for women in the future. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pratt, first supplementary? 14:26 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia It is clear the Albanese government has not wasted a day. Indeed, the job figures released yesterday reveal that 465,000 new jobs were created in the first 12 months of the Albanese government, the most created under a new Australian government on record. Can the Minister for Women update the Senate on how the Albanese government is increasing women's workforce participation? 14:26 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory (—) (): Yesterday's employment data demonstrates that a deliberate focus on barriers to workforce participation does make a difference. More women than ever are now in full-time work. Women's workforce participation is at a record high of 62.7 per cent. Women got two-thirds of all the full-time jobs created in the past 12 months, and almost 233,000 women have entered the workforce since last May. We have also seen the gender pay gap drop to the lowest on record at 13.3 per cent. These outcomes are promising and demonstrate that when you take women's economic security seriously you will see the results. That's what we have done. From coming to government, through our Jobs and Skills Summit, we have recognised that gender equality is a core economic imperative, and we have continued this focus in all the work we have done, including improved transparency in gender pay gap reporting, putting gender equality at the heart of our workplace relations system, and investments in fee-free TAFE. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pratt, a second supplementary? 14:27 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Thank you, Minister. That's a great start. As we know, there is still a great deal of work to do to protect the gains that are being made and to make further progress towards gender equality in Australia. Therefore, I ask: can the minister update the Senate on what is on the government's agenda going forward to make life better for women in our nation? 14:27 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory While we have made these historic investments, it is a start; we know that there is more to do, and we need to protect the gains that we have made and we will not be deterred from this. One of the ways we are doing this is through the development of a national strategy to achieve gender equality, which we expect to release later this year. Earlier this year, we held a public consultation process seeking the views of the whole community on gender equality and how we can support women across the country. We have heard from over 3,000 individuals and organisations throughout our consultation process, and I would like to thank women around the country for their contributions so far. Through the Jobs and Skills Summit, through the consultations across key government processes on the national strategy, through their conversations and round tables with me, women are sharing their experiences and their expertise and it has been an honour to listen to so many of them share their reflections with me and share their time. We will continue to listen, invest and make changes that improve their lives. Small Business 50 14:29 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, Senator Gallagher. Noting that legislation to enact the Small Business Technology Investment Boost measure from the May 2022 budget passed through the other place in November last year and was introduced in this place last December, and given this measure is due to expire in just two weeks, when does the government intend to progress legislation to enact this measure in the budget? 14:29 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Senator Pocock, for the question. I'm trying to recall the bill that it's in. I think it came but it might not have had the support of this place to get through, as I understand. If that's wrong, I will correct the record. As you know from the discussions we've had from time to time, because we don't have a majority in this chamber we are often dependent on negotiations across the chamber around these things. I'm not sure I can assist any more. I'll see if there's anything further people can advise me of while I keep talking—and looking around anxiously!—but I believe that's the case. If there is something further, I will come back to you on that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, first supplementary? 14:30 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister. On the broader issue of having a measure to drive productivity in small business, that is due to expire in two weeks, that hasn't been passed, does the government accept that it is very unlikely that many small businesses will actually be able to utilise this measure? 14:31 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I have been assisted. I was correct; it was a measure that was contained in TLAB No. 4, which is due to come to the Senate next week. If we have the support of the chamber and it passes next week, we will be able to see that commence. There are a whole range of other measures, as you know, that we're working on through Minister Collins to support small business through the budget we have just released as well. We understand our role to support small business and work with them on those areas they want, and we've done that in this budget with some of those investment measures—improving cash flow, reducing compliance costs for small business, the $20,000 instant asset write-off. All those are targeted to small business. The Small Business Energy Incentive— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, second supplementary? 14:32 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister. Given small business is the backbone of our economy, and there is a technology boost that will hopefully maybe be available for just one week, will the government consider extending the period of time in which this technology boost is available to small businesses? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We're always working with small business on the best ways to provide support to them. I will defer your question to the Minister for Small Business. I would also say some of the issues that small business have raised with us are reflected in the budget, around the energy incentive, around the instant asset write-off, around TAFE with extra investments in skills for labour, around the entire energy transition—which has huge opportunities for small business—and, indeed, through our cybersecurity wardens program, which was also a priority for small business. I am happy to take that part of your question on notice. We are always prepared to look at ideas to support small business as a big driver across our economy. Yipirinya School 51 14:33 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Gallagher. Minister, the Yipirinya School student accommodation proposal is a local led initiative to improve the lives of young Australians in Alice Springs, yet it continues to get knocked back by this government. Can the minister confirm the government supports a Canberra led solution rather than a local led solution to the issues facing Central Australia? 14:34 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The answer is: we don't support a Canberra based solution. I'm not across the particular project the senator refers to, but I can confirm that, of the package of supports that was contained in the budget for Central Australia and Alice Springs, there is a part of that funding that is unallocated but provision has been made because we want to co-design programs and consult on where those investments should be made with local communities. Part of the work that Minister Burney, Minister McCarthy and others have been doing is working with local communities about programs and how we make sure they're tailored to local need. As I said, I'm not aware of the particular program you raise, Senator, but I'm happy to have a look at any further information I can provide about it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, a first supplementary? 14:35 Senator NAMPIJ 263528 Northern Territory INPA PRICE () (): That's a pity, given I have spoken about this issue and asked questions in this chamber. The coalition supported this proposal in its final budget, and, as a result of the Labor government's delay in engaging with it, the cost of the project has skyrocketed. Will the Labor government honour the commitment given to the families of Alice Springs by the previous government? 14:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank the senator for the question. I understand that in the last few weeks the Minister for Education has met with Dr Morris and a group of principals across Alice and Central Australia, and I also know that the Minister for Indigenous Australians has visited the community controlled independent school during a recent trip. I understand that the NIAA have received a proposal from the school to construct residential accommodation for students and staff and that the proposal is currently under consideration. I would repeat that we are committed to working with all stakeholders and local communities about how we improve educational outcomes across the region. It is not about imposing a view from Canberra but about working locally for local solutions. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, a second supplementary? 14:36 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I understand this project has been shovel-ready for some time and is about protecting vulnerable children from things like sexual abuse. Given that their school is probably the only safe place in the community—and given that this chamber considers the safety of, at least, women in this place—the government should be considering these kids. If the government won't support the Yipirinya community led proposal, what must the people of Alice Springs do to get the support that they need? 14:37 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I would say that the Minister for Indigenous Australians, supported by Minister McCarthy and others, has been working very hard with local communities about what is needed in Central Australia and the Alice and will continue to do so. We have made provisions for extra investments into that region. Some of that's been allocated with agreements and some of it hasn't been, because the work still needs to be done. And I understand that the project the senator refers to, as I said in my previous answer, is under consideration by the National Indigenous Australians Agency and is going through their process as any other project would. Australian Broadcasting Corporation 52 14:38 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator Watt. Yesterday we saw the shocking decision that over 100 jobs will be cut from the ABC. I want to express my support for all the staff and their families who got this pretty shocking news yesterday. Not only will talented staff lose their jobs; taxpayers will lose important news and public interest journalism. There will be cuts to local TV news bulletins on Sundays, right across states and territories. There'll be cuts to the arts and culture reporting. There's even the cutting of the political editor here in Parliament House. A cut to the ABC is a cut to the Australian people and their right to news. In an age of Murdoch media misinformation, why won't the Labor government work with the Greens and commit to fully funding the ABC and reversing all of those coalition-era cuts? 14:39 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young. Like everyone, at least on this side of the chamber, I am a very strong supporter of the ABC. I should actually disclose that I am the patron of the friends of the ABC in Queensland. So I've got a very personal interest in supporting that as well, and I catch up with them at least once a year to declare my support. I might say that the thing that, over the last two or three years, the Queensland branch of the friends of the ABC used to enjoy most when I went to their AGMs was me making sure that they knew that the Albanese government was going to reverse the former coalition government's funding cuts to the ABC, which we did. Senator WATT 245759 But, Senator Hanson-Young, this is obviously a very difficult time for any individual whose role may be impacted by the changes that were announced yesterday. The fact is, though, that the ABC does have operational independence and it is a matter for ABC management to determine how to structure the organisation within their funding envelope to meet the changing needs of audiences. The ABC, like many media organisations, faces significant challenges in today's media environment, with new technologies changing how their work is conducted, while still delivering on their legislated obligations. Minister Rowland has requested a briefing from ABC management with regard to the ABC Five-Year Plan and the announcement that was made this week. Over the ABC's five-year funding term under the Albanese government, the ABC will receive $6 billion in funding. The ABC remains accountable to the parliament for its use of taxpayer funds through a range of accountability mechanisms, including annual reports, corporate plans, financial and performance audits and appearances before parliamentary committees. I think all of us have an interest—or at least half of the room has an interest—in a strong ABC, and we continue to support it. That's exactly why we took the budgetary decisions that we did. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, a first supplementary? 14:41 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia The ABC is consistently rated the most trusted news organisation in the country. Yesterday's cuts to the ABC include cuts to local news bulletins, 7.30, Australian Story, Four Corners and the investigations teams. This will weaken public-interest journalism. Minister, you've just said that the government would reverse those cuts, but you haven't, have you? 14:41 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The Albanese government did deliver on its commitment to reverse the coalition's cuts to funding, and I invite you to have a look at the budget papers, which make that very clear. In fact, I suspect that this issue was traversed, including by you, at Senate estimates committees, where it was made very clear that the Albanese government has reversed the coalition-era cuts that did really impact on the ABC. We wanted to see that restored. But what was obviously announced yesterday was a decision of ABC management to restructure its operations and to move resources from one area to another to keep pace with changes in the media environment and audience needs and expectations. But, as I said, Minister Rowland has requested a briefing from ABC management with regard to the ABC Five-Year Plan and the announcement this week. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 There are a lot of people piping up from that little section over there who like to say they support the ABC. I wonder why they supported all those budget cuts to the ABC when they were in government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, a second supplementary? 14:43 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia For the record, the government has not reversed all of the cuts, and they should. The ABC Charter requires the ABC to 'encourage and promote the musical, dramatic and other performing arts in Australia'. Yesterday's decision includes cuts to the arts and culture reporting. What will the government do to ensure that the ABC is in full obligation of its charter? 14:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland You're right, Senator Hanson-Young: the ABC does play a very important role in the cultural life and promotion of the arts within this country. I would certainly hope that, following the changes that have been made by ABC management, that continues to be a strong focus of the ABC. Obviously, they have made some decisions about how resources will be allocated, what units will be established and what units will be changed, and those decisions were made by ABC management. But I would expect, and I'm sure Minister Rowland would expect, that ABC management would continue to uphold its obligations under the ABC Charter. But the fact is that the Albanese government has delivered on our commitment to restore many of the cuts that were made by the coalition government. Those cuts did damage the ABC. We were very proud to commit to the restoration of that funding. That's exactly what has been delivered, and we continue to support a very strong ABC going forward. Housing 54 14:44 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Senator Farrell. The Albanese government understands safe and affordable housing is essential to the security and dignity of all Australians who deserve the stability that having a safe, affordable place to call home provides. These are real people facing the extraordinary stress of not having a safe roof over their heads. Can the minister explain how the Albanese government is addressing housing challenges for Australians through its ambitious housing reform agenda and specifically what that means for people who don't yet own a home? How do these actions respond to the challenges left by the previous government? 14:45 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Can I thank Senator Bilyk for her very insightful question, and I have some answers to those issues that you have raised. A decade of inaction by the former Liberal-National government left us with significant housing challenges right across the country, but the Albanese government has hit the ground running on housing, delivering immediate action along with an ambitious reform agenda. That is why the budget delivered new action to help Australian renters, expand opportunities for homeownership and bolster frontline homelessness services. The budget will help more Australians into home ownership through a significant expansion of eligibility criteria for the Home Guarantee Scheme. Under these changes, friends, siblings and other family members will be eligible for joint applications under the First Home Guarantee and the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee. These guarantees will also be expanded for non-first homebuyers who haven't owned a property in Australia in the last 10 years. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McKenzie. Senator FARRELL I0N These commitments build on the actions that we have already taken—up to $575 million, unlocked from the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, with new houses already under construction— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, I did call you and you kept talking. That constant interjections are incredibly disorderly. Minister Farrell, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you for that protection. The Housing Accord—thousands were helped into home ownership by the Regional First Homebuyer. And, of course, our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund is to deliver 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes in the fund's first five years. This fund has supported our national peak housing bodies as well as every state and territory housing minister, because who could possibly stand in this place and vote against more social and affordable rental homes? (Time expired) Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Bilyk, a first supplementary. 14:47 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Thank you for that eloquent answer, Minister. The Albanese government recognises that rental affordability challenges are putting significant pressure on Australians who need a safe, affordable and secure place to call home. Can the minister outline the alternative interventions proposed to affect the rental market? What has been the expert opinion on these proposals and their impact on people who rent a home? 14:48 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Bilyk for her first supplementary question, and to quote the Financial Review: Researchers cited by the Greens to push for a rent freeze concluded that cities that experimented with the controversial controls experienced no improvement in affordability— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator I0N No! Listen to this: 'and ended up with poorer quality housing'. It's something the federal government cannot force upon the states, it's something many states have already ruled out and it's something the expert advice says won't work. The Greens need to decide which is more important—their campaigning or the people who need homes, because the way to help people in housing stress is to vote for the Housing Australia Future Fund and use social and affordable rentals. It would help. The delays have to stop. Australians in need can't afford it anymore. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, a second supplementary. 14:49 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Thank you for explaining that to those that need to know. Can the minister respond to the alternative interventions proposed to affect the rental market? How is the Albanese Labor government taking action to support Australians who rent their home? How is the Albanese Labor government working with states and territories to support renters? 14:49 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you for your second question. The long-term answer to rental stress is a sustained boost to the supply of homes to rent and a substantial investment in new social and affordable houses. That is exactly what the Albanese government is doing. The national Housing and Homelessness Ministerial Council has been tasked with developing a proposal to National Cabinet on options to strengthen renters' rights. The Albanese government is delivering the first substantial increase in Commonwealth Rent Assistance in over 30 years. We're also improving taxation arrangements for investment in build-to-rent homes, and, if the Greens would just get out of the way, the Housing Australia Future Fund will be the largest boost to social and affordable rental homes in a decade. Economy 55 14:50 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia My question is to the minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The Prime Minister was quoted in the Australian newspaper on 2 May last year as saying, 'Labor has real, lasting plans for cheaper mortgages.' How does the Prime Minister reconcile his statement with the fact that interest rates are up 400 basis points since May last year, adding $15,168 to annual loan costs? 14:51 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for the question and the lack of acknowledgement of the inflationary environment that we are in at the moment. We came to government after the first interest rate rise in May last year, and they have continued since, with one pause. The Reserve Bank is doing what it needs to do to put downward pressure on inflation and return it to a target range. The job the government has to do—and some of it goes to the answer my colleague just gave on housing—is to generate supply in housing to ease cost-of-living pressures for households as we tackle some of the challenges in our economy. That's why our budget, as one of its main focuses, had a cost-of-living package. We also had significant investments in Medicare and the care economy, in inclusion and equality, and in growth opportunities to deal with the productivity challenge across the economy. We also sought to improve our budget and put it on a more sustainable footing, but we are facing difficult economic times. These are challenges that are being faced not just by Australia but around the world. There is an illegal war in Ukraine. That is having an impact on the global economy. It's flowing into Australia. The bank needs to do what it needs to do, and that is to control inflation through monetary policy. If they weren't doing that, the impacts on everyone across the community, but particularly those on low incomes, would be much, much, much worse. Our job is to work hand in hand with the work that the bank is doing and to look at how the budget can support households as we work through these difficult times. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, first supplementary? 14:53 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia How does the Prime Minister reconcile Labor's promise for real and lasting plans for cheaper mortgages with the RBA's Statement on monetary policy released last month, which projects scheduled mortgage repayments will reach around 9.6 per cent of household disposable income by the end of this year and around 9.9 per cent by the end of 2024, meaning that scheduled mortgage repayments as a percentage of disposable income— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Smith. The time for asking has expired. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 will be at their highest since November— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, when I call you to order I expect you to sit down. Your question needed to be slightly shorter. Minister Gallagher. 14:53 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory (—) (): I thank Senator Smith for the question, and I acknowledge that these interest rate increases are hitting mortgage households really hard. They really are. The government has acknowledged that. I would also say that the Prime Minister's comments, which Senator Smith referred to, were made in relation to one of our housing policies that we took to the last election. Everything we are doing at the moment through our budget, through the investments we are making and through the work with states and territories that we're doing is all about how we support Australians through the next 18 months or so, which are, as our budget shows, forecast to be some challenging times. Our focus is on cost of living and supporting households without adding to inflation. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, a second supplementary? 14:54 Senator DEAN S 241710 Western Australia MITH () (): Given Australian households have now experienced 11 interest rate rises since the election of the Albanese government, will the Prime Minister deliver on his promise of plans for cheaper mortgages by committing to reduce inflation so that there will be no further rate rises before the next election? 14:55 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory As Senator Smith knows with that question, the government does not control interest rates. Rises are decisions made by the independent Reserve Bank. The recent review of the Reserve Bank actually recommended strengthening that independence. We are working with the opposition on that legislation. To suggest that the government can control that is silly. It's not the way the system works. What I would say is the government have a role to ensure that the decisions we make do not add to inflation, and that is the focus of our budget. That has been confirmed by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. It's been confirmed by the secretary of the treasury department. In fact, in our energy measures, which those opposite voted against, there is downward pressure on inflation. So that is the focus of this government. It is a focus that we will continue. That is our focus for the Australian people. (Time expired) Wages 56 14:56 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. We know that people on low and modest wages have the least capacity to deal with the rising cost of living. With that in mind, can you step us through how wage increases are assisting Australians with cost-of-living challenges and, also, how the Albanese government is standing up for workers and getting their wages moving again? As a member of the Senate Select Committee on the Cost of Living, I have seen a lot of people come through that committee commending a lot of the excellent things that the Albanese government have done in the last 12 months and raising some excellent suggestions for other things that we might do. So I wonder if you could step us through that? 14:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Grogan, for the terrific work you and your colleagues are doing on the cost-of-living committee. As Senator Wong said earlier today, it was very pleasing to see the new jobs figures yesterday that show that more than 465,000 jobs have been created since the Albanese government was elected just over 12 months ago, and a whopping 385,000, or 83 per cent of them, have been full-time jobs. What's also pleasing is that more jobs are getting decent pay increases, with 60 per cent of all jobs recording a higher wage than the year before. It's the fastest annual wage growth we have seen in Australia for over a decade, since September 2012. In fact, our softest quarter for wages growth is equal to the former coalition government's strongest quarter. Our worst was their best. The system had been sitting neglected with entrenched inequality for 10 years under the coalition government, a government who openly admitted that low wage growth was a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture. There is nothing complicated about it. Our government will always stand up for workers and protect their pay, but unfortunately not everyone agrees with this approach. Who can forget Senator Cash as the shadow industrial relations minister warning us that the 'secure jobs, better pay' legislation would take us back to the Dark Ages? I had another look at the Dark Ages and what they were all about. I am not surprised that those opposite have an affinity for the Dark Ages. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator Wong and Senator Cash, order! It's noisy and it's disorderly. Senator WATT 245759 As I said, I am not surprised those opposite have an affinity for the Dark Ages, because they do remind me of a period not too long ago when those opposite were in government. The Dark Ages were defined by a collapse in trade. Sound familiar? There was also a decline in culture and science. We know that definitely happened under their government. The Dark Ages had people thinking the earth was flat. Hello, Senator Rennick! How are you going this afternoon? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I've got a senator on his feet. Senators, this is disrespectful. Senator Rennick is on his feet. Senator Rennick 283596 A point of order: could I ask that Minister Watt withdraw that comment, as it's a personal reflection. The PRESIDENT 112096 I think it's close to one, but I'll ask— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt! And I would ask you to withdraw. Senator WATT 245759 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Senator WATT 245759 And of course the Dark Ages also had a preference for autocratic rule, where a king held all the power. I think we remember a time like that recently as well! (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, a first supplementary? 15:00 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I'll refrain from making any further comment—other than that that was a spectacular answer, Minister Watt. Thank you very much. Under the previous Liberal and National government the bargaining system had become too rigid and legalistic, leading to a decrease in agreement making. Since passing the Secure Jobs Better Pay Act in December last year, how has the Albanese government delivered on its commitment to invigorate enterprise bargaining? 15:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks again, Senator Grogan. Workers covered by enterprise agreements benefit from better pay and conditions, and employers with enterprise bargaining benefit from better productivity and conditions that properly reflect the specific needs of their enterprise. Our government of course inherited an enterprise bargaining system that was on life support, and our Secure Jobs Better Pay reforms have brought employers and workers back to the bargaining table—many employers who have not even been at the bargaining table for many years, including some of the big banks. We've also made enterprise bargaining accessible to those who've been locked out from its benefits—critical sectors like early childhood education and aged care. Again, the shadow industrial relations minister, Senator Cash, at the time said, 'There is nothing in the bill that is going to assist raising wages'—bah-bowwwh! Yet again, Senator Cash gets it wrong, as she so often does. Well, Senator Cash and the rest of the coalition, I'm proud to say that Australian workers will now get a 5.7 per cent pay increase at the lowest level, with the Fair Work Commission acknowledging the importance of this legislation. (Time expired) Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm not going to call Senator Grogan until there's quiet. Thank you. And Senator Watt, I would ask you to refrain from putting any other things in your answers apart from words. Senator Grogan, a second supplementary? 15:02 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia We know that even when there are strong bargaining outcomes some employers still use labour hire to undercut the pay and conditions of their workers. What is the Albanese government doing to close the loopholes that some employers use to undercut employees' pay and entitlements? 15:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Grogan—and thank you, President, for the reference to the standing orders on sound effects; I appreciate that advice. We understand the importance of getting wages moving, particularly in undervalued, traditionally feminised industries like early childhood education and care. Those opposite—including, it would appear, Senator Cash—made absurd claims that these reforms would 'close down Australia'. As I said, it looks pretty open to me here in Australia, despite all those warnings we were getting. Properly valuing and recognising the profession is crucial to attracting and retaining a high-quality workforce. Our children and ageing Australians deserve to be educated and cared for by a properly valued workforce. The best way to do this is by making bargaining more accessible to these workers. The supported bargaining stream of the government's Secure Jobs Better Pay Act will allow for these undervalued sectors to use the Fair Work Commission's functions and be supported to negotiate enterprise agreements, including bringing the funder to the bargaining table at the appropriate time. Under the Albanese government, wages are moving again. (Time expired) Senator Wong 00AOU President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 58 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 58 15:04 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today. I particularly want to take note of the answer to the question from my good friend, Senator Dean Smith, on the cost-of-living pressures that are facing all Australians. The cost of living is a real issue because, contrary to the mistruths that those opposite spread, real wages are going backwards under this government. Real wages actually increased under the coalition government, but you wouldn't know that if you listened to what the Labor Party says. Real wages actually increased under the coalition government, but they increased in a way that was sustainable and within an environment of low inflation and low interest rates. Under this government, real wages are going backwards and, at the same time that real wages are plummeting, we're seeing the largest cost increases on Australian families and Australian households—certainly in living memory and possibly in Australia's history. We've seen increases in interest rates in the last year of this Labor government, putting extraordinary pressure on household budgets through mortgage interest rate rises. Then we saw—and this really bells the cat—the government say in its budget that it was doing the right thing by inflation. But what did the Reserve Bank have to do at their first meeting after the budget was handed down? Clearly, they wanted to pause interest rate rises but they took a look—they sat down and took a long, hard and sober look at what the budget delivered for this country—and they said, 'No, we're going to have to raise interest rates again.' The Reserve Bank is independent, and it should be. It's a very positive thing for the Australian economy, and it has delivered long-term economic growth and relatively low inflation rates to this country. But this is a point in time where the Reserve Bank has just increased interest rates at the fastest rate in Australia's history for a sustained 12-month period. And then it paused and had a look at this second Labor budget, and had a look at the economy. It had a look at the factors that are driving inflation within the economy. And what was its judgement after it paused and looked at this second Labor budget? It said, 'No, we're going to have to increase mortgage interest rates again.' That is a judgement on this Labor budget. It's a judgement on a budget that did put upward pressure on inflation and therefore upward pressure on interest rates. It's a budget that increased spending and therefore increased pressure on inflation and the economy. This is undeniable. Every senior economist in this country—bar two or three who work, quite frankly, for left-wing think tanks—said that this budget was adding to inflationary pressures and made it harder for the Reserve Bank to pause. And the Reserve Bank didn't pause; their sole obligation is to look at the structure of our economy and to look at the data and the information coming into their systems, and they have to make a judgement call. They look at all the information they can possibly get. Back in my past working life, when I worked for the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia, I'd regularly get a call from the Reserve Bank operative in Western Australia to discuss cost-of-living pressures—in that case on the agricultural community: the cost to business and the cost of inputs. We would go through the costs and have our input into the Reserve Bank's thinking process. One of those inputs was what the government was doing with its own spending and what it was doing with its economic policy. To do as the finance minister did today and effectively throw their hands up in the air and say that say that interest rates are just for the Reserve Bank and have nothing to do with the government is just a nonsense, because it's the government's budget that will determine how the Reserve Bank views the future economic settings in this country and determines what it needs to do. And so the Reserve Bank, sitting down in a sober manner, looking at the information flowing into its system, said, 'No, we can't pause any longer. We have to raise interest rates.' That's this government's fault. 15:10 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Isn't it interesting. Here we are talking about the economy and talking about the budget, and yet we're not talking—not those opposite—about the fact that we should be celebrating today that we can show the lowest unemployment rate of 3.6 per cent, demonstrating that unemployment decreased by 1.1 per cent. That is a significant change and improvement in the outlook for the economy and for the budget, and for the impacts on inflation and the economy across this country. That's more than 460,000 jobs created, and yet we hear nothing about that when those opposite start talking about the economy, when what the economy is about is the impact on hardworking Australians. As those opposite do raise, and quite rightly raise, there is deep concern about where interest rates are. They're independent decisions made by the Reserve Bank. We know that. They know that. I heard them say it often enough, sitting on this side. The economic commentators know it, and they know why the Reserve Bank rightly has its independent decision-making process. As frustrating as that is for many of us across the economy, the fact is that there is also good news today. It's something that as a country we should be celebrating—celebrating the fact that we have not only great outcomes on employment but also significant outcomes on wages. The best quarter for wage increases in 10 years under those opposite has been our worst quarter, when we've been in for only 12 months. They get the worst, the worst outcome for wages, where middle-class jobs collapse, and yet we turn around and we see the improvements that have been happening within our economy as a result of aspects and implementation of quality policy and decision-making within this budget—quite clearly, when you start looking at some of the significant figures for the impacts on the economy and inflation. The significant impacts are also about what's happening in the economy. The number of women in full-time employment has grown by 229,000 in the past year, making up 49 per cent of total employment growth in Australia. Now, that says something about the economy. That's something that we should be celebrating. But those opposite don't care because that has never been an objective of theirs. They've never really thought about the fact that we should be bringing fair, decent, equitable wages into our economy. And, of course, women's full-time employment has grown in 11 of the last 12 months. That's how we've got the significant figure and the significant improvement. Those aspects of the economy, those figures, do need to be celebrated. The government came to office to remove barriers that were holding women back from participation in the workforce. In the budget and through this economy, we have made significant steps to make sure that happens. We've seen the figures that prove that our objectives, our strategy and our approach are delivering the goods for so many Australians. We've delivered stronger gender pay equity. That helped with making sure that women had the right to pay equity, with better results for them. We also turned around pay transparency laws to help close the gender pay gap—critically important. These are things those opposite voted against. We're talking about impacts on the economy. Things that have actually improved in the economy, things that the government has control over, those opposite voted against. They vote against these sorts of important initiatives that mean that women have a better, more decent outcome within the Australian economy. When you start looking at, also, the grand improvements and great improvements in the youth participation rate in the economy, it has never been higher. The significant involvement of our kids, our partners and women in the economy—the situation has never been better in regard to those indicators. Those are indicators the government does have influence, significant influence, and control over. The policies that we've been delivering have made that difference. We saw that when we committed within the budget the 15 per cent pay increase for aged-care workers and a better bargaining system to allow for secure jobs and better pay. And, for Medicare, important steps were made. These are to help deal with the effects of the decisions of the RBA and forces outside this country—the issues that have come upon us because of the Ukraine War. When you've got control over things, you make a difference. The differences are they never vote for the difference that makes it better. 15:15 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I'll just rebut a few of those comments from Senator Sheldon. One of the reasons why there are so many jobs is that people have to work two or three jobs at the moment to keep up with the cost of living. I should also point out that, when you look at wage growth, you've got to look at net wage growth, not the gross wage growth figure. The fact of the matter is that wage growth is not keeping up with inflation, and I will contrast that with the Morrison era when wage growth exceeded inflation. But I want to talk about the events of this week in terms of what has been disclosed in this chamber. There have been a lot of misleading statements, but I want to reflect on an answer that was given on 15 February 2021 by my Senate colleague Senator Reynolds when she was asked about what happened with the Higgins affair. She said: Women should be safe and they should feel safe in the workplace at all times. My only priority throughout this matter was the welfare of my then staff member and ensuring that she received the support that she needed. That included ensuring that she was clear about the support available to her, and her right to make a formal complaint to the Australian Federal Police should she choose to do so. At all times, my then chief of staff and I ensured that we sought advice from and we followed advice from ministerial and parliamentary services regarding the support available. I was at pains to ensure that my staff member felt empowered to determine how she wanted to handle the matter, and that remains the case. All I can say is, had that answer been taken—I'm replying here to Minister Gallagher's comments earlier today about protecting the women—at face value way back on 15 February 2021, a lot of pain and misery could have been avoided. Instead, what we had was a relentless attack on Senator Reynolds for the next 10 days, eight days of which were estimates. I felt she was bullied. If anyone should be proud of how she's conducted herself, it is Senator Reynolds. I stand here in support of her today. I actually apologised to her, because I felt many times throughout that two weeks I should have stood up and called a point of order. I didn't. Take a bow, Senator Reynolds, because I think, if anyone tried to protect people in all of that, it was actually you. We should never have had a trial by media or a trial by chamber. The whole thing is a tawdry affair that should never have been allowed to happen, and I hope that everyone can move on from this and look at treating each other with respect, especially here in this chamber. The other thing I think is worth pointing out with regard to the payout is that I was contacted yesterday by someone who works with alleged sexual victim cases in the Defence Force. Since 1 December 2016 there have been 4,407 reports of abuse in the Defence Force. The ombudsman can take up to 18 months to even consider whether or not to refer a case to the Defence Force, and it can take another 18 months, if not longer, for that issue to be resolved. If Ms Higgins can be paid out in a very short period of time, the question that needs to be asked is: why can't these other payments be paid out in a very short period of time as well? The other thing I just want to touch on is Senator Pratt's comments about superannuation helping women. That's actually not true at all. The average superannuation balance for women is about 60 per cent of the average superannuation balance for men, and that's because, for obvious reasons, women don't work in the workforce as long as men, in many cases, because they take time off to have children. That is why I've always felt that a fairly indexed pension is a much more equitable way of looking after women in retirement, rather than superannuation, which is geared towards helping the wealthy. We know there's $50 billion in tax concessions for superannuation, the bulk of which goes to the wealthiest 25 per cent. They're the people who don't need the pension; they're the people who already aren't on the pension. Superannuation does nothing for equality for women. If anything, I think it makes inequality worse. I will finish my remarks at that. 15:20 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I rise to take note of questions and answers, particularly the questions asked by Senator Dean Smith and answers given by Minister Gallagher. Our government's top priority when it comes to our economic plan is fighting inflation and reducing inflation, and our budget is doing exactly that. Our budget, which I note those on the opposition benches have had very little to say about in recent weeks, has been absolutely responsible when it comes to the inflation challenge. We are focusing on restraint, as we should be in the current environment, and we're also focused on relief for people who we know are doing it tough because of the cost-of-living challenges people are facing today. That's why our budget returned over 90 per cent of enhanced revenues to the budget bottom line. It's why we did the hard yards in the budget, finding over $20 billion in savings. It's why we've exercised restraint in our new program spending and limited that over the forward estimates to $10 billion. We have been absolutely responsible, in our economic planning, in targeting our spending to those who need relief the most. That is absolutely what we should be doing in this inflationary environment. We have targeted it to those on JobSeeker, to those on single parenting payments, to those who need rent assistance, to those who will benefit from cheaper medicines and to those who will benefit from our tripling of the bulk-billing incentive. This is all part of our commitment to a strong and resilient economy. We are dealing with the inflation challenge. We are dealing with it head on, and we are rebuilding a strong economy after a decade of neglect by those opposite—in particular, after a decade of neglect from those opposite on recognising the important role of women in the economy. One of the distinctive features of our government's agenda and our economic plan is that we have absolutely put women at the heart of it. We see women as critical economic actors in our country and in our country's future. Whether it's funding a pay rise for our lowest-paid female dominated industries, like aged care, or passing legislation to address the gender pay gap, as Minister Gallagher has led the way on and spoken about today, or expanding paid parental leave, investing in quality early childhood education and care, implementing the recommendations of the Respect@Work report, legislating a better bargaining system to allow secure jobs and better pay, establishing 10 days paid domestic and family violence leave—all these changes are absolutely critical in opening up participation for women in the workforce. I was incredibly proud to see recent data that showed that women's workforce participation is at an all-time high of 62.7 per cent. Over 200,000 women have entered the workforce since we were elected, and women make up two-thirds of full-time jobs created in the past 12 months. These statistics are no coincidence; they are a result of our work removing the barriers that hold back women's participation in the workforce. Jobs have grown to an all-time high since we took government. The number of jobs that have been created in just our first year of government is 465,000. That is a record for any government and is in fact six times how many jobs were created in the first year of the coalition government. Wages are moving at a faster rate than they have in more than a decade; and yesterday new data was released that showed almost 76,000 jobs were created in May. More Australians are in work than ever before. When we came to government, unemployment was at 3.9 per cent. It has dropped to 3.6 per cent and has remained at record lows over the past year. We're investing in jobs; we're investing in women in the economy and that is paying dividends. 15:25 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I will take up the challenge from those opposite and I will talk about the budget, and I will pick up where my colleague just left off. Despite all of the rhetoric that you hear from Labor about the coalition's time in government, if the economy was so bad then there's no way the figures that we're seeing now would be occurring. The reality is that after the pandemic, through the investments made to support the Australian economy but particularly, as has been indicated earlier, the Australian people, the economy was in a very strong position, and fortunately it has continued to be in a strong position. But contrary to what the Labor Party are saying now and how Mr Albanese promised at the election, 'Life will be cheaper under me'—it's not. They talk about wages increasing at a higher rate. That's true, but they're not increasing in real terms. They're going backwards. And that's what the Australian people thought they were going to get, higher wages, when the now government was in opposition, seeking election. Australians were promised higher real wages. That is what they were promised but they've got lower real wages. They were promised a lower cost of living; they've got a higher cost of living. They were promised lower interest rates; they've got higher interest rates. They were promised lower power prices; they've got higher power prices. And they're very quickly coming to the realisation that they cannot believe what this government is saying to them. The government can't keep its promises—it hasn't kept its promises—and that is very apparent after just one year of this government. None of the things the government promised Australians have come to pass. And despite their rhetoric about the coalition's time in government, the strength of the economy and the strength of the post-COVID recovery is a direct result of the support that the coalition provided to Australian businesses and to Australian workers through the pandemic so that they could stay attached to their job, they could keep their job, and that the businesses would survive. I don't know how many businesses I've been into where the proprietor has said to me, 'Our business would not have survived if it hadn't been for the support that your government gave to us through the pandemic.' I'm very proud of our record. I'm proud of the work we did to support the Australian people and the Australian economy through the pandemic. It was bloody hard work, but it has paid off. And you're seeing it in the strength of the economic indicators now. But what this government isn't doing through its budget is helping by reducing inflation. I was there two weeks ago when the Reserve Bank governor appeared before Senate estimates. He said quite clearly: 'This budget doesn't shift the dial. It doesn't make any difference, in the context of our terms, with what we're doing with interest rates.' If you're not helping, you're hindering. There is one element of the Labor Party's budget which is assisting with the inflation rate, and that's the support that is going into energy costs. I'm happy to put that on the record. The Labor Party often quote that. I suppose that's fair enough. What they don't quote is the next sentence that the Reserve Bank governor put on the record, which is, 'When those supports end, they're inflationary.' So in 12 months time, the removal of supports for energy costs will become inflationary at the time we'll be looking to see reductions in interest rates through the other efforts of the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank is being left to do all the heavy lifting because the government is doing none in its budget. The Reserve Bank is being left to do all the heavy lifting. At the same time the government has the unions out there beating up on the Reserve Bank governor, because it isn't prepared to do the work it should be doing in helping to reduce inflation. It's not just one person's job. It's not just the Reserve Bank governor's job to work on reducing inflation. The government needs to be playing its role too. The Reserve Bank governor said that the government's budget is not shifting the dial—it's not helping; it's hindering—because they're not doing their own job. Question agreed to. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Hanson-Young, the order of business construction prevents me from continuing with the take-note debate. However, by leave you could move a motion and make a statement. Mining Industry 62 15:30 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to the mining industry. Overnight comments were made by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. They were his strongest comments yet calling out the fossil fuel industry and the damage it is doing to our planet and our climate. Of course, Mr Guterres has pleaded with countries like Australia to stop fossil fuel expansion—to keep coal, gas and oil in the ground. He warned that we are hurtling towards disaster with our eyes wide open, wishfully thinking that new technology will somehow solve the problem when, in fact, the problem is coal and gas—fossil fuels. It comes at the same time as the government's own peak body in charge of the Murray-Darling, our greatest river system, is warning that climate change is going to have a dramatic effect on flows in our river. As a South Australian I am deeply concerned that our mighty Murray is facing such collapse in the future because of the damage of climate change. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority, CSIRO, the UN and the Greens are all on the same page here. We have to stop the climate crisis. We have to leave coal and gas in the ground. If you want to save the River Murray, you have to stop fossil fuels. Question agreed to. NOTICES 62 NOTICES Presentation 62 BUSINESS 63 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 63 15:33 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for personal reasons: (a) Senator Ciccone for 15 and 16 June 2023; and (b) Senator Sterle for today. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 64 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 64 15:33 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 64 Membership 64 15:34 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The President has received a letter requesting changes in the membership of a committee. 15:34 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales by leave—I move: That Senator Duniam replace Senator Hughes on the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and a related bill and Senator Hughes be appointed as a participating member. Question agreed to. BILLS 64 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024 64

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024

First Reading 64 15:35 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 65 15:35 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech es read as follows— APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 1) 2023-2024 The 2023-24 Budget builds stronger foundations for a better future. This bill, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024, along with Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024 are the principal ills underpinning the Government's Budget. Appropriation Bill 1 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of over $146 billion. Funding provided through this Bill will support the following significant items. The Defence portfolio will receive over $40 billion, including $38 billion for the Department of Defence to support the Government's response to the Defence Strategic Review, including for nuclear-powered submarines, long-range strike capabilities, strengthening northern bases, workforce growth and retention, innovation, and regional partnerships. The Australian Signals Directorate will receive over $1.5 billion to continue to deliver on the Government's foreign signals intelligence and cyber security objectives, including through Project REDSPICE. The Social Services portfolio will receive over $38 billion, with most of the funding provided for the National Disability Insurance Agency to provide reasonable and necessary supports for National Disability Insurance Scheme participants. Services Australia will receive over $4.5 billion to ensure Australians receive government payments including natural disaster, health and social welfare payments, and to support other government agencies to deliver Government priorities through ICT investments to strengthen Medicare, aged care, and sustain the myGov platform. The Department of Health and Aged Care will receive just over $17 billion to implement various programs to ensure the current and future health needs of all Australians are met through the delivery of evidence-based health policy, improved access to comprehensive and coordinated health care, and protection of the health and safety of the Australian community. The funding will also support older Australians who need assistance and improve opportunities for community participation in sport and recreation. Over $4.1 billion will be provided for aged care services; approximately $1.8 billion for the health workforce; approximately $1.5 billion for mental health; just over $1.3 billion for health protection, emergency response and regulations; and over $1.2 billion for First Nations people health. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will receive close to $6.5 billion to advance Australia's international strategic and security interests including through continued enhanced engagement across Southeast Asia and the Pacific, with the aim of increasing trade and investment opportunities, protecting international rules, and keeping our region safe. The Treasury portfolio will receive close to $6 billion, with over $4 billion provided for the Australian Taxation Office to administer the taxation and superannuation systems. This includes new funding to support government election commitments, including to implement a global minimum tax and domestic minimum tax for large multinational enterprises and to increase the frequency of superannuation guarantee payments; implement the Government's policy to increase the concessional tax rate for superannuation balances above $3 million; and to extend and enhance major tax compliance taskforces. The Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts portfolio will receive $5.4 billion, including approximately $2.7 billion for the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts for departmental functions and regional development grants programs included in the Responsible Investment to Grow Our Regions measure and other grants programs. The Department of Home Affairs will receive over $5 billion to implement various programs to ensure Australia's security, prosperity and unity by safeguarding national security interests and improving cyber security and security of critical infrastructure assets, enabling economic growth and maintaining Australia's cohesive multicultural society. The funding will also enable the Department of Home Affairs to continue to reform the migration framework and maintain the integrity of the migration system, sustain visa processing capability, provide settlement services to refugees and migrants and protect the Australian border. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations will receive $4.7 billion, including $2.3 billion to support vocational education and training and $2.3 billion to support employment services. Appropriation Bill 1 also contains an Advance to the Finance Minister (AFM) provision of $400 million to provide the Government with the capacity to allocate additional appropriations for urgent and unforeseen expenditure. Since March 2020, the AFM provisions in annual Appropriation Acts have been set at an extraordinary level, primarily due to the unique and evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2023-24 Bills return the AFM provisions to conventional levels as the Australian governments have agreed to a strategic framework to support the transition of measures and policies to a sustainable COVID-19 steady state. These measures should reduce the potential call on AFM provisions in the future and a specific AFM provision for COVID-19 or other national emergency response is no longer required. Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill, the Explanatory Memorandum, and the Portfolio Budget Statements previously tabled in the Parliament. I commend this Bill to the chamber. APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 2) 2023-2024 Appropriation Bill 2 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of approximately $28 billion, incorporating decisions from the 2023-24 Budget. I now outline the most significant items provided for in this Bill. The Department of Defence will receive nearly $12 billion which will support the implementation of the Government's response to the Defence Strategic Review, including major investments in military capabilities, as well as enabling ICT capabilities and infrastructure. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water will receive close to $9 billion, primarily for Rewiring the Nation to continue expanding and modernising Australia's electricity grids at lowest cost, unlocking new renewables and storage capacity and driving down power prices. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts will receive approximately $4 billion, including funding for Government Business Enterprises to continue to deliver projects including the ARTC for the Inland Rail Program, WSA Co for Western Sydney International Airport and the NBN Co for the election commitment to Boost Fibre and Fast-Track the NBN Repair Job. Appropriation Bill 2 also contains an Advance to the Finance Minister (AFM) provision of $600 million to provide the Government with the capacity to allocate additional appropriations for urgent and unforeseen expenditure. Since March 2020, the AFM provisions in annual Appropriation Acts have been set at an extraordinary level, primarily due to the unique and evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2023-24 Bills return the AFM provisions to conventional levels as the Australian governments have agreed to a strategic framework to support the transition of measures and policies to a sustainable COVID-19 steady state. These measures should reduce the potential call on AFM provisions in the future and a specific AFM provision for COVID-19 or other national emergency response is no longer required. This Bill also sets the debit limits for payments under the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 that apply in 2023-24 and they are: $5 billion for general purpose financial assistance; and $35 billion for national partnership payments. Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedules to the Bill, the Explanatory Memorandum, and the Portfolio Budget Statements previously tabled in the Parliament. I commend this Bill to the chamber. APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 1) 2023-2024 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1 provides appropriations for decisions taken by Government in the 2023-24 Budget for the operations of Parliamentary Departments. This Bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of over $314 million. Funding provided through this Bill will support the following significant items of Parliamentary Departments. The Department of Parliamentary Services will receive over $250 million to support the work of the Australian Parliament, through services to parliamentarians and as custodians of Parliament House. This includes additional funding to alleviate accommodation pressures at Parliament House and to support the delivery of ICT services to other parliamentary departments. This Bill also includes an Advance to the responsible Presiding Officer (APO) of $1.9 million. Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill, the Explanatory Memorandum, and the Portfolio Budget Statements previously tabled in the Parliament. I commend this Bill to the chamber. Senator McALLISTER 121628 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023 66

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023

First Reading 66 15:36 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 67 15:36 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Australia's security environment is complex, challenging and changing. As threats to Australia evolve, so must Australia's response. We must out-think and out-manoeuvre those who seek to harm national interest; we must expand our capabilities; and we must sharpen our response. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023 (the Bill) contains a suite of amendments to: uplift and harden Australia's highest level of security clearance in response to the unprecedented threat from espionage and foreign interference; and drive shared initiatives and investments to improve interoperability and burden sharing as the Australian Government delivers critical national security capabilities. The reforms will implement a consistent approach across the Australian Government to issuing, maintaining and revoking Australia's highest level of security clearances. This will reduce the risk of compromise of trusted insiders, maximise the utility derived from shared services to create efficiencies, improve the mobility and agility of our highest cleared workforce and ensure the ongoing confidence of our most trusted allies. We have established a new national capability, comprising a national TOP SECRET vetting authority in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and a Quality Assurance Office in the Office of National Intelligence. This capability is underpinned by a new, classified standard for Australia's highest level of security clearance, known as the TOP SECRET-Privileged Access security clearance. This standard establishes stronger mandatory minimum security clearance requirements reflecting contemporary psychological and insider threat research. The national vetting authority in ASIO will be centrally responsible for issuing TOP SECRET- Privileged Access clearances, which over time will replace Positive Vetting clearances. The existing operations of those agencies currently responsible for Positive Vetting clearances will similarly be transitioned to ASIO in phases. Centralising Australia's highest-level security clearance vetting in ASIO leverages ASIO's security intelligence functions, holdings and capabilities to allow a holistic assessment of a person's suitability to hold such a clearance, having regard to the most current and accurate information about the security threats confronting Australia. Drawing on their expertise, ASIO's analysts assess all available information, and use structured analytical techniques to test, retest and contest their assumptions. The Quality Assurance Office in ONI will independently assure the quality, consistency and transferability of these security clearances, and drive the uplift of an insider threat capability for sponsors across the Commonwealth. Responsibility for the issue and management of lower-level security clearances, from Baseline to Negative Vetting Level 2, will remain unchanged. This means that the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency, known as AGSVA, will remain responsible for most of those clearances. The threat environment ASIO assesses that espionage and foreign interference is Australia's principal security concern. In his 2023 Annual Threat Assessment, the Director-General of Security noted that more Australians are being targeted for espionage and foreign interference than at any time in Australia's history. Foreign intelligence services are aggressively seeking secrets at all levels of Australian society—to name a few, through public service agencies, universities, defence industry and even through our journalists. They are targeting our security-clearance holders—those with access to Australia's most privileged information, capabilities and secrets. Whether it is information from Australia's intelligence community or our Five-Eyes partners, about Australia's ground-breaking nuclear powered submarines program with US and UK partners, or other advanced defence and intelligence capabilities, Australia's sovereignty demands that these be protected. We must ensure that those Australians who have access to these privileged insights are suitable to do so because we take security seriously. The reforms I bring forward today therefore put this Government at the forefront of efforts to protect our nation from espionage and foreign interference. Overview of the Bill The Bill will enable the operation of the national vetting capability in five key ways. First, the Bill will provide ASIO with a new function, and introduce a new Part IVA in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (the ASIO Act). ASIO's new function enables it to make security clearance decisions for ASIO and non-ASIO personnel alike, perform security vetting, and furnish advice to other authorised vetting agencies for lower-level security clearances issued by those agencies. Second, the reforms will enable persistent and more frequent, rather than point-in-time, validation and management of an individual's suitability to hold a security clearance. This in turn will enable: a stronger and more effective partnership and shared responsibility between ASIO and insider threat capabilities of sponsoring agencies; and an integrated, single point of truth about security clearance holders, empowering sponsors to responsibly manage their clearance holders. This reflects that security is a shared responsibility. Consent forms the foundation of this new function. Only people who have voluntarily applied for a security clearance and consented to the collection, use and sharing of their information will be affected. Third, the reforms will ensure that ASIO's use of these new powers is subject to stringent safeguards. The Bill will enshrine a robust framework allowing for merits review of ASIO's security clearance decisions and security clearance suitability assessments. With limited exceptions, those affected by ASIO's security clearance decisions will be eligible for internal review under a new statutory framework, as well as external merits review in either the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for existing security clearance holders and Commonwealth employees, or by an independent reviewer appointed by the Attorney-General for all other applicants. Fourth, the Bill will amend the Office of National Intelligence Act 2018 (ONI Act) to provide ONI with a new function to drive the uplift of insider threat capabilities across the Commonwealth, and independently assure the quality and consistency of TOP SECRET-Privileged Access security clearances. ASIO will continue to be overseen by the IGIS, who has powers akin to a Royal Commission. The IGIS will continue to review ASIO's activities to ensure the Organisation acts legally and with propriety, complies with ministerial guidelines and directives and respects human rights. Finally, to implement these reforms, the Bill will also amend the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986. Conclusion We must remember it is a privilege, not a right, to hold the highest level of Australian Government security clearance. These clearances are not titles or rewards—they come with serious on-going responsibilities with which we expect our clearance holders to comply. These reforms will ensure that Australia's security clearance framework is uplifted and hardened, and remains at the forefront of international best practice, in the face of a complex, challenging and changing security environment. Senator McALLISTER 121628 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022 68

Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022

Returned from the House of Representatives 68 DOCUMENTS 68 DOCUMENTS Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 68 Order for the Production of Documents 68 BILLS 69 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 69

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023

Second Reading 69 15:41 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I would like to thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the additional estimates Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023. These bills seek authority from the parliament for additional expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the remainder of 2022-23. Passage of the bills will ensure continuity of the government's programs, provide for commencement of new activities agreed to by the government since the October 2022 budget and ensure the Commonwealth's ability to meet its obligations for the remainder of 2022-23 as they fall due. In introducing the bills, the government has already highlighted some of the more significant items provided for in these bills. The total of the appropriations sought through these three bills is approximately $5.7 billion. Once again, I thank all members for their contributions and commend these bills to the house. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I alert senators to the second reading amendment from the Greens, which I intend to now put. The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Cox be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:46]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 24 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 70 15:49 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading. 15:49 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That these bills be read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 70

Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023

Second Reading 70 15:50 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I'm pleased to be able to continue my remarks from earlier on this very, very important piece of legislation which is, as I said before, a once-in-a-generation choice that Australians are going to be making. Before I was interrupted I was commenting on what it is about this debate that concerns me most and how things have been happening in the media, in the public domain and, indeed, even in this chamber. The concern I hold is the reaction to those who seek further information, who question what it is we are now contemplating, who seek to understand to some level of depth what this proposal is all about. For example, people who express a concern about what might happen or who offer a different opinion, be it legal or otherwise, are labelled as racist, as irrelevant and, most recently, as peddlers of disinformation or misinformation. Even in this debate I've heard one colleague describe the Leader of the Opposition—who has, as I've already outlined in this contribution, been more than reasonable about how best to conduct this in a unifying and bipartisan way—as shameful. To me, it is a really dangerous step in a debate when we are labelling our opponents as something other than what they actually are and imputing motive to their comments. Similarly, we've heard colleagues—proponents of this idea of Voice and the associated constitutional enshrinement of that Voice—say inclusivity and reconciliation should not be seen as a threat. If we look at those words and consider what exactly has been proposed here, I'm not sure who is seeing those things as a threat. To suggest that is what senators in this place or members of the public believe to be a threat or a concern serves to conflate issues. It doesn't actually go to the heart of the issues that are being raised as concerns by members of this place, the other place or, indeed, the Australian public. Is what we are debating here, the referendum question that Australians will be contemplating this year, going to deliver those things—reconciliation and inclusivity? To my mind the answer is no, it will not be addressing those issues. It will not be providing those elements that have been referred to as the outcomes of a voice being enshrined in the Constitution by proponents of it. It will not deliver those things. We all know that reconciliation as a concept has two key parts to it: one, on the part of one party, is repentance and a desire for forgiveness; the other, on the part of the other party, is a willingness to forgive and move on. I fear that in this debate we will not be seeing at least one of those elements appear, no matter what we do at this referendum. Will it change things? I suspect not. Respect is a very important trait when it comes to Australian society. In discourse on issues, whatever they might be—and this should be no exception—having respect for multiple views and, of course, the reasons and the lived experiences underpinning those views is incredibly important. We know in this debate that there are a range of views on this issue, on the best way forward and on the proposal before us. As I've already mentioned, as a member of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 2018, which did its work some five years ago, I know there are a great many views out there that are divergent in nature. Receiving 18 different proposals for constitutional recognition from submitters as part of the work of that committee indicates just how varied the views are about how best we get to where we want to go. What Australians do at this referendum is going to be critically important. The reason for that, of course, is that what we decide upon, particularly if the answer is 'yes', is going to be permanent. Once this is enshrined in the Constitution, it cannot be undone. The effect of this body is unspecified and unknown, and whatever that outcome is—whatever shape it takes—will be part of our future. That can't be undone. As Senator Scarr said in his contribution last night, there's no detail to inform Australians of exactly what it is, ultimately, that we will be putting in place. Senator Scarr 282997 The bill has 303 words. Senator DUNIAM 263418 As Senator Scarr said, the bill has 303 words. This is an alteration to our Constitution that we are giving the green light to here—if, of course, the referendum succeeds. Three hundred and three words are not detail enough to satisfy the questions and concerns of not just the opposition but a great many Australians who actually want to be treated with respect in this debate. To that end, what will this Voice do? It is a key question I have been asking as this debate has been conducted in the community. Is it going to fix the problems that we know exist in Indigenous Australian communities? Is it going to resolve those issues that have dogged parts of our community for so long? Is it going to address fetal alcohol spectrum disorder? Will it address incarceration rates? Is it going to improve education outcomes? Will it improve health outcomes? Will it increase life expectancy? If the answer is 'yes' to any of those things, I think Australians deserve a clear demonstration of exactly how what is being proposed here takes us to that end point. If that is the case then it's a very easy sales pitch. My fear, though, is that none of the above will happen. In preparing for my contribution here, I've been reading a book by Peter Sutton entitled The Politics of Suffering. It's a book which is quite interesting, I have to say, in terms of contemplating the matters we are considering as a parliament. The foreword, interestingly enough, is written by Professor Marcia Langton. In his book, Mr Sutton says: We have long been told that the emotional and physical health of Indigenous people will not improve until their social justice and property justice and treaty needs and formal Reconciliation needs and compensation needs have been met, and, by implication, that the heart of the people's problems and solutions lies in politics and law. By definition, those who deliver the people from extraordinary levels of rage, fear, anxiety, neglect, malnutrition, infection, diabetes, renal failure, sexual abuse, assault and homicide will thus allegedly be politicians, barristers and political activists. This unscientific mumbo jumbo beggars belief. It relies on a kind of magical cause-and-effect relationship, as if a treaty between 'races' will keep children safe in their beds at night. Mr Sutton, of course, notes that pragmatism, rather than ideology, is central to resolution of these issues, and I tend to agree with his assessment. Of course, there is that other 'fear campaign', as it's being labelled: what does it mean for the operation of government? It's that question around what it, in effect, means when it comes to the issue of advice to the executive. What implications are there for the business of government—the ordinary function of the administration of the Commonwealth of Australia—if advice is not taken and followed? The answer is that we don't know. There are many varied legal opinions out there, and the only people that can actually deliberate upon this, of course, are going to be judges of the High Court of Australia. That is something that I think people cannot walk past. There is no clear answer on that. While I am on this, I will refer to evidence provided by the late David Jackson AM, KC, who, in his submission to the inquiry on the matter we are deliberating upon now, says at paragraph 7: Greater potential difficulty is provided by the phrase "subject to this Constitution" in proposed s 129(3). That usage would ordinarily cause no difficulty, but one provision which would be likely to fall within it would be the proposed s 129(2). If a law made pursuant to s 129(3) had the effect that the Voice (however constituted under s 129(3)) was not empowered to make a representation of the nature referred to in s 129(2), the relevant provisions enacted pursuant to s 129(2) would be invalid. I think it is important to not ignore that as we consider the question before us. To the issue of judges, I think what happened in New South Wales in recent times—where one colleague from the other place, Mr Conaghan, the member for Cowper, made his contribution to the parliament and received correspondence from a justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Ian Harrison—indicates that these judges, who will be deliberating on the very questions that have come up in the committee work, are one of two things: either judges are human beings with emotions and opinion or, perhaps even worse, judges can at times be activists for a particular cause. Either way, it is important to note that there is an element of risk associated with this that we cannot just ignore and walk past. In the remaining time I have, I want to turn to the final issue I take with this, and that is this basic principle that most of us, if not all of us, ascribe to, which is that we all have equality before the law—be it ascribing to article 7 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, of course, points to the fact that, no matter what colour, creed, religion or any other attribute you might have, you are and should be equal before the law. We've signed up to that. So it makes me wonder why we are going down this path and encouraging Australians to vote yes to something that will, in effect, in my view, remove that equality before the law. We are creating a special entity that will confer special rights and privileges on a particular group in our society because of their racial heritage. As I said before, Australians are being asked to make perhaps the biggest decision that they will need to make in this generation. I am simply asking Australians to stop and to think about the implications of the decision before them. Research the questions being thrown out there. Don't dismiss them as irrelevant, out of touch, racist or disinformation. See what it means for the future of the country, for your children, for your neighbours, and make your decision on that basis. I know I will be voting no in the referendum, but I will support Australians having their say. (Time expired) 16:02 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I rise to show my support for this important bill before us today, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. This support begins with the acknowledgement of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri elders and knowledge-holders who have paved the way for those here now, those following proudly in their footsteps and those yet to come as custodians and owners of country. I also acknowledge Whadjuk country as my home base, where I live and care for and maintain continuing reciprocal relationships with all who share this land. Sovereignty has never been ceded. It always was and always will be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land. I recognise the resilience and strength of all First Nations people of Australia and appreciate their knowledge-sharing and stories that influence the lives of many new Australians like me. Time and time again, we hear the acknowledgement of country. We all understand that it is an integral part of our identity as Australians. We recognise the richness of over 60,000 years of history, culture and knowledge that have shaped us into the nation we are today. For too long the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been relegated to the fringes of our political discourse. Their rich culture, deep wisdom and unique perspectives have been overshadowed or dismissed, perpetuating a cycle of marginalisation and inequality. But it is time for us to break free from this cycle and forge a new path founded on mutual respect, understanding and unity. The Uluru Statement from the Heart stands as a testament to the resilience and determination of First Nations people. It embodies their collective aspirations for a fairer and more inclusive Australia, one that recognises their values and their unique place in our shared history. It calls for a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament, a mechanism that will empower Indigenous communities to have a say in the laws and policies that affect them directly. As a senator and representative of the people, it is my duty to listen to and amplify the voices of those who have been unheard for far too long. The Uluru statement resonates with me on a personal level. It speaks to the core beliefs of justice, equality and the power of genuine reconciliation. It reminds us that our nation's true strength lies in embracing the diversity of our people, nurturing our collective heritage and learning from one another. It was Senator Patrick Dodson, the father of reconciliation, who said: Australians must understand their own philosophies of equity and honour and mateship and live up to those. And that has to fly across the board. Fear should be the failure to create a united nation within our nation: one that has moved its goalposts a bit to accommodate the First Nations' aspirations. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a powerful call to action. It represents the voices of First Nations people across Australia and outlines three key messages: voice, truth and treaty. The first step is holding a referendum to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Constitution as an advisory body that will ensure Indigenous perspectives are heard and considered in decision-making processes that impact their lives and create real, practical change. In my first speech I said I would embrace the slogan 'Nothing about us without us', and this should apply to First Nations people. The voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people need to be heard when it comes to matters that impact their lives. Senator Dodson has also reminded us that without Indigenous participation closing the gap is 'going to be doomed to fail'. Data released by the Productivity Commission yesterday indicated that only four out of 19 Closing the Gap targets are on track. Although there have been slight improvements, the lack of progress is frustrating. And I agree with Minister Burney's statements that 'The gap is not closing fast enough,' and 'The Voice will create structural change that will ensure that grassroots voices are heard in Canberra.' By establishing an advisory body that informs parliament on matters that directly affect First Nations communities, their wellbeing and their future will be taking a significant step towards reconciliation, healing the wounds of the past and building a stronger and more inclusive Australia. Through the history of Australia since Federation, horrific violence against First Nations people has been disguised, covered up or ignored by governments. But there is unfinished business that the Uluru Statement from the Heart seeks to address. In 1967, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were counted. In 2017, they sought to be heard. And, in 2023, the Australian people will vote on a voice. Influential voices across parties, across borders and across the nation have worked tirelessly in advocating for this simple yet very powerful step. From Ken Wyatt to Nova Peris, from Professor Marcia Langton to Thomas Mayo, from the corporations to sporting codes, from grassroots organisations to neighbours on the same street, the invitation from Uluru was to the people of Australia. It will be a people's referendum, and, if it's successful, our nation will be stronger. If not now, then when? This government is committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and this bill before the Senate is the first formal step to honour our commitment and is a mark of our respect for the First Nations people of Australia. It's important that we talk about the Voice, what it will be and the principles it will follow, because it is for people to decide—one, the Voice will give recognition to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution; (2) the Voice will give independent advice to the parliament and government; (3) members of the Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities; (4) the Voice will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities, gender balanced and include youth, and be chosen from each of the states, territories and Torres Strait Islands; (5) the Voice would consult with grassroots communities and regional entities; (6) it will also be accountable and transparent and work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures; (7) the Voice will not have a veto power. Let us remember that recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the custodians of Australia is not an act of charity; it is an act of justice. We must acknowledge their enduring connection to the land, their vibrant cultures, their significant contributions and their ongoing struggles. By embracing the key messages of the Uluru Statement from the Heart we have an opportunity to create a future where all Australians can walk together in unity. In order for us to truly understand the impact of the Voice campaign, let me share with you the story of Narelle Henry. Narelle, a proud Noongar yorga woman who devoted her life to advocating for Indigenous rights and recognition, has seen first hand the struggles faced by her people and the urgent need for change. Narelle's story represents the countless stories of resilience and determination within the Indigenous community. For Narelle, the Voice campaign means empowerment. It means giving a Voice to those who have been silenced for far too long. It means recognising the wisdom, knowledge and unique perspective that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people bring to the table. The Voice campaign is about equality, respect and creating a future where every Australian—and I mean every Australian—has an equal opportunity to thrive. In showing support, Narelle is not alone. Last month 120 cultural organisations signed a joint resolution in support of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, and every day more and more grassroots organisations are standing with First Nations people and supporting the referendum. The joint resolution rightly describes the Voice as modest, practical and fair. The groups who have signed are from diverse backgrounds, including Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Greek, Vietnamese, Filipino, Sikh, Irish, Iranian, Sri Lankan, Italian, Indian and Chinese community groups. This demonstrates how unifying the Voice will be. At some point, we were all immigrants to this country or another. As a 28-year-old immigrant born in Afghanistan but calling Australia home and having the privilege of serving as a senator for Western Australia, I couldn't be more grateful to First Nations people for sharing their boodja. Migration is a deeply personal and transformative experience. It involves leaving behind one's own homeland, culture and often loved ones in pursuit of a better life and new opportunities. It requires courage, resilience and the ability to adapt to new surroundings. These aspects of migration mirror the experiences of First Nations people who have faced displacement, loss and the enduring struggle of recognition and justice. As immigrants, we have experienced first-hand the transformative power of being embraced by Australia and given the opportunity to contribute to its growth and prosperity. Let us extend that same embrace to First Nations people to ensure their voices are heard, their cultures are celebrated and their rightful place as custodians of this land is recognised in the Constitution. This reminds me of a recent conversation I had with one of the prominent imams in Perth, Shaykh Salmaan Parkar, who declared his support by stating: 'I think enshrining the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in parliament is a powerful and necessary move. It unlocks empowerment, rectifies historical injustices, strengthens democracy, promotes cultural competence and unites our nation.' I am so proud of the support from immigrant communities who use their diversity to promote harmony and inclusion, who use their collective power to advocate for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, and who understand that closing the gap is everyone's responsibility. Seeing grassroots communities come together to support the Voice gives me so much hope. I know Australians have room in their hearts for the Voice. I commend the bill to the Senate. 16:14 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia So many voices but not enough listening—ironically, isn't that why this all got started? I will vote yes to assist the passage of this bill. I remain, however, against the constitutional amendment being put to the Australian people. This is perhaps one of the most important bills we will likely debate in this place. The amendment is not just a simple tweak; it's a whole new section within the nation's founding document. The 'yes' narrative suggests that this amendment is a pathway to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and it comes with aspiration and great promise. Those opposite, Voice architects and Voice advocates have acted as if changes to the Constitution about Indigenous matters are somehow only for Indigenous people. The Constitution, however, belongs to everyone, every Australian equally. I've stayed true to my first speech in this place; I have listened—not to the loudest, not to the most resourced, not to the most organised, but to all the voices. I share with you the contribution of respected voices, respectful voices, culturally authorised voices and existing elected local voices. Only a week ago, senior custodians of Uluru-Kata Tjuta, the vast Anangu-Pitjantjatjara-Yankunytjatjara lands straddling the NT, WA and South Australia trusted me, their elected representative, to speak their own torment. They described deception, suspicions, scepticism and disappointment with the Voice concept, the Voice conversation and the conduct in the path of the bill to this place. This was their very deep concern for all Australians, whatever the result. They wanted to talk straight. They wanted to correct the record. They asked that I use my voice to amplify their voice. They found a way, the right way, to get their voice heard in Canberra. It is my responsibility as their elected member to represent constituents in this place respectfully, regardless of race, wealth, age, religion, gender or sexuality. Rightly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples hold a special place in our nation as descendants of the world's oldest culture. With up to 70,000 years of connection, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have special rights and interests in many matters that directly affect them—and they should. I also agree that, with special rights and interests in matters that affect them, they should be consulted, because that approach will likely lead to better creation, administration and delivery of policy for them. This proposal, however, is an over-reach, and the reason for permanency of the Voice in the Constitution is simply not good enough. Mr Murray George, Mr Clem Toby, Mr Owen Burton and Mr Trevor Adamson have thought deeply about the local and national implications of going so public. They have not been driven by money or popularity, and there is no malice. There is just speaking their truth. They want you to know they feel great sadness. They feel deceived, disrespected and ignored. They are gutted that their most sacred place continues to be used for political and promotional purpose. They don't see their hopes and dreams delivered by the Voice, but they know Australians want and can do better. In cities, towns, pubs and clubs and in polite and not-so-polite conversations, they know the debate, the rhetoric and the hysteria will continue, yet at referendum they will be voting no. Uluru is so much more than a magnificent 500-million-year-old sandstone monolith. It is their spiritual and cultural heart. It is their centre of everything. In the Anangu-Pitjantjatjara language, there is only one Uluru—just one. It is not a canvas. It is not a statement. It is not an artefact. It is not a political tool or campaign tool, nor does it speak of a point in time or come with a date. Unless you have been listening carefully, you can't possibly have learnt this. That brings me to their other issue, representation. Tension about the much publicised Statement from the Heart has been simmering since its creation—yes, since its emergence in 2017. What has turned up the temperature is the recent return of the 'yes' campaign for Uluru for a well-publicised anniversary event and the frenzied use of the word 'Uluru' as this campaign escalates. Uluru is not an airport. That's why the nearby airport is called Ayers Rock Airport. Uluru is not a tourism resort. That's why the nearby resort is called Yulara. The statement itself and the proposition it speaks to is, in their own words, divisive. In the words of Murray George: 'That canvas now is causing a lot of problems for us. If I could only get my hands on it I would burn it.' The Statement from the Heart has been used and is being used to transmit a message of support that they argue, actually, misrepresents them. Three of these men went to the referendum dialogues in 2017 because they wanted to hear what was happening and they were honoured, truly honoured, as they always are, to have been asked to perform a traditional dance on their country. They recall signing an attendance register but they say that is where their association with the Voice ended. In the words of Mr Trevor Adamson: 'We didn't sign that we were happy for this to go ahead. There was no way we agreed.' I've also heard from women surprised to see their signatures on the statement, unhappy that their attendance and consultation is likely to be interpreted as consent. But they were not prepared to come out publicly. In my home state of South Australia, the first state to go forward with a state based voice, I had many complaints about its public consultation process before that bill was passed. In South Australia, Aboriginal people have, for some 10 years, been recognised eloquently in the state constitution, and earlier this year the state Labor government legislated its state voice. We've been told a majority of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community will vote 'yes', but the evidence is simply not there. A number circa ten thousand, maybe even tens of thousands, could be quoted to affirm this position. Compare that, though, with ABS data that puts the Indigenous population at just under one million. The 270-plus page report to consider models by eminent Professors Calma and Langton received nearly 3,000 submissions of which only four per cent were Indigenous. The reality is that it will be 96 per cent of the Australian population who will determine what is best for four per cent of the population, and, in this process to date, most of the four per cent have not even been asked. Like all Australians, they simply don't have the detail, just a bunch of principles. As an objector, I'm simply dismissed as a wrecker, mischievous and a Chicken Little, while others are caught in a redneck celebrity vortex or are bedwetters. But at least I can tell you how I really feel. At least I recognise that there are alternative views from mine. I dismiss as absolutely absurd actions that seek to control and decided and embarrass people on whether anyone can have a voice about the Voice. Think for a minute of the corporate sporting clubs, organisations and companies eager to have publicly jumped on board to be seen as part of the vibe, and yet they don't even get a vote. So it is the Prime Minister has chosen, with unexplained urgency and with a still confused public, to go to referendum later this year. Maybe now is the right time or some truth-telling. In May 2023, the Prime Minister declared this as a modest request, but, more recently, he said it is modest no more. So, Prime Minister, tell the Australian public: which is it? Put simply, the proposition is constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians through an institutional mechanism called the Voice. Voice and constitutional recognition are not the same thing. The Prime Minister could have legislated for his version of voice and embedded recognition in the Constitution, but he chose not to. There was no room, no appetite, for compromise from Voice proponents, and the Prime Minister just did what they said. The proposition before us divides us. It introduces to the Australian Constitution greater access for advocacy of our parliaments and our institutions for one group of Australians over others exclusively. The Constitution provides the legal framework for how Australia is governed. Australians have, historically, been cautious about this, and we should be. That's because it matters for certainty and stability of government and its executive, and that should matter to each and every one of us. Since its creation in 1901, Australians have been asked 19 times to alter our founding document and only eight times have we voted to amend it. This time is not the right reason: it is not the right question, it is not the right words and it is not the right solution. So, publicly, I say no. And in the privacy of a ballot box, I will also say no. The Liberal Party has no objection to recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution, but not in the way this legislation does it. The Liberal Party, like all Australians, wants to see an improvement in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, but disagrees that this is the pathway to that. The Liberal Party agrees that we can, and should, all do better in listening and hearing the words and voices of people on matters that affect them, and so we focus on local and regional voices. The proposition, the parliamentary processes and the communication of this matter are flawed, and designed to confuse, cajole and guilt Australians in order to deliver a 'yes' result. I am told by those wise enough to have participated then, and on review of the available data, that despite what the 'yes' campaign might want you to believe, this is not anything like the 1967 referendum. Back then, a 90.7 per cent vote delivered a 'yes' result in every single state and territory. That, not this, is nation-building. In 2023, fuelled by a prime minister whose personal, professional and political investment in this has been on very public display, we're heading to a referendum with around a 50 per cent split. We're currently on a path, it seems, to a result that will be a nation divided, no matter what side gets the necessary vote. You've heard enough about the joint select committee's Liberal dissenting report. It's just unfortunate that we haven't had a constitutional convention to air some of these issues. There's no defensible reason for a rushed process. It was hamstrung by detail. There were differing—yes, conflicting—views amongst eminent legal experts. There was uncertainty and risk associated with, if adopted, unquantifiable risk and, if adopted, this would be permanent. Under the title 'Recommendations', there was just one: The Committee recommends that the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Taurus Straight Islander Voice) 2023 be passed unamended. I say that less accountability is not good for us for us politicians, or for program providers and bureaucrats—and no to the deferral of responsibility for all the solutions and the change to voice. In the world of Indigenous affairs, the words 'consulted, engaged, codesigned, collaboration' are increasingly commonplace. There are many commissioners, ambassadors, advocates, working groups, conventions and expert panels, and the task of providing advice to governments is their role. How does Voice replicate, interact or overlap? There are 11 federal parliamentarians and 15 state and territory parliamentarians who identify as Indigenous. They're from all political parties—noting that Labor and Greens don't have a monopoly on acting in the best interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. On the threat that an Australian 'no' vote will spell the death of reconciliation: that is simply not true. Reconciliation is everyone's responsibility; the work of reconciliation won't end regardless of the result, says its CEO. The Prime Minister could have done this differently; he could go back to the original proposition to legislate for Voice. He could refocus on the issues that matter most to Australians and the day-to-day reality of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who are impacted by issues of poverty, geography, responsibility and poor service delivery, and, as such, who are doing it harder than most. We now know that Uluru traditional owners, Mr Toby, Mr George, Mr Adamson and Mr Burton, draw on knowledge of land, law, culture, community and wisdom to conclude they will vote no. I am guided by my vote and my values of lean government, a bureaucracy of minimal interference, equality of opportunity and pursuit of opportunity for all Australians equally. I will vote no, knowing that this conversation has proven to me that, regardless of the vote, everyday Australians know we that we should have a renewed commitment that we must all do better. (Time expired) 16:29 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I rise to support this bill, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. Since being elected to this parliament almost seven years ago, I don't think there's been an issue that I have thought more about or had more conversations with colleagues, the community and First Nations people about than the Voice to Parliament. I want to mention Minister Burney, who's always been happy to talk and answer questions about this, and my senatorial colleagues Senator Stewart, Senator McCarthy and Senator Dodson, and their strength and advocacy as well. It's also enabled me to get to know Professor Megan Davis and Eddie Synot, who have dedicated a lot of their time, effort and energy to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and also Dean Parkin, who I have met on a number of occasions. For me, the Uluru Statement from the Heart coincided with not long after I was elected to parliament, so it's been a constant of my time in the Senate. I've always been interested in and followed its development since that time both in the parliament and through my party. I believe there is an historical and moral argument that justifies the Voice, but I think that's been well argued by many of my colleagues and others. I instead plan to focus on the practical, as, for me, that is the most important part of what this Voice will achieve. As I said, I've always been interested in how the Voice will work and what practical difference it can make. When I've been travelling, what I observe is: 'What can the Voice do for the people in Napranum, Hope Vale, the Torres Strait Islands or Lockhart River? What can it do to help the growing number of Indigenous and First Nations people who call South-East Queensland home?' I think it's the fastest-growing area of the country for First Nations people. Since forming government and taking on some new responsibilities, it's enabled me to broaden my experience and understanding of the challenge facing First Nations people, like the glaring disadvantages in education results. I spent a few days last week travelling around the Barkly region of the Northern Territory. I visited Tennant Creek, Ali Curung, An Bladder Witch and Arlparra. I was there to discuss the federal government's role in the Barkly Regional Deal. That deal was developed by the previous government after a tragic and horrific event that occurred. The response was a deal between three levels of government—the federal government, the Northern Territory government and the local council. It did not formally seek agreement from traditional owner groups. It has required a lot of hard work since to get that engagement from communities across the region. With what I observed at Tennant Creek, Ali Curung, An Bladder Witch and Arlparra, I can't help but conclude we would be making faster progress if these communities had a voice—and, yes, a permanent one, and one enshrined in the Constitution. This is what, for me, makes my experiences that I keep coming back to. It's how I see the ultimate question that will be resolved by this referendum. There are two options that are going to be available to you: recognition in the Voice so we can make a meaningful and practical difference to the lives of First Nations Australians; or the status quo, which equals more of the same. That is what is going to be on offer. The overwhelming majority of those opposing this bill are the same people who have been in power for the last decade. There is no substantial progress. I'm not suggesting that they weren't well-intentioned—governments of all persuasions have been well-intentioned—but improvements have not been made. Report after report, Closing the Gap statement after Closing the Gap statement, day after day, little progress, more words. Something has to change. Well-intentioned governments aren't achieving. I consider myself very practical. I think about the Voice in a practical way. The federal government is spending money to improve educational outcomes for First Nations Australians, to improve health outcomes for First Nations Australians, to reduce Indigenous incarceration. We are spending money in remote communities, like I observed last week. I could go on and on. Well-intentioned governments are going to continue to do this, but how can we expect a better outcome unless we do something different? The reality is: we can't. I believe the Voice can make a difference. It can make these well-intentioned governments more effective, improving outcomes and, at the end of the day, making for better government. All of Australia will benefit from this. I want to talk briefly about the campaign, because in my time here it's often been reflected that these big debates and big decisions in this chamber and in the broader community bring out the best of our civic discourse. There are already significant signs that this won't be the case with this debate, in this chamber and in the broader campaign. I like to think I understand campaigning and politics and understand that there are situations when campaigning takes on a brutal element. I hope that is not the case with this campaign, but I fear otherwise. I consider the selfless work of those First Nations Australians who undertook significant and meaningful consultation in the lead-up to the Uluru Statement from the Heart—the consensus-building, the patience in the face of a snail-paced government, and consistent advocacy from them. They deserve to be treated with respect. I understand that people are entitled to vote no and campaign for no. But I believe that this debate and the upcoming campaign deserve the best version of our civil discourse. Imagine understanding the history of the Voice and the dedication, passion and patience from those who've advocated for it and what they have done, and being aware that only four of the 19 Closing the Gap targets are on track, yet coming into this debate in this chamber and the broader community with slogans that truly belong in a substandard student union campaign. I'm not going to repeat them, but I would say this. If you don't know, find out more. You know whose voice it is: it's a First Nations voice that will make us a better country. I am confident that the majority of the Australian population think we can do better for First Nations Australians. The reality with this debate is that only one side is advocating for better prospects for First Nations people that Australians can embrace. For me it's simple: status quo, or improved outcomes. I am confident that the Australian people want improved outcomes. I support this bill and look forward to voting yes later this year. 16:37 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Like many in this place—indeed, like most Australians—I support constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians. In respect of the big changes our country has made: as Thomas Paine said, 'Time makes more converts than reason.' We have been discussing constitutional recognition for a long time. That is why I think Australians are ready, even eager, to achieve it. It's right that our foundational legal document reflects Australia's first culture and people. Australians have had more than enough time to consider and to agree with this—and the vast majority do. For many years this has also been the coalition's position and indeed the Labor Party's position also. It has broad community support, for the simple reason that acknowledging our history and Indigenous Australia's role in it is a simple statement of truth that should be reflected in our nation's birth certificate. So, it's right that we should seek, as former prime minister Tony Abbott said, to correct the great silence in our Constitution. This is not performative. As Julia Gillard said: The Australian Constitution is the foundation document of our system of government, but it fails to recognise the special place of our first Australians. In considering this, many have noted that the best way to ensure the success of a change to our Constitution, even one with significant support, is to have bipartisan consensus. This has always been our approach, because it is the proven successful method of changing our Constitution. Even Kevin Rudd conceded that the history of Australian referendums is that if you don't get bipartisan support they will go down. Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd all acknowledged the need and the method to achieving this necessary change, and I challenge anyone to find another thing that all three of those former prime ministers agree on. Any government must consider the task of taking the majority of people in a majority of states with them on a journey of change. However, the bill before us in the Senate today has not been the product of such a process. Instead we have a prime minister, his minister and a government that are more interested in their own success than the success of constitutional recognition. Labor has deliberately left the path of bipartisanship on this issue, and this will lead to a poor outcome. They've done this by adding to the question of constitutional recognition another issue that does not have bipartisan support and an idea that is yet to receive consensus among Australians—a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament and to the executive government. In doing so, they have been insincere in their actions and reaching in their rhetoric. We can see this insincerity and the lack of bipartisanship in their actions. First, they didn't consult before releasing the wording. Then they refused to provide voters with any of the traditional information on the question to help them cast their vote, in the form of a referendum pamphlet—something that, thank heavens, the coalition has ensured has been restored. Finally, they reduced themselves and this debate by name-calling—in particular, the Prime Minister to Julian Leeser, a man who has championed this cause over a lifetime of work. Telling him to have courage was a particularly low ebb. My colleague Mr Leeser has dedicated much of his career to this issue, and, true to the class and dignity of his character, he kept the aim of constitutional recognition, not his own interests, at the heart of his response. He said: In this referendum, the prime minister should be building bridges not throwing stones … All of us should consider the sincerity of the argument when the Prime Minister makes it in such a way. This isn't how you construct a sincere process, let alone a successful one. The Labor Party and no-one else have, by their own actions, by their choices, secured a poorer outcome in this referendum process. They are in fact risking constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians and they are risking progress on the fundamental cause of reconciliation. The question as it has been proposed by the government, without any concession or consideration, and the bill that is before us conflate two issues. The first is constitutional recognition; the second is a constitutionally enshrined voice. They have asked us to put to the Australian people that it is a two-for-one deal, take it or leave it. Now, it would be fine if this gamble placed at risk only their own political fate, but it doesn't. It gambles with our nation's foundational document, it gambles with the hopes of so many Indigenous Australians who are seeking recognition and it gambles with the future of our country's relationship with its past. As a Liberal and as a parliamentarian, I was elected to make sure that we provide the best legal framework our government can provide for our country, and I know that we as senators all take this duty very seriously. But this duty is highlighted to its zenith when considering the amendments to our foundational legal document. This is not a simple bill that will be considered easily on a Thursday afternoon with little debate, the consequences of which will be significant but perhaps not simply regulatory. This is a bill that asks us to question whether or not we would be happy for the generations who come after us to live with its consequences and whether our predecessors envisaged these changes in the formation of one of the most successful and prosperous constitutional democracies in the world. We may call ourselves 'the lucky country', but it's testament to our character of understatement that we do so, because our success has not been achieved by dumb luck and our future will not be secured by it. On those measures alone, I would say that the referendum question, as it's drafted, is a bad law. But the process of how this question has come to our chamber reinforces that—a process that has been run by a government that has said, 'Just close your eyes and trust us.' I say no. The Australian people expect more from us than just a blind gamble on their future and a roll of the dice on the past. They expect us to consider this question with regard to the severity and significance of the action that we are taking, not just with a punter's wink and grin. I can appreciate the passion and the emotion of those who believe that a voice to parliament is an answer to a problem we have long sought to solve. However, I expect that my position will be similar to many Australians'. My heart says, 'Yes, grasp the opportunity for constitutional recognition'—long in the waiting and quick in the taking—but in the end my head and my gut say no, because, no matter what the potential benefits, I can't support a poor proposition and I can't vote for this bad question that will create a bad law. We all want constitutional recognition, but, to do that, Labor is asking us to change our foundational legal document—with a bad law to get there. As my colleague Julian Leeser said, 'An all-or-nothing approach could deliver nothing.' This could deliver absolutely nothing. However, in considering what the 'all' could look like, we do not even have the detail. For this reason alone we know that it's a bad law from a bad process. For my part, I believe that this is a bad law for three very simple reasons. Firstly, it's a bad law because simple questions on its operation can't be answered, such as: Will the Voice be able to make representations to the Reserve Bank or to the Fair Work Commission? Will it be able to make representations on the appointment of judges by the executive? Will it be able to make representations before we declare war or before we sign a trade deal? And, without the core recommendation of the Calma-Langton report for local or regional voices, who will the national Voice be taking advice from? Even the questions of who will be eligible to serve as part of the Voice and will they be paid haven't been answered. To this extent, I know it would make a bad law, because, if you can't tell me how it will work, why should I vote for it? From time to time this place does pass bad laws—because we're not all-knowing or as wise as we like to think we are—but when that happens we can pass other laws that correct those errors; we amend laws to fix problems. However, in this case it's entirely different because changing our Constitution is not that simple. So this is a bad law because none of the unforeseen consequences will be able to be changed, for, if the referendum question is successful and we need to alter it, the fix won't be as simple as just passing a law through parliament; it will require a whole other referendum. The concepts of a new chapter in our Constitution, a new institution and a new mechanic—the Voice to Parliament—are not at all simple. There is a real and present risk of how these schemes will operate with the rest of our Constitution and how our system of government operates. As I said, this change is not simple. It's not a bill that, when unforeseen circumstances present themselves, we can simply revisit and come back to this place to change the law. This risk is heightened when government refuses to explain how it will work, so, to that extent, I know it is a bad law because you can't tell me how it will work and I can't change it later. So how can I possibly vote for it? Finally, this change will not simply alter the tax system or change the way we defend the country; it proposes fundamental changes to the way in which our country governs itself and the institutions that make up our democratic system. For all its faults—and it does have a few—our country is the envy of many. In 2021, Australia claimed four of the world's top 10 most liveable cities. We're ranked second for our healthcare security in the Global Health Security Index and third for our healthcare system in the Commonwealth Fund. On the OECD Better Life Index, Australia ranks first for civics engagement; second for education, housing and health; fifth for environment; and sixth for income. Our life expectancy is higher than the OECD average. Our sense of community is higher than the OECD average, as are our educational outcomes for girls and the number of citizens who complete secondary school. Our Constitution, stable liberal democracy, institutions, rule of law and Westminster system of government have all contributed to the progress and prosperity of our country for over 100 years. This is a bad law because it will fundamentally change the institutions that have created and protected one of the most stable constitutional democracies in the world—Australia. If you can't tell me how it will work, if I can't change it later and if it risks what we have, why would I vote for it? How could I vote for it? The Liberals will vote to ensure that the Australian people get an opportunity to have their say—don't worry about that. They'll have their say in this referendum and they'll have their say on this proposed question. It's just such a shame that Labor has established and run this process it has. I am genuinely worried that it will risk the constitutional recognition that we need in this country and it will risk the process of reconciliation. Australians will have a say in this referendum, but it will be an empty referendum—empty on the promise for proper process, empty on the promise of detail of the change, empty on the promise of a better future for Indigenous Australians and empty on the promise of constitutional recognition. Its emptiness will only be contrasted with the arrogance of this government in pursuit of its own glory; its Prime Minister's inability to compromise and to find consensus; and the Labor Party's obsession with politics over progress. 16:50 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I put my hand up for the Senate because I saw problems in my Territory and across the country and I wanted to put the work in to help the marginalised people they were impacting—particularly the Indigenous issues that activists, academics and elites have no interest in actually solving. But today I do not rise to speak about those issues. Today I am forced to speak about what is at its core a multi-year distraction from this government's complete lack of a plan and complete inaction in addressing those real issues. Today I rise to speak about Labor's Voice. Over the last few days I have sat this place and heard empty platitude after empty platitude, virtue signal after virtue signal, paying of respect for First Nations Australians, cries for reconciliation and of course acknowledgement after acknowledgement. The term 'first nations' was appropriated from countries like Canada where it has been used in reference to native Canadians. It is out of context here. When used in Australia it only fuels the story of division and suggests classes of Australians exist—from those who are descendants of Aboriginal Australians to those who arrived later, whether they be early settlers, convict descendants or migrants, both historical and recent. Through their Voice the Albanese government now seeks to constitutionally enshrine that class division in our nation's founding document. I am asked regularly by everyday Australians who are not of Aboriginal descent where they are supposed to fit in if the referendum is successful. Australians who have been here for generations, Australians who have left their families in other parts of the world and even Australians who have escaped their war-torn country of birth to call this great country home are left wondering if they are somehow less Australian. Aboriginal Australia is now venerated, romanticised, revered and consistently acknowledged ad nauseam. Reconciliation isn't romanticising culture and Aboriginal spirituality, but that is what I have witnessed throughout this debate. Reconciliation shouldn't be making demands from the non-Indigenous community as if they are responsible for the lives of Aboriginal Australians to no end. Reconciliation is about creating understanding and sharing in practical terms where both sides contribute meaningfully in good faith for the betterment of all. Guilt politics is not reconciliation. Name calling, gaslighting and bullying Australians into submission is not reconciliation. I've said it before and I'll say it again—I've had a gutful of being acknowledged. I know only too well that these acknowledgements have nothing to do with me or any other Aboriginal person being recognised. They are nothing more than a display of virtue- and clout-seeking by the acknowledger. The Voice has been pitched to the Australian people as a generous gift or offering from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Australia to the rest of the country. Plainly, obviously and unquestionably this statement is false. Let's talk about the Uluru Statement from the Heart for a moment because I'm sorry, Senator Wong, but your invitation to participate in the Uluru Statement from the Heart has come far too late. The Uluru statement was the result of a closed process of activists and academics and signed by just 250 unelected people after just 12 regional consultations. So, 12 consultations with 1,200 hand-picked—invite only—unelected individuals who participated in the Uluru Dialogue. But there were 811,528 of us who were not invited to attend. And of that 250 who did, we've learned today from my colleague Senator Liddle that some signatories, Anangu elders themselves, didn't even know exactly what they were signing. One of the very reasons I chose to stand to be elected to this parliament was because I have witnessed the exploitation of culture and Aboriginal people, people whose first language is not English, being exploited for political purposes. That is exactly what is going on here. When activists, academics and elites descended on Uluru they were exploiting a landmark of significance to only a few, including my own Walpiri people. If this is about respecting culture then let's talk about spirituality and culture, shall we? My great-grandfather marla jukurrpa was a senior law man for the marla Dreaming of the rufous hare-wallaby men. This Dreaming story travels from Walpiri country, south all the way to the base of Uluru. We Walpiri have a direct spiritual connection to Uluru, unlike people across from me here and major Voice proponents like Noel Pearson, Marcia Langton and Megan Davis. The Anangu and the Walpiri are connected as kin through marla jukurrpa. But a Walpiri signatory to the Uluru Statement from the Heart does not exist. No-one across this chamber has a clue about real spiritual connections. These platitudes, statements of grandeur and so-called respect are purely for the purpose of exploitation. They have exploited Uluru by attempting to make it symbolic of all Indigenous Australians. There are nearly one million Indigenous Australians from more than 300 individual language groups, each with their own similar but unique customs, traditions and beliefs; each with their own significant landmarks and stories. No single person, no single party, no government department and no so-called advisory body could hope to speak on behalf of all of them, nor hope to adequately represent the broad range of opinions, beliefs and values held by such a large and diverse population. This is why we have our one person, one vote system. Individuals have the right to put their own hand up for election or to vote for the candidate they believe best represents their views. Under that system, based on fairness and equality, there are 11 Indigenous voices which the Australian people have democratically elected to this parliament. Those 11 voices did not get here because they are Indigenous, but because of their views and hard work. No matter what you might hear from certain media elites who believe some of us are simply the diversity pick, those 11 voices come from five different parties and an Independent; they come from five states and a territory; they come from different walks of life and different backgrounds; they are individuals. As the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, I speak today on behalf of the Indigenous Australians who have no faith in this government, no faith in the Voice proposal and no faith in those who advocate for it. I speak on behalf of the Aboriginal Australians being robbed of their rights by land councils and other so-called advocacy groups while this Labor government watches on in silence. I'm here to amplify the voices this Labor government is already failing to notice, actively silencing or simply ignoring. Those voices know that this proposal is little more than a power grab, a Trojan horse of nice-sounding ideas that threaten to undermine the values of equality and fairness that Australians hold so dear; a proposal that is dangerous, divisive and costly; it's full of unknowns and, worst of all, it will be permanent. It's dangerous because it undermines our 'one person, one vote' system, giving the privilege of an extra say to one group of people. There are those who, incredibly, claim that a constitutionally enshrined mandate for a race based body to be heard on any issue it wants, with the possibility of High Court legal challenges if it feels it isn't heard, is somehow not a special right for people of that race. But it is an extra say. It is an additional opportunity to be heard and listened to by the government that no other group has. Some claim that this is simply an advisory body, the same as many industries, businesses and organisations have, but there is no constitutional mandate for the government to listen to any other lobby group. All of them can be ignored, but the Voice can't be. As one advocate for the Voice said, 'You won't be able to shut the Voice up.' The government should not be obliged to listen to any one group—only to the people who have the opportunity to vote for a new representative every three years. The Voice is a costly mistake at a time when Australians are hurting financially because of this government's failures. They now want to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on a referendum—not even the Voice body itself, which will come with another price tag. Right now, they're spending $360 million on a referendum to divide Australians. No-one can deny that the Voice is divisive. From the moment the suggestion was put forward and from the moment the Prime Minister announced his intention to hold a referendum, the process of division was underway. Make no mistake, this Voice has already divided Australians, and it is still dividing Australians every day. Without a single vote cast, this referendum has done more damage to the fabric of our nation than any other, and it will get worse. It has to be one of the most audacious claims in the history of this place for Labor to say that creating a body to represent people of just one racial heritage is somehow 'unifying' for all Australians. It's absurd to give one racial group a right held by no others and then claim that this is actually bringing us all together. This proposal is so divisive that even the 'yes' campaigners are divided against themselves. Australians do not want to be split, segregated and categorised by race. They want to be one together, not two divided. Of course, this Labor government and 'yes' campaigners say we need to take race out of this debate. Yes—after suggesting a race based constitutional amendment, they are now demanding that those who oppose it don't make it about race. They tell us to keep the debate about the proposal itself. But what is the proposal? What do we actually know? We know that it would make an advisory body for one racial group. We know that it would have the power to make representations to government. We know that experts, even many who were in favour of the Voice, have warned that the wording this Labor government is moving forward with could lead to legal challenges and hold-ups that could bring government to a grinding halt. We also know that this government refuses to give any details about how the Voice would be implemented. They won't tell us how it would work, who would serve on it or how they would be selected. 'They're going to pick people from their own communities in their own cultural way.' Okay. How many people would be on it and how much more would it cost the taxpayer? Time and time again, Australians have asked in good faith for more detail, and each time we're told to blindly trust this government. We're being asked to sign a blank cheque and trust them to spend it right, but, between their lies and inaction, this government has given us absolutely no reason to in fact trust them. If Australians decide to trust this government and agree to their Voice, it will be a permanent change. It will be a mistake, and it cannot be undone. We must remember that governments have gotten things wrong before. We have created and shut down bodies and organisations that were unable to do what they promised to do. Now they're asking us to put one with no detail in the Constitution forever. The Constitution is our nation's rule book. It should not be messed with. It should not be permanently altered without serious consideration or a detailed proposal. But that's what Australians are being asked to do. The Voice is built on lies, and the worst lie is that marginalised Aboriginal Australians have no agency and that they can only succeed, can only move on from our nation's historical injustices, through a transfer of power to the elite of an industry that has thrived on their disadvantage. The Voice is just the first step in forever altering our nation. The Labor government has committed to the Uluru statement in full, which means truth telling and treaty. Truth telling—an attempt to rewrite Australia's history. Treaties—deals being made with Indigenous groups to hand over resources and hundreds of millions of dollars or more. The Voice is just the beginning. The Voice is the trojan horse to usher in even more radical changes to our country, and we can't allow that to happen. We can't allow our democracy to be undermined, we can't allow Australians to be divided and we can't allow this government to continue its multiyear-long distraction from the real issues that are going on unaddressed. That's why I'll be voting no to the Voice and urging all Australians to say no too. We have real issues, real problems that need real solutions, and we need them now. The Voice is no way to it. That's why I'm voting no. 17:05 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I rise to make my contribution on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I think I drew the short straw in speaking after Senator Nampijinpa Price. I'll see what I can do. I was watching one of my favourite movies a couple of weeks ago. It's called Bridge of Spies, and it is about a lawyer, James B Donovan, who's defending a Russian spy at the height of the Cold War. He's in a conversation with someone from the CIA—James B Donovan being Irish American and the CIA guy being of German heritage, actually. Think about that in the late fifties or early sixties, at the height of the Cold War. The movie is about the prisoner swap of Rudolf Abel, who was a Russian spy caught by the Americans, and Gary Powers, who was shot down over the USSR in a spy plane. There's a question asked in the scene: 'What makes us Americans?; James B Donovan says: 'It's the rulebook. It's the Constitution.' In this process, you could ask exactly the same question about where we are. What is it that makes us Australians, a nation built of peoples from all over the world and built on the foundation of an Indigenous culture that has been here for 60,000 years? The rulebook, our Constitution, is what brings us all together to make us Australians. In my view, the current rulebook has an inadequacy: it doesn't recognise Indigenous Australians. It should. But the problem that I have with the process that we're going through now—and Senator Nampijinpa Price has put it very eloquently, and so have many of my colleagues—is that we haven't had a process that's been inclusive. We've had one that has been divisive. If we want our rulebook, what makes us Australians—when everything comes back to it, that's the thing that makes us Australians and that's the thing that tells our story and describes us—we need to make sure we're all on the one page. We can't be split down the middle. We can't be split fifty-fifty. The thing is that at the moment we've got a bloody good rulebook, and I think Australians recognise that. When we're going to change it, we ought to do that carefully. We ought to consider it properly. I get the process of giving Indigenous Australians a say in telling us what they might want. But this is about bringing us all together, and that's what this process hasn't done. I wrote an opinion piece back in January that didn't see the light of day through the various news outlets. I wrote back then, and the same exists now, that the Prime Minister made no attempt to work with anyone around the proposed Constitutional wording. He presented it at Garma. He didn't tell the opposition leader that he was going to do it; he just did it. He has criticised anybody, particularly the opposition, for saying we didn't suggest any changes. And, of course, the whole process has descended into a very, very ugly set-up of name-calling. That's not the way to bring the country together. That is not going to bring our country together. When our Constitution was written, Indigenous Australians weren't part of the discussion. We need to correct that, but we need a process to do that that brings us all together in a genuine way. This process hasn't done that. In fact it has descended into name-calling. I'm glad that Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Liddle are still in the chamber, given what they've been subjected to. Even though I have a slightly different view of the world to them, they're my mates. The conversation hasn't been held with respect. The name-calling that has come from those who are supposedly Indigenous Australian leaders has been absolutely disgraceful. There've been attacks on both of my colleagues here from the likes of Noel Pearson, the Prime Minister, Marcia Langton, too many others and those on the other side. Is this what the Voice looks like? That's what it's starting to sound like to me. It's not a genuine process. If we're going to do something as important as changing our rulebook, our storybook, it has to be done properly. There was no Constitutional convention—just a parliamentary inquiry process where it was stitched up before it was started. It was a zombie process. The outcome was pretty much predicted because the Prime Minister set the numbers up to get the outcome that he wanted. It's not a genuine process. Getting the witnesses you want, asking the questions you want and getting the chance to ask the questions you want—none of that was provided through the parliamentary process. How is that genuine? How is that bringing the country together? Then, of course, when you have genuine people like our good friend Mr Julian Leeser, from the other chamber, he gets set upon by the Prime Minister. It's an absolute disgrace. Even during the debate today the suggestion that those who don't support the bill as it stands don't want better outcomes for Indigenous Australians is absolutely and outright offensive. I've heard that just this afternoon. Are you suggesting that Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Liddle don't want better outcomes for Indigenous Australians? Seriously! Give me a break. They're the ones who are out there raising those issues. Senator Liddle found a family living on a concrete slab under a tarpaulin and they'd been there two years waiting for housing. They're the ones out there doing the real things and raising the real issues while those opposite stop us and try to stop us from talking about these issues. Unfortunately for them, reports that have come out of ORIC in estimates recently and, even more concerningly, a number of ANAO reports that have been published in the last two or three weeks, revealed the things that we were concerned about, and that we wanted this place to look into and to start to deal with. We've been told we couldn't do it: 'Don't do it. Don't touch that now. We don't want to impact on the Voice.' These are the real issues affecting Indigenous Australians that need to be dealt with, and they should have been underway already, but those opposite voted against it. They wouldn't let us deal with some of the real issues, so don't come into this place and suggest that those who are not supporting the legislation don't want better outcomes for Indigenous Australians. Because I don't know anyone in this place who has that view, or that there is any scale of things in that nature. The reason that a number of us put a motion into this place to do that work was because we were concerned. We wanted to make sure that if there was something wrong, we could make recommendations to the government to fix it. It wasn't partisan; it was about trying to fix some of the real and genuine problems that my colleagues are finding in their communities right now and wanting to express right now. It is an absolute disgrace and it is offensive that anyone would come into this place and suggest that if you don't support the legislation you don't support better outcomes for Indigenous Australians because it is simply not true. I said before that I have a slightly different perspective of the world to, I think, most of my colleagues in the chamber, to be honest, on this side because I am supportive of a process, and I would have liked to have played a genuine part in that. But the way that the government has run this, this winner-take-all approach from the Prime Minister, where everything is set up for him to get the outcome that he wants, not an outcome that will bring Australians together, has prevented that. It has prevented that. I give notice that I will be moving the same amendments that my colleague Mr Leeser moved in the House of Representatives because I think the question is flawed. It hasn't been through a proper process. The government wasn't interested in the opinions of the coalition members during the parliamentary inquiry. They weren't interested in the opinions of those who gave evidence expressing concerns about the question, so they can't tell us that it was a genuine process and that they really wanted to bring Australians together as part of what they are looking to do in support of Indigenous Australians. It was never a genuine process; it was always a zombie process from the start. I say that reluctantly, respecting this place and effectively reflecting on a committee of the parliament. It never really had any other intent but to provide an outcome that supported what the Prime Minister wanted. I want to make a point that I think the question is flawed and that is why I will be moving Mr Leeser's amendments. I know they won't be successful, because my own party is not supportive. I understand why. But unlike Mr Leeser, at the end of the process, I won't be supporting the question because I believe it is flawed. I want to make the point that the way that the Prime Minister has run this process has not brought us together. From a completely different perspective to the one that Senator Nampijinpa Price expressed just a moment ago, the Prime Minister has divided us, because the process of considering even the question wasn't inclusive, so I won't support the question at the second reading or the third reading, because I want it to be on the record and I want the Prime Minister to take the responsibility, as he should, for this flawed process. He will try to do what he always does and blame everybody else. That is what he will do. In fact, in my view, that is what he set this process up to do. He wants to point to us across the chamber and say, 'It's your fault it didn't get up.' If he had done as I indicated in the op-ed that I wrote back in January, when there was still plenty of time for him to have a process that was inclusive, the discussion we are having now could be very different, and the outcome could be very different. As so many have said in this debate, in the circumstances where both sides of politics are not supporting a question on an Australian referendum, it has little chance. The Prime Minister, by the way that he has run this process, bears the responsibility for the division, for not allowing us to come together. It is his responsibility, and I reject any assertion to the contrary that it might be anyone else's fault. He is the leader of this country, and he should have been the one to put together a process that brought us together to support the improvement of circumstances for Indigenous Australians. 17:20 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I would like to begin my remarks by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land from which I speak today, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people. I thank them for the custodianship and care for this beautiful country, the Canberra region, which so many of us now call home. The mountain ranges, the limestone plans, the rivers that surround us here have been cared for continuously for tens of thousands of years by local First Nations people, connected closely to the cultural importance of this landscape. These are places I was lucky enough to grow up surrounded by, but I didn't know enough about First Nations people's connection to the land that I grew up in and around. It wasn't a focus in the education curriculum back then, and there weren't a lot of other ways to learn about Canberra's history before it became our nation's capital. This has slowly started to change, and I sincerely hope that recognition through our nation's Constitution, with a voice to parliament, will help continue to grow that knowledge and gift that knowledge for future generations. I would also like to acknowledge Senator Pat Dodson, who can't be with us today in person, but who I know is with us in all of our hearts. It was in 1993 that the Native Title Bill passed the Senate. It was debated for an historic 52 hours. When it passed at 11.58 pm on 22 December, the Senate broke into applause, cheering and laughter, according to recollections of Dr Rosemary Laing, the Clerk of the Senate at the time. Today is another milestone in the Senate's history. The proposed amendment to the Constitution will further cement and enhance the important work that has already come before us to recognise First Nations people's unique place in our history. Furthermore, these changes will give Australia's First Peoples a say in matters that directly affect them. For over 60,000 years, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have occupied the Australian continent. They represent the oldest continuous living culture in human history. They have been careful custodians of Australia's lands, waters and skies over a span of time that is so long and so deep as to be almost inconceivable. I remember the day I first read the Uluru Statement from the Heart, when it was first publicly released in 2017 after that historic gathering at Uluru. A short, powerful, generous and heart-wrenching statement to help guide the way forward towards recognition and genuine reconciliation. I was stunned by the generosity contained within—recognition, consultation, a coming together of a country and an invitation to walk together. I was so taken by the generous nature of that statement. I was thinking, after all that had happened—the massacres, the diseases, the policies which had destroyed families and lives for generations; the disadvantage that continues in many parts of this country; the impacts on First Nations children, on culture, on language; the failed policies of government after government—and knowing all that, as we do, we see through the Uluru statement a hand extended. It is a pathway mapped out, searching to find a better way for all of us—for the country, for the future. It is a generous and determined invitation, determined not to lose the opportunity to start to correct the path we are currently on. The passage of this bill tonight will put us firmly on that path, an important step towards giving every Australian voter the chance to vote for a better future for this country. It won't surprise anyone in this chamber to know that I can't wait to vote yes to a referendum question that will finally recognise Australia's proud history, dating back more than 65,000 years. This should be formally included in our nation's Constitution, and the Voice will be the vehicle that ensures that recognition and respect is part of our national progress. I am proud to be supporting this bill but I'm also humbled. Indigenous Australians have generously and graciously asked us to walk a path with them. This bill will give all Australians the opportunity to take a positive step towards reconciliation, recognition and, importantly listening to First Nations people about services and supports that work for them. This opportunity for a nation does not come along every day. It is rare, and it has been a hard fight for many involved over many, many years. This opportunity is special, and we must seize it. 17:26 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I also rise this afternoon to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I come to this debate from a unique position. As a new senator in 2012, I led a small group of coalition senators to successfully argue against the Gillard Labor government's proposal to recognise local government in the Constitution, and just five years ago I witnessed the transformative power of acknowledgement when this parliament passed my private senator's bill to extend marriage to same-sex couples. It's from this position that I have carefully considered the proposal for a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament. I make myself clear from the outset: I fully support constitutional reconciliation with Australia's First Nations people, and I now view it as one of our nation's greatest unresolved issues. In the months preceding this debate, every Australian I have encountered wants to see significantly improved outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and, like me, they are committed to practical initiatives that work towards delivering them. We are as a nation ready for some form of Indigenous constitutional recognition, but not one that includes this Voice to the parliament and the executive government. As a constitutional conservative I believe changing our nation's birth certificate requires a cautious and thorough approach, and any constitutional reform on any issue must be one that unites rather than dividing Australians, with full consideration of consequences and the full disclosure of details. Unfortunately, it's impossible to say that this is happening in relation to this referendum proposal. There are many cherished values that unite Australia as one of the world's most successful multiracial and multiethnic societies. Foremost for me are the values of tolerance, fairness, egalitarianism and democracy. Contrast these four values with four concerns about the Voice, each at complete odds with the other. First, it is risky because of its legal ramifications, including capacity to challenge government decision-making in the High Court. Second, it is unknown because Labor will not provide key details to the Australian people before they are called to make a decision. Third, it is permanent, to remain in the Constitution forever, regardless of its complications or performance. And, fourth, it is divisive, something that goes against the fabric of our nation. At its core, the Constitution is a legal document, our rulebook, and a primary consideration of any reform must be the legal consequences. Constitutional enshrinement as proposed here means authority is transferred to the High Court, away from our democratically elected parliament. Legal experts, including the government's Constitutional Expert Group, have not been able to reach a consensus on the legal effects of the Voice, including whether the proposal is constitutionally sound or immune to challenge in our courts. Renowned former High Court judge and president of the Samuel Griffith Society, Hon. Ian Callinan KC, expressed his apprehension, stating, 'I would foresee a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation arising out of the Voice.' He added that: It would be imprudent to underestimate the capacity of any future High Court for ingenuity or originality. Justice Callinan went further, pointing out that the Voice proposes the risk of dysfunctional governance, querying, for example, who a representative to the executive would be made to and how it will be processed. Ian Callinan is a jurist I trust. Another prominent Australian constitutional expert, the late Hon. David Jackson KC, observed that any attempt to restrict the Voice's power to make representations to parliament or the executive would be invalid. Even the Solicitor-General has acknowledged that there is room for argument on this matter. Liberal senators observed in their dissenting report to the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum: If proposed s 129 is interpreted by the High Court in a way that imposes on the Executive either a duty to consult the Voice or consider its representations, this will have profoundly disruptive effects on the operation of government. Former Justice of the Federal Court, Hon. Roger Giles KC, shared these concerns, noting that we cannot rely on assertions that the High Court wouldn't imply a duty to consult the Voice. Our constitution, because of the clarity and protection it has provided for more than 120 years, has a precious legacy. Listening to these informed legal perspectives and to the uncertainty surrounding the working reality of the Voice, Australians cannot be asked in good faith to risk this precious legacy on something they know so little about. When it comes to the Voice, or any constitutional amendment, the details should come before the vote, not the other way around. Is it any wonder that Australians are increasingly suspicious of the unorthodox approach taken by the Albanese government? Among other things it refuses to make publicly available the advice provided on the Voice by the Solicitor-General. The reality is that Australians are being starved of the information needed to make a considered decision. Here, I feel I can remind the Prime Minister of the hard-earned lessons of the same-sex marriage debate—lessons I fear that he and Labor have conveniently overlooked or chosen to ignore. First: it's rarely the first proposal that wins the day. The bill that successfully passed this parliament was not the first, but the 23rd bill dealing with marriage equality. The parliamentary process was genuinely multipartisan, culminating in a unanimous committee report and the presentation of a bill that crafted a single proposal out of many views. Unlike in this case, that proposal was not owned by one group at the expense of another. And full details of the legislation were released to the public three months before the plebiscite vote, ensuring Australians understood what they were voting for. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said: What I am not going to do, …, is to go down the cul-de-sac of getting into every detail. Because that is not a recipe for success. Repeated calls for detail have been dismissed as an attempt to derail the Voice, but what we're dealing with is a conscious policy of vagueness, aimed at encouraging Australians to write a blank constitutional cheque. In my experience, it is a grave error of judgement by any government to try to convince a public so historically reluctant to change its Constitution. The Australian Constitution should be celebrated as much for its simplicity as for the nation it has guided. Generally invisible to us in our daily lives, it is the solid foundation on which our parliamentary and civic structures have been created. Only eight of 44 proposals for change have been successful, and only one under Labor—in 1946. It's a testament for the most part of the constitutional conservatism and good judgement of Australian voters. Constitutional change is deliberately difficult. The founding fathers sought to 'prevent change being made in haste or by stealth' and chose the referendum mechanism 'to encourage public discussion and to delay change until there is strong evidence that it is desirable, irresistible and inevitable'. Those intentions, as relevant now as they were 120 years ago, should not be forgotten, and I stress that the referendum mechanism makes it equally difficult to subsequently amend changes to the Constitution, which is why it's essential that any benefits of the Voice are carefully weighed against its long-term consequences. A person's sex, prejudice or political affiliation should not impact them ability to shape their own future or to vote in accordance with their conscience. The Institute of Public Affairs publication One voice: racial equality in the Australian Constitution, describes the Voice proposal as 'an affront to the basic principle that every Australian gets the same say over the future of the country and that each Australian's voice matters equally'. It goes on to say: … the Voice if established would risk fundamentally and permanently dividing Australians by their race. The idea that one group of Australians would have different—and separate—political and legal rights based on their racial or ethnic background undermines the most basic values Australians have stood and fought for over generations. We should be proud that all Australians have the right to contest and win entry to this parliament and that their success or otherwise is based on the mandate of all Australians. That is why the parliament, enshrined in the Constitution, is the best vehicle to represent Australians and determine public policy. Parallels and differences are inevitably being drawn between the upcoming Voice referendum and that of 1967, which represented such a landmark victory for equality. In that referendum nearly 60 years ago, Australians voted to remove race references from the Constitution, an affirmation of the belief that race has no place in our founding document. And it shouldn't be overlooked that our Constitution has paved the way to record levels of Indigenous representation in the current parliament: eight senators, representing five different political parties, and three members of the House of Representatives, representing electorates as diverse as Sydney, northern New South Wales and the Northern Territory. Ours is a parliamentary democracy that works for every Australian. I am committed to working towards constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, but I'm opposed to the form proposed in this constitution alteration bill. There is significant work to be done. However, when I reflect on the milestones reached thus far on the journey to reconciliation and genuine recognition, I remain ambitious, encouraged and optimistic, and I am someone who welcomes that embrace of Indigenous consciousness that now sits much more easily across the whole country. But there is no shame in defeating a bad idea if there is a resolve to soldier on and find a better way—a better way born from genuine cooperation and one that will enjoy the widest possible community endorsement. I commit myself to that project if this referendum fails. Until then, I'm satisfied to continue to trust the voices of Kununurra, Derby, Halls Creek and Fitzroy Crossing over a voice in Canberra. 17:38 Senator FAW DYU South Australia CETT () (): I too rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill. In my first speech to the Senate, I talked about the fact that I'd had a career in the Army as a pilot that spanned a couple of decades, that I'd had the privilege to travel throughout Australia, working in the bush, in our cities and the outback, and that I'd had the chance to see 'the best and the worst of life for Australia's first people in contemporary Australia'. That's why I support recognition for Australia's First Peoples. That's why I care about removing the barriers that stop individuals, families and communities living in safety and with every opportunity to achieve their potential. What I've seen firsthand, however, is that the circumstances and needs vary widely. There is not one ubiquitous problem and there is not one universal solution. I believe I have a duty as an elected representative for all South Australians, regardless of race, to scrutinise proposals that come to this parliament, to evaluate the promised outcomes for likely efficacy and to look for potential unintended consequences. Again going back to my first speech, I highlighted that the largest part of my career was as an experimental test pilot. I said: By definition, I am therefore an optimist … I am also someone who's not afraid of change. But, as I said: I am a conservative because, no matter how visionary the design, there are certain laws of physics that cannot be ignored and have guided design principles over the years for good reason. I am unafraid of change because we can always improve, but the risk must be measured because no system operates in isolation and unintended consequences can result in tragedy. The same can be said about public policy. This principled and evidence based approach is relevant to how we consider Labor's model for the Voice, and it's certainly the approach I've taken. Today I wish to discuss this issue in the context of principles and issues which include recognition, equality under the law, representative democracy, the importance of the Constitution, the concept of never signing a blank cheque and the importance of understanding the efficacy of a proposed solution, its potential failure modes and unintended consequences. Firstly, the key differences in this debate are not about recognition. All the major parties in this parliament support recognition of our First Australians. But recognition is just one part of the Canberra voice being proposed by the Albanese government. The Albanese government is asking Australians to support a referendum that would change the basis of law in Australia and is acknowledged by its proponents as just the beginning of a process that spans voice, treaty and truth without providing details on what that actually means, how it will work, who will be involved and how much it will cost. It's also a proposal that's flawed in its claims, as detailed by my colleague Senator Liddle, an Indigenous woman who is a great representative for the people of South Australia. We also have deep concerns about the process. The Aboriginal elders who were recognised as having authority to speak for Uluru reached out to her, and they have highlighted that, like the Trojan horse, the Voice is not what it appears. In fact, the very process that has led us to this point has ignored the authority of their Indigenous voices and disrespected their culture, undermining promised outcomes of empowerment and representation that the Voice proponents claim it will deliver. Secondly, there is the issue of equality under the law. Australia's is proud of its reputation as an egalitarian nation where everyone is equal before the law. Our national anthem says that we are 'one and free'. 'One' includes the most recent migrants, who we welcome as Australian citizens at ceremonies in communities around the country. It includes those families, like mine, that have been here for a number of generations. And it includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, whose ancestors arrived on this continent before Australia's modern history. But being 'one' means that we are all equal under the law. It is worth noting that, in this week when we have debated the Voice, we also mark 808 years since King John of England agreed to the Magna Carta, a royal charter that put limits on arbitrary rule and established the fundamental principle that nobody is above the law, not even the king. This concept of equality before the law underpins Australia's Constitution. It has been key to the development of our national character. Labor's model for a Canberra voice actually divides Australia on the basis of race and creates inequality. Australian Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay, as someone with expertise in both constitutional and human rights law, has stated that the Voice: … inserts race into the Australian constitution in a way that undermines the foundational human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination and creates constitutional uncertainty in terms of its interpretation and operation. If Australians say 'yes' to Labor's proposed model for the Voice in this referendum, we will no longer be a nation where all citizens have equal rights under the law. Thirdly, Australia is arguably the world's most successful representative democracy. Every Australian has the opportunity—indeed, I would say the responsibility—to have their say on who represents them in this national institution that makes the law. By extension, they have their say on who forms executive government. I welcome—indeed, I see it as a success of Australia's democracy—that we have 11 elected representatives in the parliament who are First Nations Australians. Those 11 members and senators, like all of us, though, are elected to represent every member of our community, regardless of race. But, importantly, they don't just advise; they have a voice in shaping laws for all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, and those of them who hold ministerial portfolios are given authority as members of Australia's executive government. Representative democracy is what actually delivers the outcome called for by so many for Indigenous Australians to be at the table making decisions rather than just advising others on how they would like decisions to be made. And the government has failed to explain how the Voice will differ to existing bodies that advise the government and aim to facilitate better outcomes to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians—for example, the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which has over 1,400 staff; it's led by an Indigenous CEO and in 2023-24 is overseeing a budget of $4.3 billion. Fourth, Australia' Constitution is our most important legal document. Australia's long-term stability and success as a free plural democracy is underpinned by both the construct and the established legal interpretation of our Constitution. It's a foundational document that doesn't get changed often—for good reason. Previous changes, though, have been preceded by extensive deliberation and scrutiny to understand the potential efficacy and the potential for unintended consequences of the proposed change. The inquiry into the republic referendum, for example, had 12 hearings, and that inquiry followed a full constitutional convention that engaged delegates from around the country. In contrast, this parliament's joint select committee was allowed less than 28 hours for hearing. To deliver long-term benefits to all Australians, like the 1967 referendum, changes should not just be well understood prior to adoption; they should unify rather than divide Australians. Labor's proposed Voice model isn't just to the parliament but to all areas of executive government. This establishes a new head of power within the Constitution with unlimited scope, from the Reserve Bank to Centrelink, or, in the words of Professor Greg Craven, a constitutional law expert, 'from submarines to parking tickets'. Legal experts don't agree on the consequences of this, and they're not sure how any High Court would interpret such a constitutional change. But bear in mind that, once the High Court has made such an interpretation, parliament can't simply overrule it. Fifth: blank cheques. Learning from history is the reason we have cautionary phrases such as 'don't sign a blank cheque' and 'don't put the cart before the horse' and why we talk about a Trojan Horse as a way to sneak in an outcome that nobody was expecting when they opened the gate to what appeared to be an unexpected gift. The Albanese government is asking Australians to vote for what they claim is a modest proposal—but vote for it without knowing exactly how this Voice will operate. Some Voice proponents, including members of this chamber, confirm that this would just be the first step to further undefine changes such as treaty and truth. The Greens leader, Mr Bandt, is quoted as confirming that the Greens would receive guarantees on sovereignty and funding to progress treaty and truth from the Labor government. Others say that the ambition of a Voice doesn't reach far enough, and they want radical changes, including even a new seventh state composed of defined territory in Australia made up of Aboriginal owned or native title lands as well as an elected assembly with powers of state governments and its own constitutions. Australians deserve all the details before they vote on a permanent change to our Constitution. Finally, how do we understand efficacy and the potential for unintended consequences? As to efficacy, I make three points. Again, Professor Greg Craven, a constitutional lawyer who was one of the experts behind the original proposal for an Indigenous voice, has described Labor's Voice proposal as 'a con job which is fatally flawed'. He said that the reality is that you have a situation where any person who wants to create difficulty for a government over its decisions can now end up going to the High Court. It will be very, very difficult for government to operate, either because it will be constantly delayed and tied up in knots or, indeed, because the courts end up intervening directly in decisions. Secondly, in an era when we recognise the importance of hope, embedding this new head of power in the Constitution says to some of the most marginalised in our nation that they are and will continue to be different from everyone else and they will need this permanent additional help forever. And, as highlighted by Senator Nampijinpa Price in question time today, this top-down, Canberra-centric approach does nothing to help Indigenous communities on the ground who want local solutions to build better lives for themselves and their families. But, importantly, one of the great unknowns is: what happens in advance of the parliament and government departments making decisions that affect Indigenous Australians? Even lawyers and judges can't agree on what this may mean. So, if there's a constitutional right to give advice, to be consulted, that means that government has to reach out to people to consult and provide time and finance to actually help them understand if there's a case they want to make a representation on. If they don't do this, then constitutional rights will have been breached, opening up the government to both constitutional and administrative law litigation. Some of my colleagues here have quoted former High Court Chief Justice Cullen and others who foresee a lot of disruption. Some have quoted High Court Justice Robert French, who said: 'Given the immense range … there might be an interaction' and it would 'make government unworkable. I don’t think the High Court is in that business.' But the Hon. Roger Gyles AO KC says that neither the government nor any expert can give those unequivocal assurances. We don't have to look far to see an example of how courts do in fact act in this exact space when imposing their interpretation of what consultation means in practice. December, just last year, following an action led by the advocacy network known as Environmental Defenders Office the full bench of the Federal Court of Australia upheld a judgement setting aside a decision of the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, NOPSEMA, to approve an offshore gas project in the Timor Sea that had been submitted by Santos under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Regulations. Why? Because the court determined that the consultation with an Indigenous clan had been inadequate, despite NOPSEMA and Santos highlighting they had met all of the relevant, defined regulatory requirements. The court upheld that the extant view on the scope of consultation was too narrow and that the clan had functions, interests and activities which may be affected by the project and so should have been consulted. The EDO, in the media release put out afterwards, celebrated the fact that this legal action and the judicial decisions to broaden the requirement for consultation would slow down, if not completely stop, this project, which is one that would increase energy supply to Australians helping to drive down the cost of living. So judicial intervention and unintended consequences that affect life for all Australians are not an abstract concept but a real risk if Australians vote yes in this referendum. In conclusion, I will be voting no in the referendum, because I care about recognition, I care about equality, I care about representative democracy and the Constitution. I care about avoiding blank cheques and avoiding unintended consequences. As one of the so-called 'authorised dissenters', I will also be voting no to this legislation, and I'm glad for that opportunity, because, again, going back to my first speech, I quoted Edmond Burke and highlighted that I owe Australians my judgement as well as my industry, and in my judgement a yes to this referendum would be a bad outcome for all Australians regardless of race. I would encourage Australians to support the better way proposed in the co-design process that's supported by the coalition. We've indicated that we will work with the government in a constructive manner to bring this about quickly and to bring all Australians together. 17:52 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Can I start my speech by acknowledging all Australians regardless of identity, because, at the end of the day, there is only one race—the human race. It doesn't matter how you got here or where you came from or how you identify yourself, from a government perspective what matters is closing the gap and making sure that every person can be the best person they want to be. To do that government should focus on closing the gap, and what we know is that the real gap in this country is directly correlated to how far you live from a capital city. And, yes, I realise that makes Alice Springs furthest from a capital city and are probably the people that need the most help. But the fact is there are many regions in-between Alice Springs and all capital cities that also need help. That's where we get to the rub about this bill. That is, there is no detail on how a voice will work, and what we've seen this week from Labor is that they claim to care about the environment, yet wouldn't support an inquiry into the impact of transmission lines on the environment. They claim to care about aged care, yet they won't say how many nurses they've got in aged-care centres on a 24-hour basis. They claim to care about energy prices, yet they didn't support a quarterly reporting system that would tell Australians how expensive their energy was. And, of course, they claim to care about women, yet they were happy to weaponise a rape allegation for their own purpose. So why should we believe the Labor Party when they say they care about Aboriginal people when they won't provide detail about the Voice? At the end of the day, if you're not prepared to provide detail about the Voice, why should the Australian people vote yes to this referendum when you want to make a permanent change to the Constitution? I won't be voting for this bill, and I will be voting no to the referendum. 17:54 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania We're debating one of the most significant bills to come before the Senate, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I want to acknowledge all senators who have made contributions by sharing their wide-ranging views and also acknowledge the respectful way in which these have generally been received. It is how we behave in relation to this debate that will be reflected in the community over coming months. This bill will amend our Constitution forever. We've heard many tell us that enshrining an Indigenous voice in parliament is the only solution we should consider, but like many of my Liberal Party colleagues I do not believe that to be the case. We don't believe this proposal should be adopted, because it is risky and divisive, but we do believe in Australians having the chance to have their say on this matter. As a result, I will vote yes to facilitate the passage of the bill later tonight. There are, however, many questions that remain unanswered, many of which will be asked during the committee stage of the bill's passage this evening, although how many will be answered in full remains to be seen. One of the major differences between the Liberal and Labor parties is that the Liberal Party places greater trust in Australia's democratic institutions. We already have the opportunity to give Indigenous Australians a voice in parliament. We do so by voting for them to represent us, not by opening the Constitution up to legal challenges from the unelected High Court of Australia. In his contribution to the debate earlier today, my colleague Senator McGrath acknowledged some of the great Indigenous Australians who have proudly served in this place. I'd also like to acknowledge my colleagues Senators Nampijinpa Price and Liddle and particularly note their excellent contribution earlier, as well as those of others around the chamber who similarly provide an extremely valuable perspective and contribution to our parliament. The proposal for the Voice that Prime Minister Albanese has presented us with is full of unknowns. It is not fair on Australians to ask them to blindly accept the government's proposal without any assurances that it will deliver any form of improvement to the lives of Indigenous Australians across the country. I prefer to work with what is known rather than what is not. If we don't know how the Voice is going to work and if the government can't give us clarity on how it will work, then I believe that the only choice is to say no. Australia's constitution is the most important legal document we have. It provides a strong foundation to our democracy. As every word can be open to interpretation, we need to make sure that we clearly understand what every word on every page means. Even Australia's legal experts are unclear about how Labor's proposed voice model will be interpreted. Do we want to risk opening the Constitution up to misinterpretation? Much has been said about the inclusion of the executive government in the proposed question. In addition to the risk associated with how the Constitution will be interpreted, I'm concerned about the additional risk that will come from the confusion of not knowing what aspects of parliament or executive government the Voice will have input to. It's a recipe for dysfunctional government that will lead us to a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation, as former High Court judge Ian Callinan has said. Can we guarantee a Voice that comes from Canberra is truly representative of the needs of regional and remote communities? Every community is different, and a centralised, Canberra based organisation rarely has the grass roots, local knowledge and awareness to affect change. It's a huge risk we are being asked to take. The Albanese government refuse to reveal any details on how the Voice would operate before asking us all to vote on these reforms. We've been told this is an important first step to reparations, but don't we deserve to know all the details before committing to a permanent change to our Constitution? As my colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price has stated, this debate is dividing us, not bringing us together. Enshrining only one group of Australians in our Constitution, rather than encompassing all Australians, means our country will be permanently divided by race. We should be one together, not two divided. I also wholeheartedly agree with her sentiments written recently in Essays for Australia: … gaslighting Australians to coerce support for a 'Yes' vote and calling Australians racist, troublemakers and uncaring if they do not oblige does not make for a healthy democracy and is completely and utterly un-Australian. It's okay to say no, and it's okay to ask for more information. Instead of uniting Australia, this divisive version of a voice will forever be a symbol of division. We all want better outcomes for marginalised people in our communities. However, dividing it is not a path to achieving those better outcomes. There are not two kinds of Australians. There are Australians. We are Australians. The reforms to our Constitution we are debating today represent a significant move away from our parliamentary system. This will change the way we govern forever. A democracy is a society where citizens are sovereign and control the government. A democracy must be fair for all, no matter their origin, ethnicity, religion, gender, age, education, sexuality or what they earn. What is being proposed with this Voice model is not fair for all Australians. As pointed out by others in earlier contributions, this government argues that the Voice will advance the interests and welfare of Indigenous Australians but has not shown us how. We support constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians and we support the empowerment of local and regional voices across our country. We do not support dividing our nation. The consensus needed to fully encompass all views on a voice takes time. There has not been enough time given to ask questions about exactly how this will work and to consider responses. There hasn't been enough time given to consider the legal ramifications of this model, and we haven't had time to think about the permanency of this change to our Constitution. Something that is so important should not be rushed through. Our legacy should be one of unity, not of division. 18:01 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I acknowledge that we are on Ngunnawal and Ngambri country and pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. As an Yanyuwa Garrwa woman, it is incredibly significant to always be able to acknowledge the people on whose land we cross wherever we go. I also acknowledge all the First Nations senators here and the lands of their ancestors. I want to thank every senator in this debate for their contribution—each and every one of you. One of the wonderful things that I sincerely enjoy about being here in the Senate, when we get it right, in the way we debate and put our case—it's important for our country. That's what I've heard over the last week. Sure, we've heard lots of other things going on here in this Senate, but when I focus on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 and listen to the debate of each of the senators I appreciate it. In Yanyuwa we are known as li-Anthawirriyarra, which means our spiritual origin comes from the sea country. It means we listen. We listen with our ears, with our hearts. We know that we are imperfect creatures. We know that we have to constantly strive to be the better part of ourselves. And I see that here in this debate. There are those who are 'no', there are those who are 'yes', and there are those who are unsure, but all the while challenging each other to be the better part of ourselves throughout this. That is the tone that I ask that we keep and maintain throughout our journey towards the referendum—that we maintain that and we hold that. In Yanyuwa we say gujingga, the sacredness of holding that story. This is our story. This is our story for this Senate, for this parliament and for the Australian people in 2023. Hold it with a great deal of sacredness. The gujingga—our songline, our map. The story that we are telling, we are creating. We talk about 60,000 years for First Nations people. For the Yanyuwa and Garrwa peoples, we know those stories have been passed down and they continue to be passed down. I share this with you from where I come from, from my heart. I say thank you to each and every one of you, senators. You challenge us because we want to get this right. And we want to do it with dignity, respect and clarity. I also take this opportunity to thank Senator Patrick Dodson, the most amazing man certainly in all our lives but mine in particular. I just want to reach out to him right now and say: 'This is for you, Pat. You've walked with our country for so many decades, and you continue to do so with us now. You are right here with us. I respect your story as I share mine with the Senate.' I thank Linda Burney not just as the Minister for Indigenous Australians but as an amazing woman—Wiradjuri people, her families. I thank those who have walked with us in the Referendum Engagement Group and the Referendum Working Group—all of you, and you continue to do so with a great deal of passion and patience. I know at times it's getting rough, but I say: hang in there and hold on, because when you walk with goodness, with your intent to be that, knowing that you're going to have ups and downs, then you keep that journey sacred. Tonight on Yanyuwa country they're going to dance, and for the next three nights they're going to dance—the Yanyuwa, the Garrwa, the Marra and the Gudanji peoples—for the Malandarri Festival. I've asked them: 'Please, dance really strong for us so that I can feel this ground shake here on Ngunnawal country at Capital Hill.' Shake this place, my ancestors. Shake this place, my families. And you dance strong, because that is who we are. We have fought for four decades just to be recognised as Yanyuwa traditional owners in that part of the country. We know what it's like to fight. We know what it's like to keep persevering despite all the odds. We know what it's like to rise above another funeral, another death and the poverty. We rise with hope. We may have what some in here may say is an imperfect road—you know: 'Is there enough detail?' 'Don't touch the Constitution. It's too precious.' 'It's too risky.' All of these things I've heard as reasons for why we shouldn't embark on this journey. But they still are not strong enough reasons to not try. We must try. We have to improve the lives for our people across the country, First Nations and all Australians. We will be a better country if we get this right. We will be a much better country. To inspire, to encourage and to be brave—that's what this time in Australia's history is about: to take the leap of faith, to be a better people, a better country, with all our faults, and to do it with dignity and to do it with determination. People talk about not being united through this journey. We so want us to be united. We so want Australians to come out on the other side of this with that special feeling of knowing that they've contributed to a better part of ourselves, a better future. You try working with your own language groups. We have over a hundred Aboriginal language groups in the Northern Territory. I try to work with all of them and more across Australia. But, if I focus on Borroloola and that region and the four language groups I've mentioned, in the four language groups we have the Yanyuwa, the Garrwa, the Marra and the Gudanji, and then within that we have the structure of the jungkayi—the protector, the keeper of country. And then we have the ngimirringki. The ngimirringki is the traditional owner. So whenever one group, for example, is not happy with the other group, we have to sit down; we have to work it through; we have to keep talking. We have to bring the jungkayi together and the ngimirringki together. And we sit, sometimes for days, to try and work it out, so that we come out on the other side of it feeling good and strong. We may not have found a decision that pleases everyone, but we will have found a way where we still keep walking. And that's what this journey is. I call on all Australians: I may not think like you, and you may not think like me, and you may have come from Greece, from Italy, from Saudi Arabia, from the UK or from the US and made Australia your home. Well then, this is your opportunity to be a part of something special, to be a part of something historic. You may be a Muslim, you may be Catholic or Protestant—whatever your faith, this is your chance to be a part of something special; to create the Australia that we could have done, a long time ago, if we'd had the opportunity. Wherever you live across all the states—and I call on all of you, from New South Wales to Queensland, to the Northern Territory and across to Western Australia, over to South Australia, into Victoria and all you Tassie mob—every single one of you matters, and we need you. We need you to say 'yes'. We need you to walk with us, because we don't want to leave anyone behind, because we can be a better country. We must be a better country. In here, you hear all the ins and outs and the technicalities, and the legislation, or this law and that law. And that's okay, because that's what we are elected for, all these senators in here. But what the referendum is really about is you, the Australian people. Those that gathered on Anangu country called for Australians to walk with them. I reach out to you and echo that message too—a generous message; an invitation to walk in faith, with hope and with a great deal of love. And that means everyone—everyone. We can do this. We should do this. We must do this. To all those young Australians out there who I've talked to along the way: you know. You always say: 'This is a no-brainer.' To our young Australians: you give me so much hope. You inspire me, because you are our future. You are the ones that this will benefit more than most. You are the ones who can see a future that a lot of us might be too tired to see, might be too traumatised to see, might have had too many disappointments to see. But a lot of you young people see it differently. We also have to reach out to you and give you hope. We have to lift each other up. I know there are those Australians, especially First Nations, who feel this may not be enough. I say to you: don't give up on us. We will get there too. Stay with us, and walk with us. It's hard walking in this system, in the Westminster system of parliament. But it's the only system we have to be able to try and influence in a better way. Finally, I just want to say that it is the states and territories and the leaders of those areas, of those jurisdictions, premiers and chief ministers, who have supported Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney along the way. We know that much of that work, which is important work, will be done if we get the imprimatur of the Australian people when this referendum occurs. In closing, I want to remember those who passed on the journey—our elders, in particular Yunupingu. And I want to read his daughter's words. About her dad, Binmila said that he: … dealt personally with every Prime Minister since Whitlam. Many promises were made, but none were delivered in full. As a sovereign man of his clan nation, he was left disappointed by them all. As his brother sang in a song treaty: But promises can be broken Just like writing in the sand— His daughter said: Our father was driven by a vision for the future of this nation, his people's place in the nation and the rightful place for Aboriginal everywhere. Voice, treaty, truth: that is what we want the future to be for our country for all of us. Bauji Barra. 18:16 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank all senators who have contributed to this debate. There have been some fabulous speeches, none more so than the one we just heard from our good friend Senator McCarthy, the Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians. We are at this point on our journey on constitutional recognition because of the work, leadership and stories of countless Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people over many decades. I acknowledge them and I thank them. I'd particularly like to acknowledge and thank the Minister for Indigenous Australians in the other place, Linda Burney, and our Senate colleague, again, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. I'd also like to acknowledge and thank our colleague Senator Patrick Dodson for the work he has done over so many years to advance the cause of reconciliation, including in this term of parliament as the special envoy for reconciliation and the implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Pat, we're all thinking of you right now. I also thank those many non-Indigenous Australians who have worked towards constitutional recognition in the development of the Voice. The Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 is a critical step in fulfilling the first request made in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. If approved at the referendum, there will be four simple lines 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. The Voice is the formal 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'd like to address three issues that were raised by those who oppose the Voice over the course of this debate. Some senators have asserted that the Voice would undermine equality in the Constitution and divide Australians based on race. This is untrue. This is about recognising the status of First Peoples in this country. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Watt, please resume your seat. I expect there is going to be a considerable period of debate, and it is an issue that has enlivened a lot of energy in this chamber. I ask all senators to respect the standing orders and to allow each senator to be heard in silence and to take the opportunity to speak in accordance with the standing orders. I call Senator Watt. Senator WATT 245759 As I say, some senators in this debate have asserted that the Voice would undermine equality in the Constitution and divide Australians based on race. This is untrue. This is about recognising the status of First Peoples in this country, and that status is not based on race. Instead, it is connected to the unique fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have occupied the Australian continent for over 60,000 years and represent the oldest continuing living cultures in human history. They have maintained a relationship with the land, waters and skies across Australia since time immemorial. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Watt, please resume your seat. I draw senators' attention to the standing orders. I have already made a statement about behaving in this chamber in a way that accords with standing orders not only in the way they're written but in spirit. That shouldn't contain the debate in any way, but I urge all senators to respectfully respond to one another and maintain the dignity of the Senate. Senator Watt, you have the call. Senator WATT 245759 The Australian Constitution has never recognised the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of this country, and that is what this bill does. The introductory words are very clear on this, stating that the provision is 'in recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia'. Former Chief Justice of the High Court Robert French has said that 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'. Recognition of the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of this country is long overdue, and the Voice is the form of constitutional recognition sought by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Further, this bill does not give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples any special rights or privileges. It also does not take away the rights or privileges of any other person or group. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples face significant gaps in life expectancy and in educational attainment, and they are proportionally the most incarcerated peoples on the planet. The Voice would have tangible benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It would not negatively affect the lives of non-Indigenous Australians. In fact, improving outcomes for First Nations people benefits us all. The constitutional expert group made it clear that the Voice would not confer special rights on First Nations peoples, nor would it change or remove any rights, powers or privileges of anyone who is not Indigenous. Some senators asserted that the Voice will result in excessive litigation and foul up the workings of the executive government. Again, this is a furphy. These assertions ignore the text of the bill. They require a selective and distorted reading of the evidence before the joint select committee and its inquiry into the bill. The bill has been extensively scrutinised by some of the best legal minds in the country. This includes the constitutional expert group and the Solicitor-General. They have concluded that the bill is legally sound. The Solicitor-General advised that the Voice is not just compatible with the system of representative and responsible government provided by the Constitution but an enhancement of that system. These views were echoed by the overwhelming consensus of constitutional and legal experts, who told the joint select committee that the amendment is constitutionally sound. The Voice will improve the development of policy and legislation and the administration of programs. This is because the Voice will be connected to grassroots communities, and it will make representations to the parliament and the government on matters affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. When you listen to communities you get better outcomes, making a practical difference on the ground in areas like health, education and housing. That is what the Voice will help to deliver, and that is the evidence that a range of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and communities gave to the committee in expressing significant support for the Voice. Some senators have unfortunately deliberately taken out of context quotes from former High Court Chief Justice Robert French and former justice Kenneth Hayne to support the ridiculous and false idea that government will somehow grind to a halt. Both Mr French and Mr Hayne clearly stated that the High Court would not interpret section 129 in a way that would disrupt the ordinary and efficient working of government. Mr French stated, 'I don't think the High Court is in that business,' and Mr Hayne stated that the argument that such an outcome would be destructive demonstrated 'conclusively' why the High Court would not make such findings. The bill is clear. The Voice will have no power to prevent, delay or veto decisions of the parliament or the executive government. The parliament and the executive government will retain decision-making power over all laws and policies. The provision does not require parliament or the executive to consult with the Voice before taking action. The parliament will also be able to make laws about how the executive government receives representations and what, if any, action a decision-maker needs to take in response to a representation. The issue of sovereignty has also been raised in the context of this debate. Senator 280304 Support the amendment. Senator WATT 245759 As we have said many times and as others have said, more importantly— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Order, senators. Senator WATT 245759 the Voice provision has no impact on sovereignty. Senator Thorpe 280304 Prove it. Senator WATT 245759 This question of sovereignty was put directly to the constitutional expert group. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Before I give you the call—do not give her the microphone before I give her the call. Senator Thorpe 280304 He's lying. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Before I give the call, I want to indicate again— Senator Thorpe 280304 I don't want the call. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 I will direct this to you on this occasion, Senator Thorpe. Senator Thorpe 280304 I just want to say that that is incorrect; it affects our sovereignty. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Before I give you the call, Senator Thorpe—and I will direct it to you on this occasion— Senator Thorpe 280304 I pass on the call. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 You need to adhere to standing orders, and I thank you for your understanding of that. Senator Thorpe 280304 I hate seeing my sovereignty compromised in this disgusting place. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 I expect there will be robust debate and you can participate appropriately, but please maintain the standing orders of the Senate. Senator Watt. Senator WATT 245759 As I was saying, the Voice provision has no impact on sovereignty. Senator Thorpe 280304 Prove it. Senator Watt 245759 The question of sovereignty was put directly to the constitutional expert group, and the group advised unanimously that enshrining a voice in the Constitution would not affect the sovereignty of any group or body. Some senators suggested that this bill has been rushed and that the processes that led to it have somehow been lacking. It is difficult to identify a pre-referendum process since Federation that can hold a candle to the consultation and consideration that has led to this bill. We have been talking about this and considering the detail of proposals to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution for well over a decade. Since 2010, there have been: the expert panel on the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution; the Joint Select Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; the Referendum Council led First Nations regional dialogues; the national First Nations constitutional convention at Uluru; the final report of the Referendum Council; the Joint Select Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples; and the co-design interim and final reports. The Prime Minister's announcement at Garma last year built on this work, and the government engaged in further robust consultation. A referendum engagement group and a referendum working group made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders were then established to advise government, supported by a group of constitutional experts, including a former High Court judge. As a result of that process, some changes were made to the Prime Minister's Garma draft. Those changes were not extensive, but they were significant. The changes ensure that parliament will have broad and flexible powers to set up the Voice and respond as it evolves. The revised wording was then subjected to yet another process of public debate and scrutiny, including through the joint select committee's inquiry. The joint select committee recommended, after reviewing significant evidence through hearings and submissions, that the bill be passed unamended. The content has been extensively debated in the other place. Now, we are debating the words of the alteration in the Senate. Australians can have confidence in this constitutional amendment. They can have confidence in the process that brought it into place. They can have confidence that constitutional recognition through a voice to parliament will work to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Uluru Statement from the Heart concludes with the following words: In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future. It has been a long journey to get to this point. It will be up to the Australian people to take the next step, to move forward together and create a better future for us all. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The question is the bill be read a second time.    

The Senate divided. [18:34]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator McGrath)

 42 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 13 NOES Antic, A. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Fawcett, D. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Rennick, G. Scarr, P. M. Thorpe, L. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

In Committee 96 18:38 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move amendment (1) on sheet 1923: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (after line 24), at the end of Chapter IX, add: 130 Sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples Nothing in this Act shall be taken to cede or disturb the Sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples means an unceded right held in collective possession by the members of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nations which confers usage, access and custodianship to the lands, waters, minerals and natural resources of what is now known as Australia, and the right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to exercise an unimpeded and collective self-determinate governance over their political, economic and social affairs. We were invaded, we were massacred, and we still survive after over 200 years of oppressive regimes and of absolute torment to our families, our communities, our country, our water and our air. We are sovereign to all of that. Every living thing on these lands is our sovereignty. We have never ceded our sovereignty in this country. The King is not the sovereign of this country. First Peoples are the sovereigns of this country. The King does not have a right over our lands, our waters and our bodies in 2023. The King doesn't even live here. How can he be sovereign? How can he call himself sovereign? The King sits in his palace from stolen wealth taken from this country. You want to talk about people who've passed? What about the massacres that occurred when the boats arrived with the convicts and the colonisers? Let's talk about those bodies. We are still impacted today because of the mass murders that the colonisers came here to do. The murdering Cook, James Cook the murderer, told a lie to the King and said that no-one was here. He referred to us as 'wild beasts', he did. He lied to the King. He said no-one was here. How is that sovereignty? How is that legal? How is this whole parliament legal? It is not. The parliament of what you now call Australia is an illegal occupation on stolen land. And who benefits? All you. All you. Sorry, sister; not you, and not Senator McCarthy. But everyone else benefits. Everyone benefits from my people's misery—absolute misery. And what about the decisions that have been made since 1901 in this place? What have they ever done for First Peoples on these lands? Not one piece of legislation that has ever come out of this place has been good for us. You know why? Because it's deliberate. It's deliberate. This place is here because they need to get rid of the black problem that they have, that the King has, that the colonisers have. That's why this place is here: to continue making laws that take our rights away, that kill our people in the systems that you set up. It's working well. It's the art of war, right? It's working really well. We have 23,000 Aboriginal children in out-of-home care, and you've been talking about closing the gap for how long? And it's just rising. You've got a government here that don't give a fruit about stolen generations or children being taken. Youse don't care, because if you did you'd implement the recommendations from the Bringing them home report. Youse are shameful and youse are gammon. Deaths in custody—over 500. Who cares? The government don't. Since 1901 the government haven't cared. Why should the Labor government of today care? They're bound by the King's direction to kill us off. Gina Rinehart's father said it: 'Get rid of the black problem; poison the waterways.' You're not any different, to be honest. You haven't acknowledged our sovereignty. You keep coming up with gammon reasons about your deadly referendum working group, who were all handpicked by you. They are all your mates. You even have a senator's husband on there. They're all your mates. They're not grassroots people who have called for a seat at the table. You deliberately ignored those people. Six years those people have been knocking on the door. For six years you've just ignored them. It's just disgusting. I went to the Melbourne referendum meeting and I went to the Sydney one. The Sydney one had a disabled elder taken away in a divvy wagon because he lit a fire outside in protest. The fire brigade came and put his fire out. They put handcuffs on him in front of his grandkids and threw him in the back of a divvy wagon because he didn't agree. AIATSIS staff at the time threatened black women with police because we stood in silence to say, 'We don't support constitutional recognition.' There was a convoy of grassroots blackfellas that drove all the way to Yulara for the meeting to try and protest. No-one had money to get there. We were scrounging around for grassroots mob to get to that meeting and it was hard. But they arrived. There were only a few cars. Then do you know what happened? Because I and a few others called for treaty and sovereignty to be acknowledged, we had death threats. I slept in the desert with a death threat over my head, a tribal punishment death threat, and then I had to go the next day to meet with all the senior lawmen. They were disgusted at the threat that I received, and they told me I was welcome back on their country any time because it was interpreted to them that I was standing up for their sovereign rights. That is what this whole gammon 'yes' campaign has been about. You're not saving our souls; you're just putting everything off to a gammon voice that you are going to have total control over. So stop being gammon. Self-determination is not when you have power over Aboriginal people. We will ramp up now. The black sovereign movement will be here next week. You better be prepared because we ain't going down without a fight. 18:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Thorpe proposes to amend the bill before the Senate so that the proposed constitutional alteration would insert a new section 130 in the Constitution about the sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The government does not support the amendment proposed by Senator Thorpe. There is no need to amend the bill as proposed by Senator Thorpe. The Voice provision would have no impact on sovereignty. This question was put directly to the Constitutional Expert Group, and they advised that enshrining a voice in the Constitution would not affect the sovereignty of any group or body. Senator Thorpe 280304 Because they're trained by the same colonial system. Senator WATT 245759 This referendum is about recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution as the first peoples of Australia, after more than 120 years of exclusion and omission. This referendum is also about establishing the Voice to make representations to the parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Proposed section 129 of the Constitution would contain four simple lines. It would finally recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as Australia's first peoples in our founding legal document. It would guarantee the existence of the Voice. It would guarantee the Voice's core representation-making function. It would also confer upon the parliament a broad power to make laws on matters relating to the Voice. 18:50 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The coalition will also not be supporting this amendment. As a threshold issue, we do not believe the Voice should be enshrined in the Constitution, and there is no amendment to this bill, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, which can clear that threshold. Supporting this amendment to the bill would require us to support the idea that the Voice should be in the Constitution and also that the Constitution should then be amended in the manner proposed by Senator Thorpe. We also have very significant procedural concerns about this amendment. Our criticisms of the government's process to date are a matter of public record. The Constitution alteration introduced by the government was developed behind closed doors by the handpicked referendum working group, without the benefit of a constitutional convention. It was the subject of a joint select committee inquiry that was given less than 4½ days to inquire into the impacts of a significant change to our system of government. It has been the subject of now four Solicitor-General opinions, three of which have been kept secret and the fourth of which, as we know from Senate estimates, was drafted expressly for the purposes of being made public and therefore is best understood as a very carefully curated public showpiece rather than a thorough unvarnished exposition of the risks. This amendment does not even meet those very low standards. We are not aware of any public process that has led to the development of this amendment. It is not one of the many options considered over the course of co-design work and committee inquiry. It has not been the subject of extensive legal and academic debate, and to the best of our knowledge it has not been the subject of any inquiry at all. We don't know whether it's even been the subject of legal advice, secret or otherwise. The risks associated with this proposed change to our Constitution are not just unquantifiable. The risks may in fact not even have been identified. We don't even know what the risks are, let alone how severe they may be. And, regardless of the content, there are no circumstances in which we could support this constitutional amendment. 18:52 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The Greens are supportive of the concept behind this amendment. However, we are concerned that the impacts of such a broadly worded amendment to the Constitution pose a great risk and there is a high chance of far-reaching, unintended consequences as a result of this proposed amendment. So the Greens will not be supporting this amendment. The Greens have committed to supporting the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 unamended. The words in the bill have been subject to a rigorous co-design process with First Nations people and a committee inquiry. It does not appear that this proposed amendment has been subject to the same level of consultation and scrutiny. There is inherent risk in attempting to insert such broad changes into this bill at such a late stage, especially changes that do not have the support of the co-design group. The Greens care deeply about First Nations sovereignty. However, we are not willing to take this risk. The Greens have sought independent legal advice about this amendment, which has helped us come to this conclusion. 18:53 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria The Greens agree with Senator Thorpe that sovereignty has never been ceded, that we're on stolen land— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 Senator Thorpe, you were heard in respectful silence. Could you please let Senator Rice speak. Senator RICE 155410 The Greens believe very strongly that sovereignty has not been ceded, that our First Nations peoples are sovereign in this land. This doesn't mean that we need to support Senator Thorpe's amendment, which, as my colleague Senator McKim has said, would have far-reaching and unknown potential consequences for the Constitution. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: If no other senator wishes to make a contribution: the question before the chair is that amendment (1) on sheet 1923 moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Thorpe. So, no. Senator Thorpe, because there was only one voice, would like your position recorded in the Journals of the Senate as I'm unable to call a division without a second voice. Senator Thorpe? 18:55 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria So let me get this right—I'm just trying to understand things here. As a Gunnai Gunditjmara Djabwurrung woman, I'm calling for this parliament to acknowledge sovereignty of First Nations people and I don't have anyone in this whole place who's going to support calling a division. Is that right? I'm just calling that out for my—I'm the only person in the whole place right now who wants to divide on this. What happens there? I've got no support. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 Senator Thorpe, I'm in the hands of the chamber. I can put your motion again to see if there is a further voice that will support your position. Would you like me to do that? You're indicating yes. So, the question before the chair is that amendment (1) on sheet 1923 moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to. Question negatived. 18:56 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria by leave—I ask that my name be recorded as being the only person in support of the motion, as the only person in this building who recognises the real sovereignty of First Peoples in this country. 18:57 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2008 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 13 and 14), omit all the words from and including "In" to and including "Australia:". (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 17 to 20), omit paragraph 129(ii). As I indicated in my second reading debate contribution, I'm moving these two amendments which mirror those moved by Mr Leeser in the House of Representatives. As Mr Leeser said, in his view constitutional alteration needs to do three things. First, recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Second, give the Voice a permanent place in the constitutional architecture. And third, provide the supremacy of parliament. That's the point of these amendments. As I said in my contribution earlier, the Constitution is our rulebook; it's what makes us Australian. It's the thing we go back to when we're dealing with any of our issues. In my view, because of when the Constitution was written, Indigenous Australians weren't part of the discussion or part of the architecture and so there is something missing from our Constitution. That needs to be rectified. There has been a lot of discussion about the actual question, and how the question was worded was a feature of the coalition report. I refer back to my contribution in the second reading debate to give the context of my views around that. Quite frankly, I should be sitting on that side when it comes to how I am going to vote on the bill. I should be there. But I don't believe that someone like me, or someone like Mr Leeser, has been given due respect by the process. I want to see constitutional recognition. I would like to see a voice. These amendments provide the opportunity for a voice, which is what the Uluru statement says. It calls for a voice enshrined in the Constitution, and I support that. But I don't support the question as it's drafted. That's why I didn't vote for the second reading, but I wasn't prepared to vote against the opportunity for the Australian people to have their say. That's why I abstained from the second reading vote. As I said in my contribution to the second reading of the bill, without a change to the way the question is structured I won't be supporting the question. But, again, by the same token I don't want to vote against it because it's not what I believe. But I think the process we've been through hasn't been inclusive, and I'm quite distressed that the government have taken us down this path. I understand their rationale and I respect that, but this should be a question where we are all able to work together. The Constitution is something for all of us, and we shouldn't be trying to change it in a way where we don't have a level of accord across the parliament; I think that's a real failure. I feel I should be in a position to be able to support the constitutional amendment, and I'm very sad that I can't because of the way the question has been framed, not taking into account all the perspectives that have been put up, quite genuinely, as part of the process. I know that these amendments are not going to be supported; I understand that. But I move them genuinely to make the point about my distress around the way the process has been conducted, and the way that people like Mr Leeser have been treated—people who are genuinely, and for a long time have been, disposed towards not only recognition in the Constitution but also a voice—and so that the historical record shows there are a number of us across each of the two houses that carry that perspective, although I respect Mr Leeser's view that he is going to continue to campaign for the question. But I think it's the wrong question, and therefore I am moving the amendments in that context. I have already made my position clear with respect to support or otherwise for the question at the end of the day. 19:03 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland These amendments moved by Senator Colbeck are identical to those moved in the other place by the member for Berowra. As the Attorney-General said then, the government's view is that these amendments are neither necessary nor desirable. The first amendment proposes to omit from the constitutional amendment the words, 'In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia'. The introductory words reflect the fact that establishing the Voice is an act of recognition in the manner sought in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. These words will pay respect to the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia and the more than 60,000 years they have occupied this continent. These words will rectify over 120 years of explicit exclusion and omission in Australia's founding legal document. The constitutional expert group has advised that the introductory words appropriately and succinctly explain the purpose of the amendment without giving rise to any legal concerns. The government agrees with that view. The second amendment proposes to omit subsection 129(ii). Subsection 129(ii) is a vital component of the bill. It provides for the core function of the Voice, that it: … may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Subsection 129(iii) gives the parliament broad legislative powers with respect to matters relating to the Voice, including the power to legislate in relation to the legal effect of the Voice's representations. But it is important that the Voice's function of making representations to the executive government is guaranteed in the Constitution. Without that guarantee, a future parliament might entirely remove the ability for the Voice to make representations to the executive. It is the executive government that makes policies and develops proposed laws about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. To improve the laws and policies that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and improve outcomes, the Voice must be able to make representations to the executive government. Australians can have confidence in this constitutional amendment. The two changes proposed by Senator Colbeck should not be supported. The bill, as introduced, should be passed by this chamber and ultimately put to the Australian people. As I said at the conclusion of the second reading debate, it has been just over six years since more than 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates gathered at Uluru from all points of the southern sky to make this modest request for voice, treaty and truth. We in the parliament have spent many hours discussing how to fulfil the first part of that request—a request built on more than a decade of work—but it will soon be up to all Australians to make a choice. It will be up to the Australian people to take the opportunity offered by the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017—an opportunity for our nation to do better, to come together and to walk towards a better future. 19:06 Se I0M Western Australia nator CASH (—) (): The coalition will also not be supporting this amendment. As I said in response to the amendment moved by Senator Thorpe: as a threshold issue, we do not believe the Voice should be enshrined in the Constitution. There is no amendment to this bill which can clear that threshold, and supporting this amendment to the bill would require us to support the idea that the Voice should be in the Constitution. 19:06 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The Australian Greens will likewise not be supporting this amendment. We have, as I said with regard to Senator Thorpe's amendment, committed to supporting this bill unamended. The words in this bill have been subject to a rigorous co-design process with First Nations people and a committee inquiry. It does not appear that this proposed amendment has been subject to the same level of consultation and scrutiny. There is an inherent risk in attempting to insert changes into this bill at such a late stage, especially changes that do not have the support of the co-design group of First Nations people. The Australian Greens are not willing to take that risk. The TEMPORARY CHAIR HZB The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2008, put by Senator Colbeck, be agreed to. Question negatived. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Colbeck, I think there was only one voice in support. 19:08 Senator COLBE 00AOL Tasmania CK () (): by leave—under the standing orders I ask that my name be recorded as being in support of the motion. 19:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I will commence with questioning in relation to the questions that the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, put to the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, in a letter dated 7 January 2023. For the Hansard record, I will refer to the letter: Dear Prime Minister I write in relation to your proposal to constitutionally enshrine an Indigenous Voice (The Voice) to Parliament via a referendum this year. As you know, I have been constructive and supportive of the Government on a number of issues where it is in the national interest to do so. I am committed to being constructive on the issue of reconciliation and as you are aware from our discussions the Coalition will support any sensible and practical measures to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. If the referendum is successful, a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament will be a body without precedent and a significant change in how Australia is governed. Many Australians do not understand the scope and operation of the Voice and expect comprehensive information before being asked to vote. Regrettably, it now appears clear that your political strategy is to not provide adequate detail for Australians to make an informed decision. I believe you are making a catastrophic mistake in not providing accessible, clear and complete information regarding your government's version of the Voice, condemning it to failure and, in turn, damaging reconciliation efforts in our country. Your approach will ensure a dangerous and divisive debate grounded in hearsay and misinformation. I have attached a list of issues which many people have raised as not being adequately addressed to date. You have engaged two of our country's smartest political operatives, but their advice to you on rushing the referendum and not providing details to the Australian public is wrong and must surely go against your natural instinct. All voting Australians have a right to make a fully informed decision when considering an issue as significant as changing our Constitution. Australians expect the Government to provide the necessary and balanced information to support them in making a decision and to ensure transparency and integrity of the process. In turn we all have an obligation to respect the outcome. Your government's position that detail isn't needed before a vote and will be contained in subsequent legislation is unreasonable, disrespectful to the Australian public and undermines the integrity of the process. In refusing to provide basic information and answer reasonable questions on the Voice, you are treating the Australian people like mugs. Publicly releasing the details on how the Voice will operate will enable Australians to assess whether it would be representative of remote Indigenous people; whether its structure was effective or just another layer of bureaucracy similar to the failed ATSIC; and whether it would interfere with the system of Government which has kept our country a stable and peaceful democracy for over a century. Both sides of Parliament seek better opportunities and outcomes for Indigenous Australians. The incidence of sexual assault, domestic violence, and health outcomes, among many other issues, in Indigenous communities (particularly in regional and remote areas) is a national disgrace. It is imperative you explain how a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament will deliver tangible improvements in the lives of Indigenous Australians, which must remain the priority of Government. Given your government has been in office for seven months and has the ability to pass legislation in both houses of Parliament, legislation for a Voice could be enacted when Parliament resumes at the beginning of next month. This would allow you to demonstrate the effectiveness of your preferred Voice model in closing the gap. The Government must stop playing clever and tricky political games by withholding detail and rushing the referendum. I again call on you to provide Australians with the necessary detail on how the Albanese government's version of the Voice will operate. Yours sincerely, PETER DUTTON As I stated, it was dated 7 January 2023. It contained a list of questions in an attachment, which began: Australians are none the wiser about The Voice—what, who, where, when and how. They seek detailed information on the following: … The Leader of the Opposition then set out a number of questions. A response was provided to the Leader of the Opposition by the Prime Minister on 1 February 2023. But, unfortunately, in reading the response, there is not one answer to the questions. What is stated, though, is that there would be a set of principles that basically 'identify the Voice as a body that would', and then sets out a list of dot points. The questions that Mr Dutton put in his letter are the questions that the Australian people have actually been asking the government to answer since 30 July 2022. Minister, on behalf of the Australian people, who continue to ask the questions and would like the answers to them so that they can make an informed decision in coming to this referendum—given that there was no constitutional convention and there was not the benefit of minds coming together to discuss the actual section of the Constitution that is proposed—I ask those questions again. The first question is this: if the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is permanently enshrined in our Constitution, who will be eligible to serve on the body? 19:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm well aware that one of the major arguments being put by the opposition against the Voice is this question of detail, but, as I would expect that Senator Cash is aware, obviously a very large amount of detail has been provided about how the Voice will operate. I suspect that many of the questions that you say you have are addressed in the design principles information booklet that the government has distributed. So to the specific question that you ask, essentially who would be eligible to serve on the Voice, members of the Voice would be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people according to the standard three-part test. I know there were questions about that in question time this week. We're happy to take you through that, but I encourage anyone who sincerely wants more detail, as opposed to people who want to make that political argument, to refer themselves to the information booklet on the design principles, and I think they will find that many of their questions are answered. 19:16 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you for that answer, and I can assure you later on in the night we will be going through the design principles in detail. In terms of genuine questions and wanting genuine detail, we are talking about the impacts of change to our Constitution. Now, the last time I checked, this is actually probably one of the most significant pieces of legislation to come before this parliament. So, with all due respect, the questions that I do have—that the Leader of the Opposition has already put to the Prime Minister—when I am out and about, are the questions people asking me every single day and I am unable to provide them with any answers. You are asking people to vote on this referendum later this year. This is a change that is intended to affect the way government works in this country. All we are doing, via these questions, is exploring how it will actually work in practice. In terms of the second question: if the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is permanently enshrined in our Constitution, what will be the prerequisites to be nominated as a Voice representative? 19:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It's exactly the answer that I gave to your previous question. 19:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Well then, could you actually take me through it, because, again, you did not have a constitutional convention. If we had had a constitutional convention, these issues would have been explored in detail. On behalf of the Australian people, who are going to be asked by this government to cast a vote—probably one of the most significant votes they will ever cast—to change their founding document, to change the way this country is governed, with all due respect, I would appreciate you answering the questions. So I put it to you again, unless of course, if the answer is 'I don't know', I will accept the answer 'I do not know.' If the answer is 'We have no intention of telling the Australian people that answer until after they've voted, if it gets up, and will then go into the design', then I will accept that as well. Neither of them are an adequate answer, but they are at least answers. So: if the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is permanently enshrined in our Constitution, what will be the prerequisite to be nominated as a Voice representative? Surely you have a departmental representative or a lawyer sitting in the adviser's box that is able to provide you with the relevant talking points on this issue. I don't have a problem if you don't actually know yourself, but surely you have someone, a legal adviser here, that can hand you this particular talking point. 19:19 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks for that, Senator Cash, but I actually have answered your question. I'm not sure if you've actually looked at the information booklet. I can get a copy brought over to you, Senator Cash. That might actually answer a lot of your questions. It's been publicly available for some time for those who are interested in this. My answer to your first question was that members of the Voice would be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples according to the standard three-part test. That's the same answer to the first three questions you've had. 19:20 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So there will be no prerequisites other than you are an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person? There are no other prerequisites? 19:20 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Correct. 19:20 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Will Voice members be subject to the same requirements around citizenship, bankruptcy and criminal convictions as members of parliament? 19:20 Senator 245759 Queensland WATT (—) (): Can I refer you to subsection (iii) of the amendment, which makes very clear that all operational matters regarding the Voice are to be determined by the parliament? You, along with every other member of parliament, will have the ability to settle those matters should the referendum succeed. 19:21 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That is the whole point. We've established that those who are eligible to serve on the body are confined to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons. The only prerequisite to serve on the body is that you are an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person. You have now stated that, in terms of the requirements around citizenship, bankruptcy and criminal convictions, the government has not yet determined whether or not Voice members will be subject to those requirements. 19:22 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland This is one of the good things about the Voice, Senator Cash, and why I'd encourage you to support it. It's not the government who would be making those decisions; it would be this parliament. Subsection (iii) of the amendment makes clear that these types of operational matters won't be a matter for the Voice. They won't be a matter for the government. They'll be a matter for parliament, and you'll have an opportunity to influence that decision, should the referendum succeed. 19:22 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, we seem to be in a situation whereby Mr Albanese is asking the Australian people to (a) trust him—he has let them down plenty of times before, so I don't think they should trust him now and (b) vote on the vibe, because you are clearly putting the cart before the horse. The Australian people would actually like to know the answers to these questions now. As Peter Dutton so articulately stated in his letter, the Prime Minister of Australia is treating the Australian people like mugs. You have referred to the design principles as if they are some huge documents that the government should be proud of. I have read the design intervals. It wasn't very hard. Do you know why? It's a glossy brochure. In fact, it's not actually a glossy brochure. That's actually offensive to glossy brochures! A glossy brochure would at least have some substance. This has no substance at all. You insult the people of Australia by telling them that brochure is basically the answers to these questions. You are asking the Australian people to put the cart before the horse. If you don't know or if the question is fundamentally uncertain, you should say so, so the Australian people can take that into account. What you are saying here—you established question 1 on eligibility: you need to be of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent. No. 2 on prerequisites: there is none other than you need to be of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent. The third question is: will the Voice members be subject to the same requirements around citizenship, bankruptcy and criminal conviction as members of parliament? You are unable to answer that question as that is yet to be determined. Is that correct, Senator Watt? 19:25 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland There's only one thing I can add. Senator Cash, I again refer you to the excellent information booklet that it seems you have a copy of. On page 4 of that document, under the heading 'The Voice will be accountable and transparent', it says: The Voice would be subject to standard governance and reporting requirements to ensure transparency and accountability. Voice members would fall within the scope of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Voice members would be able to be sanctioned or removed for serious misconduct. That deals with some of the matters you're referring to. Beyond that, as I said, these will be matters for the parliament, and you will have every opportunity to influence those decisions. 19:25 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I bring to Senator Cash's attention that the actual design principles are a result also of the esteemed work of Professor Marcia Langton and Professor Tom Calma, so it's not just a glossy brochure; it's as a result of the hard work that your government began in terms of the Langton-Calma report. We took that on through the process of the Referendum Working Group and the Referendum Engagement Group. Many of those members and all of those who gathered at Uluru would consider that gathering to have been a convention. 19:26 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can I just confirm what you said? Were they part of Calma-Langton? 19:26 Senat 122087 Northern Territory or McCARTHY (—) (): I was talking about the design principles that you were referring to as a glossy brochure. I was saying that that was at the end and the culmination of conversations. Professor Langton and Professor Tom Calma are on the Referendum Working Group. Those design principles came from that working group. 19:27 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Will there be a prerequisite similar to a fit-and-proper person test that applies to other types of appointments? 19:27 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answers. There will be an opportunity for parliament to determine many of these types of matters should the referendum succeed, but again I make the point that the design principles make very clear that Voice members would be able to be sanctioned or removed for serious misconduct, so that addresses the kinds of matters you're asking about now. I might just add that Senator McCarthy made a good point. I encourage those who do think that the design principles booklet is too simplistic—I think those were your words—and lacking in substance to read the lengthy and very detailed Calma and Langton report, which your government commissioned. The detail is all there if you want more than the design principles. 19:28 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia With all due respect, Minister, we are in the committee stage of your bill, so encouraging people to go and read documents is actually not appropriate. It is appropriate, if you have the answers, to provide them here and now. Again I am just going to confirm what you have stated. Will there be a prerequisite similar to a fit-and-proper-person test that applies in other types of appointments? You have stated that I should refer to the design principles. We're going to get to the design principles and we're going to go through them in detail. But your answer to that is: that is actually a matter for the parliament to decide in due course. We don't have the numbers, so it's actually not going to be up to us. It's actually going to be up to you with the Australian Greens. If you determine that you don't want a fit-and-proper-person test, that's actually what's going to happen. So that again is going to be up to the parliament; is that correct? 19:29 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes is the short answer. But I have to say I'm very surprised to hear that, should the referendum succeed, the opposition intends to play no role in parliament's decisions as to how the Voice would operate. As I said, I'm surprised that you're making that decision at this point in time. But, if that's the decision that you've made, then I guess that's a matter for you. 19:29 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If you're going to keep on verballing me all night, it's going to be a very long night, because you know, exactly, that is not what I said. Can the government please confirm which legal definition of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person will be used to determine who can serve on the body? 19:30 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland There was actually a question about this in question time through the course of this week. As I've already said, the prerequisite to be eligible to be on the Voice is that you need to be an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person according to the standard three-part test. In general terms, that test involves: firstly, being someone of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent; secondly, self-identification as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person; and, thirdly, acceptance as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person by the relevant community. 19:31 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia This is obviously important. You are saying then that it is the tripartite test, not any other definition. There are definitions, as you know, that are used in other pieces of legislation, so there are differing definitions. This is why I do want to lock this down in this committee on the record. It is the tripartite test that is the legal definition that you will be utilising? 19:31 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes. That's the third time I've confirmed that. 19:31 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Will the definition be enshrined in the Voice legislation? 19:31 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, that's a matter for the parliament. 19:32 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, just to confirm, there's no answer to that other than that it may or may not occur if the referendum gets up, and then— Senator Watt 245759 I have a point of order. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e5x Minister, your point of order? Senator Watt 245759 You were just talking about verballing a couple of minutes ago. That's actually not what I said, but I'll refer people back to the Hansard. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e5x Senator Cash? Senator CASH I0M In relation to the definition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders that's going to be used in the Voice or in terms of who can serve on the body—and it is the tripartite test—will the government make corresponding changes to similar definitions across the Commonwealth statute book to ensure a harmonised approach? 19:32 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I respectfully suggest that that's actually not relevant to this bill. This is about the definition that will be applied to this bill. Senator Cash is now asking what the government's intentions are about definitions in other bills, and it's simply not relevant to this debate. 19:33 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia With all due respect, as you know, there are different legal definitions across the statute books. I can go through some of them if you would like me to. What I'm asking though is: given that you have now confirmed the definition that will be utilised in the Voice is the tripartite test, have you given any thought to actually harmonising the different definitions so that you have consistency across the statute books? 19:33 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We've been focused on this bill, rather than what may or may not happen with other bills. 19:34 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The question I then have is this: if not, will this mean that some Australians who are eligible to be Voice representatives will not receive the benefits of Commonwealth legislation intended to benefit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, or vice versa? Will the government commit to ensuring that this is not the case? If you're not going to have consistency in the actual definition, are you actually going to end up having a problem. 19:34 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That's obviously your opinion, Senator Cash, but we're here to debate an amendment to the Constitution rather than hypothetical situations that you're putting forward that might involve other bills. 19:34 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia It's not a hypothetical situation, because, depending on the legislative definition that you use, you are going to end up, potentially, with people who may be eligible to serve on the Voice but then not receive other benefits, and vice versa. It's actually quite a serious legal issue in terms of the definition that you are using. You may be excluding some people here but allowing them here, but excluding them here and allowing them here—hence the consistency and the harmonisation of the definition. 19:35 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I'm trying to understand what you mean by that, Senator Cash, because we currently use that identification system for everything right across the Commonwealth—even now, across agencies and across the Commonwealth. So is there a particular example that you'd like to give us to assist us here? 19:36 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If you look at the different definitions of Aboriginality across the Commonwealth statute books, you have section 23 under the Social Security Act, you have the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act and you have the Australian Education Regulation 2013—there is a definition at section 16. You have section 253 under the Native Title Act 1993. You also have the CATSI Act, and they themselves have a definition. Each definition is actually slightly different, hence my question. You've given a definition that you are going to use here, which is the tripartite one, but then there are other definitions set out. So my question is: how are you going to ensure consistency so you don't get 'included here', 'excluded here', 'included here', 'excluded here'? 19:36 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory By the same definition that we're using now, which Senator Watt has referred to in his answers. 19:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That doesn't actually answer the question. If the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is permanently enshrined in our Constitution, will Voice representatives be elected, chosen or appointed? 19:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Cash, I find it very surprising that you wouldn't know the answer to that question. That has been widely discussed, including in the design principles. Again, I refer you to page 4, the second dot point in the top box: Members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the Torres Strait Islands. That has been widely on the public record, and, as I say, I find it hard to believe that you don't know that. 19:38 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, this is a committee stage. The reason you ask questions is to get the answers put in Hansard in a committee stage so that anybody wanting to look at an additional document they want to use by way of statutory interpretation can pick up the Hansard from the committee stage—hence I'm asking the questions, to ensure that we get whatever answers we can, which appear to be few and far between tonight, so that we actually get the answers we can get now in the Hansard. Could the parliament, then, for example, allow representatives to be chosen by way of an election that is held in an Aboriginal community? 19:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, Senator Cash, that is a matter for the parliament. But, again, I refer you to the design principles, which on page 3 set out quite clearly, in succinct form, how people will be chosen to serve on the Voice: Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government. Members would serve on the Voice for a fixed period of time, to ensure regular accountability to their communities. To ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the Voice would be chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined through the post-referendum process. 19:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If representatives are directly elected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, could candidates run campaigns? 19:39 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That'll be a matter for the parliament. 19:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I do feel we're having a repeat of another piece of legislation from last year where every answer given—I think it was 53 or 54 times—was: 'That will be a matter for the Fair Work Commission.' We appear to be going down that path— The TEMPORARY CHAIR e5x Minister, are you raising a point of order? 19:40 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Well, I'm just trying to assist Senator Cash and agreeing that that is how we're going to be dealing with this. You're going to put repeated questions to me, and I'm going to answer them in that way because these are matters that need to be decided by the parliament, just as those were matters that needed to be decided by the Fair Work Commission. 19:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia And, as we know, the whole point that I am making this time is: the Australian people are asking these questions now. I know that, when Senator Nampijinpa Price goes out, these are certainly the questions, Senator Nampijinpa Price, that you are being asked. And we cannot provide any answers. Referring people to some principles is not adequate, in particular, when the answer—and we are going to get to the principles, and we will go through them in detail, and I'm quite sure the answer is going to be: 'That will be a matter for the parliament.' But you are asking people to make an informed decision, and yet, to date, what we have in this case is completely lacking in detail: 'This is the cart. This is the horse.' This is the bill we're debating, and, unfortunately, all the detail is here. That is completely unacceptable, when you are asking the Australian people to change the Constitution. You should not treat them like mugs. You should at least give them the respect that they deserve and be able to answer what are very basic questions that actually are coming from exactly that—your design principles. If Voice representatives are directly elected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, could candidates seek donations? 19:41 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That'll be a matter for the parliament. 19:41 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia On the basis that it is a matter for the parliament, can I assume that this bill then does not rule out or prevent any of those things from occurring? And, if not, how can the government guarantee that enshrining the existence of Voice representatives in our Constitution will not simply guarantee that Australia then just ends up having more politicians? 19:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I know that you're seeking a range of new political arguments against the Voice, but the fact is that many of the questions that you've asked are matters for the parliament. I do hope that you and your colleagues participate in that debate when it happens, should the referendum pass. But I'm sure, Senator Cash, you're very aware that it's not the purpose of the Constitution to spell out in prescriptive detail how every aspect of government works. That's why we have acts, that's why we have bills—to deal with that detail. We have regulations. And this will be no different. So this bill, as you well know, is about recognising our First Peoples in our Constitution through a voice to parliament—that's all; nothing more, nothing less. 19:43 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia It is not 'nothing more and nothing less', and we will get to the actual legal considerations in relation to the new section 129. These are questions Australians are asking about what they are voting on. You are asking them to vote on 'the vibe'. We are merely asking questions that the Australian people are asking every single day, so that they can actually make an informed decision. What you are now saying actually completely conforms with what both Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Senator Kerrynne Liddle clearly articulate: if you don't know, vote 'no'. And so far, what we have established is: 'That will be a matter for the parliament.' That important detail 'will be a matter for the parliament'—that important detail will also be a matter for the parliament. So, if the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is permanently enshrined in our Constitution, how many representatives will make up the body? 19:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That will be a matter for the parliament. 19:44 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia When you say 'that will be a matter for the parliament'—Senator Nampijinpa Price, how many communities do you think there are in Australia? Senator Nampijinpa Price 263528 In the Northern Territory, there are over 250. Senator CASH I0M So there are over 250 in the Northern Territory. Have a guess how many there are in Western Australia? Senator Nampijinpa Price 263528 I'd say roughly the same, if not more. Senator CASH I0M So we've already got 500 communities, and that's counting only the Northern Territory and Western Australia, which are fundamentally different from New South and Victoria, just for anybody listening. The issues there are completely different. Senator Nampijinpa Price is from Alice Springs; she knows that. Anyone who has been to Roebourne in Western Australia knows that. The issues that are faced in Roebourne in Western Australia are different to the issues in New South Wales. Anybody who has been to Laverton—and the Prime Minister of Australia hasn't—know that the issues faced in Laverton are fundamentally different to the issues in New South Wales. Given that we've established that there are around 500 communities, just as a guess, in two states, will there be at least a representative from each community? 19:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That will be a matter for the parliament. Again, Senator Cash, I refer you to page 4 of the extremely helpful design principles information booklet. In addition to saying that members of the Voice would be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander according to the standard three-part test, the booklet also says that members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the Torres Strait Islands and that the Voice would have specific remote representatives as well as representation for the mainland Torres Strait Islander population. It goes on to say that the Voice would have balanced gender representation at the national level. 19:46 Senator C I0M Western Australia ASH (—) (): That's a general principle. I'm actually asking for the detail. I'm assuming yet again there is no detail. As you said, you cannot say to the Australian people how many representatives there will be. Senator Nampijinpa Price says there are maybe 250 communities in the Northern Territory and maybe 250 or more in Western Australia. Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Kerrynne Liddle can't go back to their communities and say, 'You are actually guaranteed a representative,' because that will be a matter for the parliament. Senator Nampijinpa Price, I find that very disappointing. Minister, how will you guarantee that those representatives represent each of the different Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nations across Australia? 19:47 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I remember the IR debate very well, Senator Cash, and again you sought all sorts of guarantees in that. That's one of your approaches to legislation, but I would welcome the contributions of any of the senators from the opposition in the debate we would ultimately have about the operations and structure of the Voice and for them to put forward their views about how many members there should be and where they should come from. That's what we do in parliament. We all have different ideas. We come along, we debate and we pass legislation. I'm not quite sure why we should have a different approach for this piece of legislation to the approach we take for everything else. But, again, the design principles very clearly say that members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the Torres Strait Islands and that the Voice would have specific remote representatives, as well as representation for the mainland Torres Strait Islander population. 19:48 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Senator Watt, with regard to your reference to the fact that the voices will be chosen from different states, I note that, for Indigenous Australians, prior to colonisation, if you like, there was no recognition of states. They were family groups of course, and I've mentioned that there are about 250 or more communities throughout the Northern Territory. It has been suggested that it will be up to the parliament to determine how representatives will be chosen. Do you consider the parliament to have effective cultural knowledge to determine how best those representatives will be chosen from within remote Indigenous communities, particularly those that still practise traditional Aboriginal culture? 19:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Well, thank you, Senator. I would certainly hope that members of the Senate who are of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent may be able to assist the parliament in reaching its decisions. I would certainly look forward to advice from people like Senator McCarthy and Senator Dodson, and I'd encourage you to provide that advice to us should the referendum succeed as well. 19:50 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Well, I would suggest that there's probably very little knowledge within these chambers of traditional Aboriginal culture, or at least acknowledgement of traditional Aboriginal culture, particularly in the context of—you mentioned gender balance. My lived experience when it comes to gender balance and recognising Aboriginal women is that women are not as important as Aboriginal men in traditional culture. That is why we can be married off at such a young age to older gentlemen. It is also a reason I am acutely aware of issues in remote communities around power imbalance. You did mention that at a national level there will be a requirement of gender balance in the Canberra members of the Voice. Why was there no mention of this with regard to voices that would be chosen from remote Indigenous communities? 19:51 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thanks for the question. There certainly has been advice from the referendum engagement group and the referendum working group in terms of the need for gender balance, and it is the critical part of the design principles. It is something that many of those on the working group and the engagement group have wanted to know about, and also as I've travelled across the Territory people have wanted to know more about that side of it, and we've ensured that it's in the design principles. And if we are successful in the referendum we would want to see that carried through. 19:51 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Following on from Senator Nampijinpa Price and the questions I have asked: many of the answers we are getting are based on the design principles. And if the referendum is successful, as Senator Watt has said, it'll be left for the parliament. Can you at least say, though, what the government intends to do? You clearly have intentions. Why can't you just come clean and tell us what those intentions are? 19:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Our intentions are those set out in the design principles. 19:52 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia How will you guarantee that those representatives—well, should I say, the representatives in terms of those numbers that will be left to the parliament, so we actually don't know if it's one, five or 10 representatives; it could be 1,000 representatives, at the rate we're going, because that will be left to the parliament—represent each of the different Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nations across this country? And this is very important, and Senator Nampijinpa Price may wish to elaborate on this. 19:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm afraid I'm not going to be providing guarantees of the kind that you're looking for, Senator Cash, just as I didn't provide the guarantees you're looking for in the IR debate and that I know you're fond of seeking. But I have said repeatedly now that members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the Torres Strait Islands, and the Voice would have specific remote representation as well as representation for the mainland Torres Strait Islander population. Senator Cash, you seem to be finding it strange that matters involving the Constitution and how it operates would be left to the parliament. But, as you well know, that's exactly how the Constitution works. When the original Constitution was put together in 1901 and passed, it didn't specify exactly what kind of navy we should have; it didn't specify all sorts of things that we should have. It set out broad principles. The parliament's job is then to elaborate on that. So, again, I'm not quite sure why you expect a higher or different standard for this than for any other part of the Constitution. But I have the full confidence in the parliament, in its ability to make these decisions. Again, I would hope that you and your colleagues would participate in that when the time comes, if the referendum is passed. 19:54 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Going back to the question on representation of Indigenous Australians and our different language groups, and also my curiosity around understanding of issues of traditional culture, for the sake of this exercise, Senator, can you please explain how, in a community of one language group, for example, where there are perhaps people of the same language group who are in disagreement with each other over issues, there will be a fair representation of those individuals, and not just one side? You did say earlier that you would hope that someone like myself would be able to contribute to this legislation should this Voice be successful, which I find quite humorous really because my advice is rarely actually sought in these chambers when it comes to my knowledge of traditional culture. Can you please explain for us how there will be true representation in some of these remote communities, particularly when you have communities who are in disagreement with one another? I would really like to understand this. I received phone calls yesterday about an outbreak of violence in the community of Yuendumu where people are being attacked for having different viewpoints to other community members. So how will the Voice address this particular issue and ensure there is representation across the board for Indigenous people from these communities? 19:56 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Of course, it goes without saying that violence can't be supported in any circumstance. Many of the matters that you've just asked about will be matters that the parliament will need to decide should the referendum be successful. One point I can take you to on page 3 of the information booklet is: To ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the Voice would be chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined through the post-referendum process. So this parliament would have the job of consulting around how the Voice should be structured, how it should deal with exactly the kinds of matters that you raise, just as this parliament, on a regular basis, has inquiries to consult the community to resolve those kinds of details. 19:57 Senator NAMPIJI 263528 Northern Territory NPA PRICE () (): In terms of your knowledge, can you inform us how many Indigenous languages are currently being spoken in the Northern Territory at the moment? 19:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't know that. I don't claim to know that. But that's exactly the kind of thing I would love to get advice on from people who do know about those kinds of things. 19:58 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Well, I would suggest that's really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to understanding traditional culture and the way it should impact, especially this process—the way it impacts a lot of issues, including the acceptance of violence in some of these communities, which I am often told is not the case and I'm shot down quite often for speaking the truth on these particular issues. So can you please explain to me how this parliament, through this process, will be provided the opportunity to have a deeper understanding of traditional culture—which many people, Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, still live very close to—for the purposes of a task as great as this, as great as amending our Constitution to improve the lives of some of our most marginalised whose first language is not English, who are still living within the confines of traditional culture? 19:59 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you for that, Senator. I would suggest to you that the point you've just made is exactly why we need a Voice to Parliament, to ensure that the parliament gains that sort of understanding that we don't currently have. We want to be hearing directly from First Nations people about these types of issues, so if that's a comment in support of a Voice then I'm very pleased to hear it. 19:59 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I would suggest that that's a fairly ignorant response to what I have just asked. It should be the responsibility of members of this parliament to have a greater understanding, not for the purposes of simply standing up and making grandiose statements of virtue that we have got to this point. Does the government in fact recognise the elements of traditional culture that contribute to some of the very real and threatening circumstances that individuals are faced with in some of these remote communities? You speak of makarrata. The term 'makarrata' is actually about offering oneself up for traditional customary law punishment—a spear in the leg—and you're throwing this term around as if this is wonderful for Australia. Does the government actually view makarrata—is this the government's way of insisting upon non-Indigenous Australia to present themselves to Indigenous Australia for punishment? 20:00 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Firstly, I think it's really important that you recognise that there's no disrespect meant here. When my colleague said that this is what he wants to learn about, that was said in all honesty. Many of my colleagues don't know all the details and the ins and outs that you and I do in terms of First Nations families and culture. I certainly try to give as much experience as I can from my lived experience, but I also know that they have to learn from others—from the Yolngu, from the Warlpiri, your people down there, from the Nunggubuyu and all the mobs at Wadeye and at Tiwi. These are the areas that my colleagues on this side wouldn't know all about. So there's certainly no disrespect intended. I want to point that out from the outset. I think that was a very honest answer from Minister Watt. In terms of makarrata, it is the Yolngu who have really, through the Dhuwa and the Yirritja system, given us a great deal of knowledge and wisdom in walking this journey to get to this point. You were there with the farewell for Yunupingu. Makarrata—and we have a different name for it in our language—is certainly about the coming together. I know you know this, but I think it's important while we're putting things on Hansard. It is the coming together after having had some kind of conflict or tension to bring about peace, to reach common ground, and that's really why we use the term 'makarrata' under the good grace of the Yolngu. 20:02 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory That's the really lovely way of putting it, but the honest way of putting it is that it is about presenting oneself for punishment. That needs to be fully understood as well—that there is an element of that that exists. This is where my concerns come from. We talk about truth-telling. Don't we have to be completely and utterly honest about truth-telling and what that means? With all due respect to the Yolngu, they also have written their law into a written document, the Ngarra book of law, and, within the Ngarra book of law, it stipulates the way in which women can be punished, wives can be punished, for being unruly and other various punishments. My own mother was promised to become a second wife in an arranged marriage. She lived under customary law and made decisions for herself. There are still young women that I know of—I even had a promised husband, which I didn't know about until later on in life—who live under this law. There's romanticism around culture. We have to all respect elders that we don't even know. It's forced upon us to do so. I want to understand how the vulnerable in these circumstances, in these communities that live under customary law, who are subjected to some of the elements of this customary law that deny their human rights, are going to be respected and heard and listened to for once, instead of ignored for the sake of virtuous, grandiose statements and romanticism of culture. I want to understand how what you're proposing is going to, in fact, give them the opportunity to be heard and how, through this process here, they are supposed to be empowered and have a voice. 20:05 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I too was promised. I had strong family and mothers around me who made sure that never happened. So I understand acutely the feelings of our women. I think it's important to realise, if we're about reaching out to our women across Australia, especially those who are experiencing family and domestic violence or are needing to rise above poverty, that there is no doubt that this is about empowering them. Like all the things we're trying to do, this is to empower all women everywhere—balanda, Yolngu. 20:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I just have two more questions, and I know that the Greens have a block of questions. Senator Watt, in terms of the questions and the comments that you have previously made to me about asking people to vote on a referendum question first and then the parliament legislating later, you referred back to 1901. The argument there in relation to the Constitution being about principles is actually disingenuous in this context, because if you go back to 1901—and the particular example you used was the Navy—when our Constitution was being put together, Australians at least had the benefit of looking at hundreds of years of constitutional conventions in other countries—so, for example, the experiences of places like the USA and Canada. In 1901 everybody knew what a navy was. What you have, though, with what we are debating tonight in the Voice, is that this is completely untested, it is completely novel and there is no equivalent body that we know of anywhere else. In fact, there is no equivalent. I make this point: if there were a legislative body, at least we could say there was a legislative body that we could look at. This is going way beyond a legislative body. This is a constitutionally informed body, and there is no evidence. In fact, there is no equivalent constitutionally informed body anywhere else in the world that we are aware of. So, when asking these questions, will representatives be asked to represent multiple different Aboriginal people? 20:08 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That's a matter for the parliament. 20:08 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I have some questions for the minister around makarrata. The government has committed to the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. That means truth, it means treaty and it means Voice. We note that there was $5.8 million in the October budget for preparatory work for a makarrata commission. Can I firstly ask you whether the government has a proposed time line for the establishment of makarrata? 20:09 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As you know, Senator McKim, the government is committed to the Uluru statement in full. The first step is a Voice to Parliament, as set out in the Uluru statement, and then, as a priority, a Makarrata Commission for agreement making and truth telling, and we have earmarked $27.7 million in the budget for a Makarrata Commission. In the coming few months, our focus will be on the referendum, obviously. Treaty does take time, and we don't want to hold up a Voice while waiting for a treaty. We do have the opportunity for a successful referendum this year, and we think that that will lay the groundwork for the path to treaty and truth. 20:10 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Thank you, Minister. I completely understand why the government's focus at this stage is on the proposed referendum and associated processes. But are you able to inform the Senate of whether the government has a proposed time line for the establishment of makarrata? If not, does the government have a process around the establishment of a time line for the establishment of makarrata? 20:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I can't really add to my previous answer on that, Senator McKim. As I say, we are committed to the Uluru statement in full, including establishing a Makarrata Commission. We've earmarked money in the budget for that purpose. But, in the short term, our focus is obviously on the referendum. 20:11 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Can I ask: does the government see merit in, before the commencement of makarrata, all states and territories making progress towards truth and treaty before there is a commission established on a federal level? I ask that, obviously, in the knowledge, which I assume is a shared knowledge amongst many of our colleagues in the Senate, that various states and territories are making progress at different stages towards either a truth-telling process or a process around treaty or both. 20:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator McKim. As I'm sure you'd be aware, in recent years a number of states and territories have been leading when it comes to implementing some of the suggestions from the Uluru statement. When it comes to voice, obviously we now have a First Nations Voice in South Australia, which by all reports is operating quite effectively and may be worth some members for the opposition taking a look at. When it comes to treaty, my own state of Queensland recently passed legislation for a path to treaty. When it comes to truth, in Victoria the Yoorrook Justice Commission provides a model for that purpose. Many of the matters that will be covered by treaty do relate to the states, and for that reason we think that, the more jurisdictions can make progress, the better the groundwork is laid for federal agreement making. I think that we all have a responsibility—every state and territory as well as the Commonwealth—and that's why we're encouraging the parliament to get behind this. 20:13 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Thanks, Minister. I appreciate that response. As I said during my comments in response to Senator Thorpe's amendments, the Greens absolutely care deeply about First Nations sovereignty, and we do want to place on the record our thanks to the government for their advice on this matter and state clearly that that advice, as well as independent legal advice that the Greens have sought, has assured us that First Nations sovereignty will not be impacted by this process. In that context, Chair, I will shortly seek leave to table two letters, both of which are addressed to the Leader of the Australian Greens, Mr Bandt. I will circulate them in a minute. I'll just explain what these letters are. Both of these letters are addressed to the Leader of the Australian Greens, Mr Adam Bandt MP. One is from the Referendum Working Group. The other is from the Attorney-General. Both of these letters are dated 2 February 2023, and they provide advice around First Nations sovereignty. The letter from the Attorney-General says this: 'As the government has made clear repeatedly, the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Australian Constitution does not affect the sovereignty of any group or body, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Such a view has also been expressed clearly and unequivocally on the public record by many eminent legal experts over the course of the last decade, including most recently by Dr Hannah McGlade and Professor George Williams.' So that is a quote from the letter from the Attorney-General to Mr Bandt dated 2 February this year. The letter from the Referendum Working Group to Mr Bandt of the same date says, 'As you are aware, legal experts have repeatedly made it clear that the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution does not impact sovereignty.' The letter goes on to say: 'Today we received the referendum legal expert group's latest advice on the Prime Minister's draft constitutional amendment, which said, among other things, "All members of the Expert Group agreed that the draft provision would not affect the sovereignty of any group or body."' I now seek leave to table those two letters, and I can indicate for the Senate that the whips have agreed that these letters be tabled. Leave granted. Senator McKIM JKM I table the letters. I'll just make a couple of comments about those letters. As is obvious from the words that I read out, both of these letters make it clear that sovereignty of First Nations people will not be impacted by this amendment. Obviously, the proposed alteration to the Constitution has generated a lot of public commentary, and some of that commentary has been around whether or not the proposed alterations would impact First Nations sovereignty. Those discussions have occurred out in the community, within many groups, and they have occurred also, obviously, within the Greens—both within our party and within our party room. Whilst this matter was resolved, in our view, pretty early on in the conversation, it is worth making sure that the record is clear about this so that interested Australians can see what advice we have received and how that advice was able to alleviate our initial concerns. So, Minister, I want to ask you firstly in this context: can the government please affirm that the advice provided in these letters is still correct in the opinion of the government? 20:18 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes, I can confirm that that advice is still correct. I understand, that, as Senator McKim has made clear, he's referring to two letters. One is a letter from the Referendum Working Group to Mr Bandt dated 2 February this year, and the other is a letter from the Attorney-General to Mr Bandt dated the same date. I can confirm that nothing has changed or could change. The advice set out in those letters is correct. 20:19 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Minister, for the avoidance of any doubt, could I just ask you to place on the record that it is the government's view, as we have this debate, that the proposed amendment to the Constitution will not impact the sovereignty of the First Peoples of this country? 20:19 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes, I can confirm that, Senator McKim—and it's not just the government's view; it's also the view of the constitutional expert group, who I would suggest, are far more eminent constitutional scholars than any of us, and all members of the expert group agreed that the draft provision that we are debating here would not affect the sovereignty of any group or body, including of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. As I'm sure you know, Senator McKim, that group includes First Nations and constitutional law experts like Professor Asmi Wood, Professor Megan Davis, a former High Court judge and many other eminent lawyers and constitutional law specialists. 20:20 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania This is my final question. I acknowledge, Minister, that your previous response touched on matters that I'm about to ask you about, but I want to give you the opportunity to lay out the process that the government undertook to be sure of the fact that this proposed amendment to the Constitution will not impact the sovereignty of First Peoples of Australia. 20:20 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland In the lead-up to introducing this bill, the government established the referendum working group, which is made up of senior First Nations leaders from across Australia. We also set up the constitutional expert group to provide advice on the draft words. As I've just mentioned, the expert group includes some of Australia's foremost legal and constitutional law experts, including First Nations legal experts like Professor Asmi Wood and Professor Megan Davis, a former High Court judge and a number of other leading constitutional law experts. The constitutional expert group examined the draft words in detail and provided advice to the working group about their legal implications. The working group discussed the draft words over the course of nine meetings between September 2022 and March 2023 before releasing its advice to the government on 23 March this year. One of the questions the working group asked the constitutional expert group was on this issue of sovereignty. And the expert group's views were very clear and unanimous: the draft provision would not affect the sovereignty of any group or body. 20:22 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is permanently enshrined in our Constitution, what functions and powers will it have? 20:22 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer you to subsection ii of the amendment, which sets this out in some detail, but, again, this is addressed in the very handy information booklet. Would it assist if I tabled a copy of that booklet, Senator Cash? I have a couple of copies here. Senator Cash I0M Not at all, because I've got more than adequate stuff over here. Senator WATT 245759 Okay. I just wonder why you needed to ask these questions in that case, but the— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 Hang on— Senator WATT 245759 I haven't finished answering your question. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Cash, I haven't given you the call just yet. Senator WATT 245759 I haven't answered the question yet. Senato 245759 Page 3 of the information booklet says: The Voice will give independent advice to the Parliament and Government The Voice would make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Voice would be able to make representations proactively. The Voice would be able to respond to requests for representations from the Parliament and the Executive Government. The Voice would have its own resources to allow it to research, develop and make representations. The Parliament and Executive Government should seek representations in writing from the Voice early in the development of proposed laws and policies. But, as I say, it's all very succinctly set out in subsection ii of the amendment. 20:23 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, if the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is permanently enshrined in our Constitution—and you did obviously refer to resources—how much will taxpayers have to pay each year to fund it? 20:24 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Well, of course, like every other element of government, that would be a matter for budget processes each and every year. I'm sure you'll remember from your days, Senator Cash, that ministers have to go to the budget process. I've certainly had to do that myself. And this would be no different. 20:24 Senator I0M Western Australia CASH (—) (): Again, the government must have some idea as to the type and amount of resources that it would actually provide the Voice. Will you give it a token amount to set it up? Will you give it a low, medium or high amount? Again, what is the intention of the government when it comes to funding and resourcing the Voice? 20:25 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 20:25 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Well, aren't we all lucky, then—and, again, we're on broadcast, for anybody listening in—that Minister Watt has a very handy information booklet! I think that is exactly what Minister Watt said. He has a very handy information booklet. We've established so far that there is next to no detail for the Australian people when we ask serious questions in relation to their Constitution, but we are told by the minister representing the government in this debate: 'We have a very handy information booklet.' I suppose that is one step up from: 'That will be a matter for the parliament.' If the Voice is permanently enshrined in our Constitution, would the Voice have a future international role, as proposed by the Calma-Langton report? 20:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Sorry, Senator Cash, I just missed that question. Would you mind asking it again? 20:26 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, if the Voice is permanently enshrined in our Constitution, would the Voice have a future international role, as proposed by the Calma-Langton report? 20:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, that would be a matter for the parliament, but also for the Voice. The design principles are very clear: the Voice would make representations to the parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. So it would be a matter for the Voice, if established following a successful referendum, to determine what matters it wants to prioritise. We've certainly made clear that we expect that those priorities would include matters such as housing, health and education, but what you're asking would be both a matter for the parliament in designing the Voice and then the Voice in terms of its own decisions. That's the point of the Voice. 20:27 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, you just referred to 'design' in the legislation. Certainly, the government must have some intention in relation to the role that it perceives the Voice will have. When you look at the Calma-Langton report, they propose that the Voice would have a future international role, so what is the government's intention in relation to that proposal on a future international role? 20:27 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Really, I refer to my previous answer. After a successful referendum, the government would commence a process to design the Voice in consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and the broader Australian public. The Voice's composition, functions, powers and procedures will be a matter for the parliament to legislate. Leaving the specifics to legislation would ensure the Voice is able to evolve and adapt as circumstances change. 20:28 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So there's no further information in your handy information booklet? Senator Nampijinpa Price may also have questions here. What will happen if a dispute arises internally between Voice representatives? If representatives are aligned with different Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, how will the government ensure the Voice does not become a de facto forum for articulating and resolving disputes? 20:29 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland For starters, this is quite a hypothetical question. Again, this is another question that goes to the operation of the Voice. I suspect I'll be saying this a lot tonight, but that will ultimately be a matter for the parliament. 20:29 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia With all due respect, you say it is hypothetical. I say we are talking about the impacts of a change to our founding document, our nation's rule book. You're asking the people to vote on this later this year. This is a change that is intended to affect the way government works in our country. All we are doing is exploring how this will work in practice. What you are saying, by not being able to answer this question, is that you're unable to tell the Australian people how the Voice will work. It's actually a very simple question for them: how will the Voice work? I would have thought the government would have—other than its design principles, though we also now know that there will be, to quote Senator Watt, a 'handy information booklet'—some very serious, considered answers from your group of legal experts who have been looking at this so you could at least provide some information to the Australian people. What I've got so far tonight reinforces, as I said, what Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Kerrynne Liddle have so articulately stated time and time again: 'If you don't know, vote no.' At this point in time, all I'm getting is: 'That will be a matter for the parliament to decide.' When you are talking about the impacts of change to our Constitution, quite frankly, 'That will be a matter for the parliament to decide,' is not a sufficient answer. Is there anything in this bill that would prevent Voice representatives from being aligned with different Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups or organisations? 20:31 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't quite know what you mean by 'aligned with particular organisations'. Aside from the prerequisite that members need to be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the exact requirements for numbers and the geographic spread of the members of the Voice will be settled by the parliament. It's worth making the point, Senator Cash, that it would appear that you think the government should be able to answer every single question about how the Voice is constructed, what it can do and who is on it. That sort of defeats the purpose of the Voice, which is to listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on these types of matters. 20:32 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory With all due respect, this is asking the Australian people to make a massive amendment to our Constitution with regard to Indigenous Australians. This is why we are asking these questions. We're asking these questions on behalf of Australians and Indigenous Australians alike and those who have certainly been left out of decision-making within organisations. I personally witnessed my own grandmother being punched at a Central Land Council meeting. So we would like to understand how the Voice will deal with conflict resolution. 20:33 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Like we've said earlier, any violence anywhere is intolerable. Whatever happens in terms of violence, we obviously have to ensure that the police are involved. That's a serious matter, irrespective of whether you're Indigenous or non-Indigenous or an organisation or a family. 20:33 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Given the Central Land Council is a statutory authority, a police presence was requested prior to this meeting. Unfortunately, they weren't provided by the Central Land Council at the time. A report was made following the meeting. Unfortunately the meeting wasn't brought to an end at that stage. So we're looking for an understanding of how the Voice mechanism will deal with conflict. Also, we know that many Indigenous groups experience conflict over decisions made about communities, and, certainly, this has taken place a lot when it comes to determinations being made within land councils in the Northern Territory. There have been many reports of conflict taking place. So how will the Voice effectively manage conflict resolution? 20:35 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Just dealing firstly with your example in terms of the Central Land Council, that's a serious matter, so I hope the concerns you've raised around that that have been followed up. But, more broadly speaking around the Voice, clearly it would have the same rules and regulations as we would expect of any organisation anywhere. So, again, as a parliament we'd want to be able to examine, should we be successful in the referendum, the shape of that going forward—but also in discussion with the broader Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. 20:36 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Picking up on the answer there, you stated that you would expect them to have the same rules and regulations as other organisations. I had previously tried to explore this with Senator Watt. Can you please elaborate, then, on what are those rules and regulations? 20:36 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory In reference to Minister Watt, the Voice will be accountable and transparent. I do reflect back on the design principles, which, certainly, have come from years of discussion but also the eminent advice of Professor Langton and Tom Calma. We know that the Voice would be subject to standard governance and reporting requirements to ensure transparency and accountability, and it is something that we do expect of all organisations and statutory bodies that come under the Commonwealth. It's something that we talk about within our estimates process. 20:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Let's explore that, then, because you actually didn't answer the question. You said 'rules and regulations'. I have asked, 'What rules and regulations?' Let's go through, then, a few rules and regulations. Will there be a register of interests for Voice representatives? 20:37 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I do believe I did answer that question. It may not be to your satisfaction, but it is an answer. I refer you back to the point that, when we talk about the standard governance and reporting requirements to ensure transparency and accountability that we currently hold, I'm not sure what you see as difficult in that response. 20:38 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So now I'd like to work through the response. Will there be a register of interests for Voice representatives? 20:38 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Again, if we are successful in winning the referendum, that will indeed be a matter for the parliament. 20:38 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia With all due respect, the issue I'm having with the answer, 'That will be a matter for the parliament,' is that, last time I checked, you are the government. You should be able to come to this place tonight and answer reasonable questions of reasonable people when they ask questions about what it would mean when we change our Constitution. What you are saying, in response to the question, 'Will there be a register of interests for the Voice representatives?', is, 'That will be a matter for the parliament.' Will Voice members need to declare political affiliations and union memberships? 20:39 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory With all due respect to you, Senator Cash, I am responding to your questions, and I think it's fairly obvious what is meant when we say that these issues and these matters are for the parliament, should we be successful. 20:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, you are the government. Yes, this is the parliament; you are the government. You will bring a proposal to the parliament—unless you're saying that we can actually draft that proposal, because, I tell you, colleagues, if that's the proposal that's on the table, that is fantastic news. But clearly it's not. You are the government; you will be bringing a proposal to the parliament. Surely you have some idea in relation to the proposal that you will bring to the parliament. What we have established to date as this. Will there be a register of interests for Voice representatives? That will be a matter for the parliament. Will Voice members need to declare political affiliations and union memberships? That will be a matter for the parliament. You are promising that it will have rules and regulations. That is what you stated. You referred to rules and regulations as expected of any other organisations. I say: let's go through those rules and regulations that apply to other organisations. But you can't say what those rules and regulations will be. You say there will be standard governance and reporting requirements. I now ask you: what are those standard governance and reporting requirements? 20:40 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory You have raised quite a few points there, Senator Cash. If I may, we do not for a minute think that we could be so arrogant as to come in here expecting that we've won the referendum. We recognise that we have to win the referendum before we can come and have these discussions—and I think that's important. You say you're prepared to bring a model in. That's fine; you can do that if that's what you wish to do tonight. But I'd just like to refer you back to the point that the Voice will be accountable and transparent and it is subject to standard governance. If we are successful in this referendum, then of course we'd commence a process to design the Voice in consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and the broader Australian public. And I don't think I can say it in any other way but that we have to win the referendum first. 20:41 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I, Senator Nampijinpa Price and my colleagues Senator McKenzie and Senator Scarr were hoping—or should I say our expectation is—that the government should be able to answer reasonable questions from reasonable people when they ask questions about what it would mean when they change their Constitution. You keep referring to standard governance. What standard governance are you referring to? 20:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I think it's pretty straightforward: it's the usual standards that the federal government requires of other federal government related bodies. 20:42 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Finally—'It is pretty straightforward.' Thank goodness. That means my next set of questions should actually have a yes or no answer. To bring you up to speed, Senator Watt, we asked: will there be a register of interest for Voice representatives? That is a matter for the parliament. We've established this is the parliament and you're the government. You don't know; perhaps the parliament will. Will Voice members need to declare political affiliations and union memberships? Again, bringing you up to speed, it's a matter for the parliament. Now that you've said it's pretty straightforward, we might actually get somewhere. My next question is: will Voice members need to declare financial interests? 20:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I can't say that I am particularly across the detail of every governance requirement of the Australian government, but what I can tell you is that the Voice will be subject to exactly the same standards. 20:43 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thought you said it was straightforward. Senator Watt 245759 It is. Senator CASH I0M You said it was pretty straightforward, you're not across the detail and you can't provide an answer. There are a lot of contradictions within those statements. Okay, so we don't know whether or not Voice members will need to declare financial interests. Will Voice members, given a number of the issues that Senator Nampijinpa Price has raised, at least need to undergo police checks? 20:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That will be a matter for the parliament. 20:44 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Will Voice members have security clearances? 20:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That will be a matter for the parliament, but I would expect that we would put in place the same standards as we see with other federal government organisations. 20:44 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That's an interesting answer. So the government does have an intention. Can you now take us through what the intention of the government is in relation to the rules and regulations and the standard governance arrangements that the Voice will be subject to? This is a body that, by your own happy little glossy brochure and your handy information booklet, is going to be getting resources. The taxpayer will be funding this body. How much, Senator Nampijinpa Price, do we invest in the NIAA each year? Senator Nampijinpa Price 263528 About four billion. Senator CASH I0M Did you say 'billion'? Billion! So one would've thought that, yes, you can answer these questions in relation to taxpayers. Will they need to undergo police checks? Will they need to have security clearances? Given that it is actually, as you say, a body that's going to be able to make representations, will Voice members appear before estimates? 20:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland All of those things will be matters for the parliament. 20:45 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The government has no intention—no intention at all? The government hasn't actually thought about this, despite the fact that it's pretty straightforward, according to you? The government has no intention at this point in time in relation to the governance arrangements? 20:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland No, that's not correct. I refer you to the handy information booklet, which on page 4 says: The Voice would be subject to standard governance and reporting requirements to ensure transparency and accountability. Senator Cash, we all know what's going on here. You've been running a campaign of seeding doubt in the Australian people's minds, and that's what this debate is about for you as well. But for us the debate is about giving the Australian people a say. Senator Scarr 282997 Point of order, Chairman. The minister is impugning the motives of my good friend Senator Cash, and I ask him to withdraw. I might just elaborate on it. He said that she was asking these questions in order to sow seeds of doubt. That's impugning her motives. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 Minister, could you withdraw, please? Senator WATT 245759 If it would assist the chamber, I withdraw. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. Senator Cash. 20:47 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, you keep referring to the same standards as would apply to other federal government agencies. To work in the Public Service you need to undergo a police check and you need to be an Australian citizen. So what we are doing is interrogating information that you have now put into the public debate. It is your information booklet and you said it was to explain how the Voice will work. When I asked you whether or not they would need to undergo police checks, you stated: 'That would be a matter for the parliament.' That is already the case. Will the Voice members appear before estimates? That is an important question. They are getting taxpayers' money. Will they have to appear and answer questions before estimates committees? 20:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland All of those things will be worked out by the parliament, should the referendum succeed, and I look forward to you making a contribution to that parliamentary debate, if and when it occurs. 20:48 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Will the Voice be subject to the Freedom of Information Act? 20:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 20:48 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Will its records be subject to the Archives Act? 20:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 20:48 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Will it be required to publish information of its consultations in a timely manner in a similar way to other consultative bodies? 20:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer, which I've now said many times, which is that the Voice would be subject to standard governance and reporting requirements to ensure transparency and accountability. 20:48 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia All we are doing is exploring that statement. You have made a statement. I am merely exploring now what is behind the statement. Yes, I have my two-page glossy design principles. There also is, as you say, a handy little information booklet. I am trying to explore what you are saying on the Hansard record. Will the Voice be required to publicly release all research and submissions? 20:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That sounds like something that would be a matter for the parliament. 20:49 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Will the Voice be subject to the PGPA Act? 20:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 20:49 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Will the Voice need to publish an annual report? 20:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 20:50 Senator I0M Western Australia CASH (—) (): Will there be consequences if it fails to publish an annual report? 20:50 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 20:50 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Will it have employees who are public servants? 20:50 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 20:50 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If it does have employees who are public servants— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 Order! Sorry, Senator Cash. Senator Pratt, order, please. Senator CASH I0M How will the government ensure that it does not become a politicised body with political parties running candidates? 20:50 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I would say probably by having the parliament decide that, and it would be really terrific if we could have your contribution to that debate when we get to it. 20:51 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Well, there don't seem to be many answers with regard to how this Voice is supposed to operate, how it's supposed to be determined or how individuals are supposed to be appointed. Given that those who are supposed to be appointed will then determine further outcomes for Indigenous Australians, looking a little bit further down the line, do you envision that members of the Voice, however they're appointed—and we don't know how they're going to come about—will be determining processes of treaty? 20:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Sorry. So the question is: what role will the Voice have in preparing treaty? 20:52 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory How will the Voice determine the steps towards treaty? 20:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Obviously, the parliament will have a role in any future decisions around treaty, but the decisions that the Voice makes are a matter for the Voice. It's not our role to dictate to the Voice what it can and can't decide. That's exactly why we want to have a voice. 20:52 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Speaking of legal experts, one of your Voice committee members, Tony McAvoy, has suggested that treaty would seek to recognise customary law. Does the government envisage this as something that the Voice would seek to have recognised? 20:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Well, that's obviously not something that's relating to this bill. This bill is simply about recognising our First Peoples in our Constitution through the creation of a Voice to parliament. 20:53 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Thank you. The Voice, once established, will provide representations to the executive. The Prime Minister has suggested it would be a very brave government to disagree with the Voice. So if the Voice were to propose recognition of customary law—and let me provide an example of customary law. You can find this in the Ngarra book of law, speaking about marriage law. When a promised bride has reached sexual maturity, the promised husband may take her for his wife. A 40- or 50-year-old man has spent his life learning the Ngarra law. His new wife might only be 13 to 16 years old, and she'll be sexually mature, but she will not know much about the law. Yet when she marries him she has the right to learn from him all the laws that he knows that took him a lifetime to learn. But, if she breaks the marriage law, she must be speared through the leg. If the husband does not want to punish her then her mother or her brother or sister will punish her, perhaps by hitting her with a heavy nulla-nulla. In another section of this, it suggests that a married woman must not engage in extramarital affairs behind her husband's back, as it can be punished heavily, including by being beaten by her husband or death by sorcery. Would the Prime Minister then suggest it would be a brave government to disagree with representations made by the Voice should the Voice suggest recognising customary law? 20:55 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory We do not condone violence in any form, irrespective of whether it comes from customs overseas or customs in an organisation or culturally. It's important to put clearly to the Australian people that this parliament does not condone violence, full stop. 20:55 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Given this is cultural practice and customary law and something that many across this chamber romanticise, does the government respect cultural practices? 20:56 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I think it's important to put on the Hansard that, again, we do not condone violence in any way, shape or form. Any cultural practices, in terms of understanding who you are, your links to country, whether you're jungkayi or ngimirringki, whether you should be responsible for this area of country or another area of country or the seas and waterways, whether you're responsible for the bush foods that we use, whether we use the bush foods for eating or whether we use them to harness energy for health and healing—they're important cultural practices, so of course that would be significant. 20:57 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Thank you. I am asking Senator Watt these questions. I recognise that, being an Indigenous member of parliament, I don't just want to be conversing with other Indigenous members of parliament. We're all equal here. Yes, there are many cultural practices, but I would like to understand, Minister Watt, whether the government recognises and respects cultural practices. I will begin with arranged marriage. 20:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland This bill is simply about recognising First Nations people and creating a Voice to Parliament, not about the matters that the senator is asking about. 20:58 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I would suggest that this bill is opening a doorway to a lot more than I think this government can handle. So I would like to understand. The Voice may very well be made up of individuals who would like customary law recognised by this parliament and respected. There are so many individuals in this parliament that fall over themselves to acknowledge and respect Indigenous Australians and who stand here every day and tell us all consistently, without fail, about this wonderful respect they have for elders past, present and emerging. Some of these elders that make up the Voice may very well seek to have customary law recognised, whether it be through the Voice or whether it be through treaty. So I'd like to understand which elements of customary law this government respects and will honour. Will it honour traditional payback when a law is broken and someone is forced to have a spear through the leg? 20:59 Senator WAT 245759 Queensland T (—) (): I refer to my previous answer. This bill isn't about those issues. 20:59 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can we just go to the design principles? In the design principles, you talk about the Voice having 'cultural legitimacy'. Senator Nampijinpa Price is asking you about one form of cultural legitimacy. You have put this as an issue into the public arena, so with all due respect, Senator Watt, Senator Nampijinpa Price's questions deserve to be answered. She is asking you about cultural legitimacy. You have talked about the Voice having cultural legitimacy. All Senator Nampijinpa Price is doing is now exploring your understanding of cultural legitimacy. 21:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator McCarthy and I have made it clear on a number of occasions that this government does not condone violence of any kind in any situation, so that is the first part of the answer. The context in which I was talking about cultural legitimacy, as is helpfully set out in the handy little booklet, is that that goes to the way that members of the Voice would be chosen. So, in answer to all of these questions about certain practices, to the extent that they involve violence, of course our government opposes and disagrees with that. 21:01 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Can you explain to me cultural legitimacy in the context of individuals being chosen for the Voice? 21:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As is said on page 3 of the handy little booklet, that goes to the way that members of the Voice would be chosen needing to 'suit the wishes of local communities'. That's what that's about. 21:01 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory So you can't explain to me, then, exactly, in that particular context, as you keep repeating, what cultural legitimacy means. Does it mean that the powerful men from a small community determine who the representative might be over everybody else? 21:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That's clearly not what the document says. 21:02 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Only you're talking about cultural legitimacy, so I'm trying to determine exactly, precisely, what cultural legitimacy is. I'll give you an example. Women in my family, when it comes to making decisions about the small community that they come from, when the men from that community have disagreed with them, have been threatened with violence. In fact, my aunt, who sat in these chambers the day I was sworn in, was actually in such a situation where she was told that her unruly behaviour required her to strip bare naked and walk through the community and be shamed. This is cultural practice. So can you please explain exactly what cultural legitimacy means when it comes to finding representatives and appointing representatives for the Voice to Parliament? 21:03 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. But, also, it is disappointing that there are a series of questions now that portray First Nations people in a particular way. The government has a positive view of First Nations people. We have said that we do not condone violence in any form, in any place, in any community, whether that be in First Nations communities or non-Indigenous communities. What the Voice is about is listening to our First Peoples about the practical problems that they face. I would look forward, as I say, to members of this Senate contributing to the debate about exactly how the Voice should function should the referendum be successful. 21:04 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory So you're going to suggest that as a First Nations representative in this parliament, providing you with context, with lived experience and with the stories of those from my own community, my own family members, who live under customary law, I'm painting their stories in a bad light. So the truth doesn't apply under these circumstances. I'm trying to understand what your understanding of cultural legitimacy is, because it's culturally legitimate for someone to be accused of sorcery and to present themselves for physical punishment. I know it's not nice, but it is the truth, and, if we don't address the truth, forget the Voice, because, if a representative of the Voice doesn't want to address these truths, we're never actually going to address the real issues that are facing our most marginalised. It's tough, I know, Senator Watt. It is tough, but I would like to understand, as a Warlpiri woman who has lived my life witnessing the way in which my family have suffered because of cultural legitimacy, exactly what this government means by cultural legitimacy. This isn't about standing up and who can be the most virtuous and throwing back in, certainly, my face the experiences of those close to me. I'm trying to understand what has been outlined in this handy little booklet in terms of what cultural legitimacy means without the romanticism—just truth. 21:07 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 21:07 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is permanently enshrined in our Constitution, will it be purely advisory or will it have decision-making capabilities? 21:07 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It's actually in the amendment, Senator Cash, and again I think this is probably something that you do know. I respect that you want to get this on the Hansard, but it's in the amendment, in the design principles and in the booklet that its role as advisory. The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU Senator Cash. Senator Watt 245759 And it would be nice— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Sorry, Minister. I've given Senator Cash the call. 21:07 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you, and that was the whole point: it is purely advisory. That is what you were saying, for the Hansard record. 21:08 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes, and I'd welcome members of the opposition starting to say that in their public statements about the Voice. 21:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Could you actually read out for the benefit of the Hansard record what you've just referred to? 21:08 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Proposed section 129(ii): the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. So now that that's crystal clear, as I say, I look forward to members of the opposition ceasing to go around Australia saying otherwise. 21:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Hold on. You utilised the word 'advisory'. Could you just again read that out, because I didn't hear the word 'advisory'? 21:08 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 21:09 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can you confirm that, whilst you've stated the body will be purely advisory, you've stated that it is actually in the particular section? The word 'advisory' does not appear in that particular section. Could you please confirm that? 21:09 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland You've caught me out, Senator Cash. It has got the word 'representations'—aka advice. The handy little booklet that I've pointed you to also says, as one of the design principles: The Voice will give independent advice to the Parliament and Government The Voice would make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. 21:10 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Will the Voice have the freedom to determine the issues on which it makes representations? 21:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes. 21:10 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So there will be no influence from government or any other body on the Voice in determining the issues on which it makes representations. 21:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The Voice will have the capacity to decide for itself what matters it makes representations on, but government would also have the ability to seek advice—advice only—from the Voice on matters involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. 21:10 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If the Voice is free to determine the issues on which it makes representations, and you just stated yes when I asked: 'Will the Voice have the freedom to determine the issues on which it makes representations?'—for once you actually gave an answer—it does have the freedom to determine issues. Does that, then, in fact mean that it will have the capability to make procedural decisions about where to focus its efforts? 21:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland If what you mean is: 'Will the Voice be allowed to prioritise matters that it wants to provide advice on?' then the answer is yes. 21:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia At law, is a decision about whether to make a representation on an issue a matter that can be litigated under administrative law? 21:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland You might be familiar, Senator Cash, with the fact that the parliament will retain powers to make laws relating to the Voice. That, in fact, is in proposed subsection 129(iii). So that would be a matter for the democratically elected parliament that you and I are members of to decide. 21:12 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia What is the government's intention? This starts to get into the legal issues and the potential obstruction when it comes to a government being able to make decisions, because, as everybody whom I know who has dealt with administrative law incredibly well knows, and I know Senator Carr knows this, once you have walked into the area of administrative law, you are now talking about delay—delay to the functioning of government. So I ask you again: at law, is a decision about whether to make representation on an issue a matter that can be litigated under administrative law? 21:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That will be a matter for the democratically elected parliament that you and I are members of, Senator Cash. But I also would refer you to the range of comments by constitutional experts in relation to this particular scare campaign. This claim has been comprehensively debunked by constitutional experts. The Solicitor-General has discounted it. Bret Walker, who is one of the top constitutional lawyers in the country and appears frequently in the High Court as a barrister, called the idea that litigation would impede the functioning of government 'too silly for words' in his evidence to the joint select committee. I suggest that Mr Walker probably knows more than you and I put together, Senator Cash, about what can be litigated in the High Court. Former Chief Justice Robert French, in referring to these alleged risks of litigation and impeding government activity, said: I just don't think they're there and I think that's a reasonable consensus of a lot of constitutional scholars. Personally, Senator Cash, I think it's worth listening to people like the Solicitor-General, Bret Walker and former Chief Justice Robert French. 21:14 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Colleagues, do you know what Senator Watt has just told us all and the Australian people? The good news is that we're still on broadcast. He has told us: trust the High Court of Australia. Trust the High Court of Australia to get it right. That is why you should come to this parliament with answers to our questions. Honourable senators interjecting— The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU Order. Order, Senator Cash; resume your seat. Colleagues, under standing order 197, interjections are disorderly. Both sides will allow Senator Cash and the minister to debate this issue without interruption. Senator Cash, you have the call. Senator CASH I0M Senator Watt just referred to and summarised some of the opinions that he states former High Court justices had. So let's now work through what those opinions were. In relation to the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum, the Liberal senators' dissenting report made this observation in paragraph 1.37, and it goes to the issue, Senator Watt, that you just raised: If proposed s 129 is interpreted by the High Court in a way that imposes on the Executive either a duty to consult the Voice or consider its representations, this will have profoundly disruptive effects on the operation of government. This is not a rhetorical flourish on our part. This was the undisputed evidence presented to the Committee, including from witnesses who were intimately involved in the government's design process. The dissenting report then refers to the assessments made by former justices of the High Court Robert French and Kenneth Hayne. It's worth reading Mr French's comments in full, because this is what Mr French actually stated: Given the immense range of matters in which there might be an interaction between a proposed policy or practice and impacts on Indigenous people in one way or another, to imply a duty to consult across all of that range would really make government unworkable. He then said, though: 'I don't think the High Court is in that business.' Mr Hayne made similar observations. In other words, former justices Hayne and French agree that, if a future High Court decides there is a constitutional duty to consult the Voice, it would be catastrophic for government. They say it would be catastrophic for government. They then went on to say, just as you have today, Senator Watt, that we should take it on trust that a future court would never do that. But, you see, the issue that that raises is: predicting what a High Court will do is precisely the risk that many other eminent former justices, eminent lawyers and prominent academics have themselves warned against. You see, even eminent former justices of the High Court cannot themselves agree on the legal implications of what the government is putting forward. We all know that no-one can say what a future High Court will decide, and that is exactly the point made by Mr French's former colleague on the Federal Court bench, the Hon. Roger Gyles AO, KC. His submission is quite frankly extraordinary and it should be mandatory reading for those who make bland assertions that the legal risks are low. As Mr Gyles said, 'neither the government nor any expert can give those unequivocal assurances'. So, Senator Watt, despite what you've said, unfortunately, Mr Gyles said: 'neither the government nor any expert can give those unequivocal assurances'. His damning submission says that assertions that a future High Court will not apply a duty to consult are misleading and that those assurances 'should not be relied upon by those considering the proposed constitutional change'. The point is just as forcefully made by one of Mr Hayne's former High Court colleagues. Former justice Callinan AC rejects the blindness to the risk that seems to afflict those opposite. He said: 'It would be imprudent to underestimate the capacity of any future High Court for ingenuity or originality.' I have to say, though, that it's this next paragraph which does sum up what we are hearing tonight: It is an irony that so many of the proponents of the Voice, well-intentioned and highly regarded as they are, should be echoing the language so often and infamously used by the late Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen to reporters seeking information about government, "don't you worry about that". So where does that leave the rest of us? The thing these distinguished jurists agree on is that the duty to consult with the Voice would make government unworkable. The thing they disagree on is whether a future High Court could decide if there was such a duty. The only thing we have left is that the government's Voice proposal confirms significant risk. The answers that you are giving tonight, Senator Watt, do exactly that. They confirm the significant risk in changing our Constitution based on the proposal that this government is putting forward. It is uncertain how the High Court would interpret it, but, if carried out at a referendum, it would be permanent. So what I ask you now is: will the government guarantee that a decision whether to make a representation on an issue will not be a decision under an enactment that is reviewable by the AAT? 21:20 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I think probably the most extraordinary aspect of the questions and statements we've just heard from Senator Cash is that, as a former attorney-general of this country and current shadow Attorney-General, she has suggested that we can't trust the High Court. I think that is a pretty extraordinary statement from someone who has been, and aspires to be, the first law officer of this country, but we all have different standards, I guess. She has also continued the pattern of misquoting former High Court chief justice Robert French and former justice Kenneth Hayne. I think it has already been well established that a number of coalition MPs and senators have misquoted those two eminent judges, and, unfortunately, the person who aspires to be the first law officer of the country has done it again. The bill has been extensively scrutinised by some of the best legal minds in the country. They include the Constitutional Expert Group and the Solicitor-General. They have concluded that the bill is legally sound, and any suggestion to the contrary goes against the advice of the Solicitor-General and the Constitutional Expert Group, which includes former High Court judges and some of the most eminent constitutional scholars in the country. If Senator Cash wants to say they're wrong, then that she's entitled to do that. 21:22 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, Senator Watt, you verbal me. As was stated in the dissenting report, it would be imprudent to underestimate the capacity of any future High Court ingenuity or originality. In relation to the former justices, as stated, again, in the dissenting report, Mr Hayne made similar observations. In other words, former justices Hayne and French agree that if a future High Court decides there is a constitutional duty to consult with the Voice, it would be catastrophic for government. They then went on to say that we should take it on trust that a future court would never do that. That is what was set out in the committee report. Can I then ask: will the government guarantee that a decision whether to make a representation on an issue will not be a decision under an enactment that is reviewable by a court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act? 21:23 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yet again, the questions that Senator Cash is asking are all things that the parliament that she is a member of will have an opportunity to decide, should the referendum be successful. I have noted that Senator Cash seems fond of misquoting former High Court justice Kenneth Hayne and suggesting that he has concerns. To quote former High Court justice Kenneth Hayne properly, he has said that this constitutional amendment: … is simple. It is not hiding anything. It means what it says. What people are being asked to vote on is whether these are principles that should be incorporated into the constitution and parliament will then work out the machinery. So a former High Court justice is one of the many constitutional experts who have said that we have nothing to fear, despite the efforts of Senator Cash and her colleagues to whip up fear, and that what people are being asked to vote on is whether these are principles that should be incorporated into the Constitution and parliament will then work out the machinery. As you can tell from this language, he knows, like anyone who is genuine in this debate knows, that it is entirely normal for principles to be set out in the Constitution with the parliament to work out the machinery. Senator Cash and her colleagues will have every opportunity to participate in that debate should the referendum be successful. 21:24 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, Senator Watt, this is not whipping up fear; it is reasonable questions that reasonable Australians want answers to. In fact, we're still on questions that the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, put to the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, and that Mr Albanese failed to answer. Disappointingly, we continue to have a failure to answer them tonight. Will the Voice representatives be officers of the Commonwealth under section 75(v) of the Constitution? 21:25 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I understand this is something that the expert group looked at, so I will try to come back to you with that information. If you want to move to another question, we can come back to you on that. 21:25 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is permanently enshrined in our Constitution, who will oversee the body and ensure that it will be accountable? 21:25 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Sorry, your question is: who will oversee the Voice and ensure that it is accountable? Senator Cash I0M Who will oversee the body. Senator WATT 245759 Again, all of these issues are matters for the democratically elected parliament to decide, as is the case for the interpretation and application of constitutional principles on every other thing that's in the Constitution. 21:26 Senator I0M Western Australia CASH (—) (): Can I go back to our discussion in relation to advisory representations et cetera. When you were previously answering the questions, you said that the Voice was purely advisory and would not have decision-making capabilities. You then said, as we pursued a line of questioning, it would be able to make procedural decisions about whether to make representations on an issue. Then, when asked about whether those procedural decision-making powers could be litigated, you referred to one side of a highly contested legal issue and dismissed the argument to the contrary, asking the Australian people to take on oath that a future High Court would decide in the way that you say it will. I put it to you that that is just not a fair way to treat the Australian people. Can you please confirm that Voice representatives would fall within the scope of the National Anti-Corruption Commission as set out in the design principles? 21:27 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes, and that's why we said it in the design principles and the handy little booklet. 21:27 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can the government then confirm that Voice members would be able to be sanctioned or removed for serious misconduct, as set out in the design principles? 21:27 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes, and that would be why it's set out in the design principles. 21:28 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Who would decide that a Voice member should be sanctioned or removed for serious misconduct—the minister, the parliament or the courts? 21:28 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That would be something that the democratically elected parliament would decide. 21:28 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Given that, when I said to you, 'Could you please confirm that Voice representatives would fall within the scope of the National Anti-Corruption Commission as set out in the design principles?' your answer to me was, 'Yes, that is why it's set out in the design principles.' I then asked you, 'Can the government confirm that Voice members would be able to be sanctioned or removed for serious misconduct as set out in the design principles?' and you again said, 'Yes, that is why they're set out in the design principles.' I have then asked, given your answer to these questions, 'Given that they're set out in the design principles, who would decide that a Voice member should be sanctioned or removed for serious misconduct?' Surely, given that your other two answers were that it's set out in the design principles, the government has some form of idea around whether or not it will be the minister, the parliament or the courts. Or did your level of thinking just stop there and you actually haven't bothered to go any further? 21:29 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government's intentions are made very clear in the design principles. That's why we've said that Voice members would fall within the scope of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. It's good to see that that body is going to be starting on 1 July, by the way. It's something that didn't seem to happen under the former government. There were a few promises made. In fact, I think you might have made some of those promises, Senator Cash, when you were the Attorney-General. But, anyway, this government's going to actually have a National Anti-Corruption Commission—and that's a very good thing—from 1 July this year. I'm pleased to see that the design principles include that Voice members would fall within the scope of that commission. It's also our intention that Voice members would be able to be sanctioned or removed for serious misconduct, and that is why it's set out in the design principles. But I don't think it's really any surprise, by this stage of the debate, that there are a significant number of matters that will be left for the democratically elected parliament to decide, and the issues you're talking about are among them. 21:30 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is permanently enshrined in the Constitution, if needed, will the body be able to be dissolved and reconstituted in extraordinary circumstances, and, if so, what are those circumstances? 21:30 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 21:30 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia You keep on referring to the design principles. As I said, later on this evening we'll explore in detail all of the design principles. But the issue here is that whether or not the design principles are followed is also a matter for the parliament. You keep saying, 'As set out in the design principles.' You were very pleased to answer two questions by saying to me, 'It's conveniently set out in the design principles.' You then say, in relation to the majority of questions, though, 'That will be a matter for the parliament.' What happens if the parliament determines not to follow the design principles? As you keep saying, this is a democratically elected parliament. 21:31 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland These are all matters for the democratically elected parliament. The government has been very clear that the mode of operation of the Voice, the structure of the Voice and the matters that it can provide advice on—any number of things—are things that a future democratically elected parliament may make decisions to alter. That's how democracy works. Where we have got a clear intention, we've set that out in those design principles, but, beyond that, they will all be matters for a democratically elected parliament to decide. 21:32 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Have you made it very, very clear to those who've advised you that, ultimately, the design principles of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice actually mean next to nothing? As you've just stated, it is a matter for the democratically elected parliament. So, if the democratically elected parliament decides that it will not follow the design principles, that is actually the decision that the democratically elected parliament is able to make. 21:33 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, that is how democracy works. What will be—to use your terminology—'enshrined in the Constitution' are the matters that are set out in section 129. The proposed section provides: In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: (i) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; (ii) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; And here's the important one: (iii) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. The design principles set out this government's intentions as to how the Voice will be designed, but of course a future government may choose to make changes. What a future government wouldn't be able to do is abolish the Voice, because it would be in the Constitution. 21:34 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If the Voice is established by legislation, does this mean it could be dissolved and re-established at any time by an act of parliament in the same way as is happening now with the AAT? How would this bill prevent such an action from occurring? 21:34 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The bottom line is that, if this referendum is successful, there will be a Voice that will be constitutionally enshrined, but what type of Voice it will be and how it works would all be matters for a future parliament. The government has set out its intentions. Should the coalition ever be elected in the future, it would have an opportunity to put forward its intentions and the parliament would decide those matters, just like we do every day of the week on any number of other things. 21:35 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I just need to confirm the answers that have just been given. The design principles merely set out the government's intention. The democratically elected parliament, as you refer to, does not have to follow them in any way whatsoever. But, also, can I confirm that you have just stated that there is no actual requirement for permanency and, on that basis, the parliament could dissolve and re-establish the Voice? 21:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland No, that's not what I said. What I said was that the Constitution would require a Voice. That is what section 129 would require if the referendum is successful. But the type of Voice, how it operates and all of those sorts of matters would be matters that a future parliament would decide. I refer you to subsection (iii), which says: the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. 21:36 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, in terms of the legislated model, there is no actual requirement for permanency and the parliament could dissolve and re-establish the Voice in another form? 21:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answers. 21:36 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia What you've just stated, though, in summary, it would appear, is that the only thing that guarantees the continuation of any particular body as the Voice is the political forces that apply to the government of the day to prevent it from passing such legislation. So how would this bill prevent such a situation from arising? 21:37 Senator WA 245759 Queensland TT (—) (): That is not correct. I refer you to my previous answers, where I've made clear—I think, four times now—that the Constitution would enshrine a Voice. As to everything else, I refer you to my previous answers. 21:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The design principles promulgated by the government note that individual Voice members will be able to sanctioned or removed for misconduct. If that is the case, would this bill prevent a future government from determining that some or all of the Voice representatives had committed misconduct at the same time and, in effect, dissolve and reconstitute the Voice by proxy? 21:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer you to my answers as to the powers of the parliament as set out in section 129(iii). 21:38 Senato I0M Western Australia r CASH (—) (): Along the lines of the questioning that Senator Nampijinpa Price was following, how will the government ensure that the Voice includes those who still need to get a platform in Australian public life? 21:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The point of the Voice, as I've said repeatedly, is that it would make representations, it would be comprised of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and it would make representations to the parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. That is the point of the Voice. 21:39 Senator NAMP 263528 Northern Territory IJINPA PRICE () (): Given the Voice is about ensuring that marginalised Indigenous Australians are heard, does the government recognise all Indigenous Australians or those of Indigenous descent as being disadvantaged? 21:39 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Of course not every single Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person is disadvantaged, but I think the evidence is fairly clear that, as a group, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are extremely disadvantaged. I'm sure you're familiar with the Closing The Gap targets. I'm sure you're familiar with the measures in terms of educational attainment, incarceration levels, health outcomes and many other factors that demonstrate that, as a group, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are highly disadvantaged, but of course that doesn't mean that every single individual is disadvantaged. 21:40 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Isn't that a contradiction within itself? You just said that not every Indigenous Australian or Australian of Indigenous heritage is disadvantaged. However you say that as a group we are disadvantaged, so that, by membership of this group, we are inherently disadvantaged because of our race. Is that what you're suggesting, Senator? 21:41 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I am suggesting that not every individual Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person is disadvantaged, but I would have thought that the evidence is pretty clear that, as a group, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are highly disadvantaged compared to the rest of the community. In fact, it would appear that at least one member of the Liberal Party thinks so as well—a man by the name of Julian Leeser, the member for Berowra. In countering the argument that somehow this bill would privilege Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or provide them with special rights, Mr Leeser said, 'Does anyone really believe that Indigenous Australians occupy a place of privilege? Seriously?' So Mr Leeser seems to acknowledge that, as a group, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people face significant gaps in life expectancy, educational attainment, incarceration levels and health outcomes, and in many other ways. So, yes, we do think that, as a group, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are highly disadvantaged. 21:42 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Again, you have contradicted yourself in one breath by saying that no, we're not all disadvantaged but that, as a group, we are disadvantaged. In terms of the evidence, I can refer to my previous research as the director of Indigenous research at the Centre for Independent Studies. The evidence, in fact, highlights that the further you move away from a capital city—and you might not understand this, given where you live—the more disadvantaged Australians become, and yes, that includes Indigenous Australians. Our most disadvantaged are those living in the remotest parts of this country—certainly not the Noel Pearsons of the world who have been responsible for over $500 million of government funds and taxpayer funds to alleviate disadvantage—but certainly those in the remotest parts of Australia are our most disadvantaged Australians. But you're suggesting that, as a group, we all require special measures. Is that what the government is suggesting? 21:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland No, we're not suggesting that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people need special measures, nor does Mr Leeser. He doesn't think that either. 21:43 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I'm not asking questions of Mr Leeser; I'm asking questions of you, Senator Watt, and of the government. That's who I'm asking questions of. You've answered that question. Your suggesting that we don't require special measures as a race of Australians. Therefore, why are you pressing ahead with a referendum that would permanently enshrine special measures for a race of Australians? 21:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator, as I said I in my summing-up speech—and I know the argument is being made by members for your party, possibly including you; I'm not sure—this bill is not about race. As we all know, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have occupied the Australian continent for over 60,000 years. They represent the oldest continuous living cultures in human history. They've maintained a relationship with Australia's land, waters and sky since times immemorial, but the Australian Constitution has never recognised the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of this country. That's what this bill does; it recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of Australia, not as a race. 21:45 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory It's a bit confusing when there are those of us who not only have heritage from the first peoples of this country but also those who were dispossessed of their country and brought here in chains—my ancestors and no doubt also Senator McCarthy's ancestors also. There are those in this nation who also take the opportunity to exploit the fact that they can tick a box, like in South Australia—all you have to do is write a statutory declaration to claim aboriginality. Doesn't this just make a mockery of this whole proposal? The government is attempting to constitutionally enshrine special measures. Yes, it is about a group of Australians. It is a particular racial group of Australians, and those who seek to take advantage of declaring they belong to this particular group. Let's not pretend this is not about race when we know it is. If you want to talk about Indigenous Australians, anyone born here is Indigenous. This is what I was brought up with as part of my culture. Aboriginal people where I come from accept that if you are born in this country, your conception site is where your baby spirit leapt from the ground into your mother's belly, giving you spiritual connection to this country, whether you come from convict heritage or migrant heritage, if you are born in this country. The design principles say here that it will be community led, empowering and culturally informed. Could that mean since members of the Voice would be expected to connect with and reflect the wishes of their communities, that it could be suggested that in fact indigeneity extends to the broader community—that anyone who was conceived in this country belongs here, which is the culture that I grew up with? Is it possible that this government might accept that as well? 21:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I have already set out a number of times the test of indigeneity which would entitle people to be eligible to serve on the Voice. On this point about this bill and the Voice being based on race, I have noted that the National Party leader, Mr Littleproud, distanced himself from the remarks of Mr Dutton when Mr Dutton alleged that the Voice will reracialise Australia. I guess it would depend on whether you're on the David Littleproud side of this argument or the Peter Dutton side, because it would appear they appeared to be split. I'm not sure where you are on this, Senator Cash or Senator O'Sullivan or Senator Liddle, any of the senators, about whether they're on the Peter Dutton side, where he's out there saying that it's going to reracialise things, and David Littleproud saying that it's not. I'm not really sure where all of you are at. But even David Littleproud seems to reject this notion that it's a racial concept. 21:49 Senator NAMPIJI 263528 Northern Territory NPA PRICE () (): You sound confused, Senator Watt. I am not confused, however. One minute you're saying that this is about indigeneity. In my understanding indigeneity means anyone who is born here. You're suggesting it is not about race. It appears my truth-telling makes you a little bit uncomfortable, but I am going to be straight down the line with you, because that's what I have come here to be: honest. What I will suggest is that this is the most divisive referendum our country has ever experienced and absolutely is dividing our nation along the lines of race. Some of those that sit on your side of the chamber have said that anyone who doesn't agree with your proposal, which you can offer no detail on and you seem very confused about—you don't know whether it's based on race or indigeneity—is in fact racist. I would suggest that gaslighting is no way to bully individuals into supporting this proposal. Hanging that over one's head to suggest that one is racist for not conforming is what I would regard as bullying. Senator Watt 245759 Point of order— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister, just wait for the call. Minister? Senator Watt 245759 Senator, are you accusing me or anyone else in the government of suggesting that those who oppose the Voice are racist? If you are suggesting that, I'd ask that you withdraw. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Nampijinpa Price. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Senator Watt, throughout this debate, publicly, these comments have been made, very broadly, by proponents of those who make up your Voice committee. Senator Watt 245759 Can you give us a name? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I remind senators that we need to be standing to seek the call and then wait to be given the call. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 You only have to look back through the miles and miles of publications that make these allusions to race. Marcia Langton is certainly on your committee, is she not? It's right there in front of you. It's part of the discourse of this nation right now, and you're not going to attempt to shut me down in this conversation right now and suggest this isn't being said, when we absolutely know it is. Again, is this government suggesting that, through this Voice, all Australians of Indigenous heritage, whether that's someone like my mother, who is nothing but Warlpiri—in fact, she did her ancestry DNA and there was nothing else involved, except she comes from here. Then there are those who can't even be recognised by communities—we won't mention any names, Bruce Pascoe—but can be recognised as Indigenous in this country, who will have the opportunity to speak on behalf of those like my mother, on issues that supposedly relate specifically to us. We know that everything that gets debated in these chambers relates specifically to us because we're Australian citizens. Is this government suggesting that because of our heritage—let's not call it race, because it's sensitive for some—we are inherently disadvantaged to the point that we require an enshrined voice to parliament without detail? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Before I give you the call, I remind all senators in the chamber that it is now very late. It's easy for people to start to say things that they might not have said earlier in the day. Let's all try to keep the debate as respectful as possible. Minister? 21:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm not quite sure what the question was there, but I'll deal with a number of matters raised by the senator: I think it started out talking about this being a divisive referendum. I can certainly assure the opposition and the Australian people that it is far from this government's intention to make this a divisive debate. To the contrary, we see this as an opportunity to bring the country together— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 Perhaps those running scare campaigns— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 298839 Minister, please resume your seat. I'm going to remind everyone in the chamber that the hour is late. We're in committee stage. Everybody will have the opportunity to ask a question. If you could, save your comments for then. Senator WATT 245759 As I say, it's not the government's intention to make this divisive. Senator Nampijinpa Price said that supporters of the Voice were accusing opponents of being racist. The implication, certainly, was that members of the government were doing that, which is not correct, and I note she was unable to back it up. When asked to provide a name, she singled out Marcia Langton. I'm certainly not aware of any comment to that effect that Marcia Langton has made on the public record, and it might be a good idea for the senator to withdraw that accusation. I don't think it helps to be besmirching people, whether it be Marcia Langton, Bruce Pascoe, Noel Pearson or any of the others that the senator has besmirched in this debate. This bill is about recognising our First Peoples in our Constitution through the creation of a voice to parliament so that they can have some say, through advice and representations, over matters that directly affect them. If people are concerned about this being a divisive debate, well, they have every opportunity to think about their behaviour. All of us have an opportunity to think about our behaviour in this. If people choose to run around, spread misinformation and misrepresent what this is about, then I would suggest that that's pretty divisive behaviour, and that's certainly not what this government is going to be doing. This is not just a politicians' thing. We are seeing many members of the Australian community get behind this—not everyone; I understand that. Every single state and territory leader in Australia supports the voice, including Tasmanian Liberal Premier Mr Rockliff and former Liberal Premier of New South Wales Mr Perrottet. The AFL, the NRL, Cricket Australia, the ARU, the business community, unions and faith groups are backing the 'yes' campaign. Faith groups are backing 'yes'. Unions and the business community are backing 'yes'. But, ultimately, this is a decision for the Australian people. We'll certainly be approaching it in a positive spirit with the aim of bringing the country together, and I encourage those opposite to do the same. 21:57 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Evidently you missed my question altogether. Now, I understand—I've only been here 12 months. It is evident that, rather than answering the question, you'd prefer to attempt to take the moral high ground and paint me in a particular light. I am making reference to individuals who have participated in debate more broadly in this country. I'm not besmirching individuals but highlighting individuals specifically because of issues they have raised. The issue of Mr Bruce Pascoe is one that is concerning to many Aboriginal Australians, if you care to in fact listen to those Aboriginal Australians, because it is a prime example of someone who can't provide evidence of their claimed heritage but who has certainly made financial gains from that claimed heritage. This is to be highlighted because it is an issue that Indigenous Australians are very concerned about. There are those, like my mother and like 50 per cent of my family, who have no other heritage within them, who are suffering the most in this country, and there are others who have taken advantage of what is available to them and what is supposed to be for them. It is those people, and their concerns, that I come to this chamber to represent. Senator Watt, you rattled off all the supporters of the Voice, while none of them have any connection whatsoever to the individuals that I represent and am connected to in these remote communities. They're not famous. They're not part of multibillion dollar corporations or sporting codes. They live in the dirt. Some of them are traditional owners, who are land rich and dirt poor. That is who I'm here to represent, and it is their concerns that I bring to this chamber—their concerns that there are those who take advantage of the ability to claim Indigenous heritage—because they're the ones who miss out when every one of those individuals pops up their head and takes advantage of what is supposed to be for our marginalised. They are concerned that the Voice will be filled with these opportunists. So it is very important that I ask these questions on behalf of these marginalised Indigenous Australians. Once again, I will make this question very clear: does this government consider that all Australians of Indigenous heritage, or simply Indigenous Australians—all of us—require special measures in the form of a Voice? 22:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I respect the fact that you oppose the Voice. You say that your constituents oppose the Voice. That may or may not be true; I can only take what you are saying at face value. I do note that the four land councils of the Northern Territory have come together to support the Voice, representing thousands of Aboriginal people from across the remote and regional communities of the Northern Territory. Many other large groups representing Indigenous people have done the same thing. But I respect the fact that you may have a different view on that. But, again, I think the essence of your question is the point about disadvantage of First Nations people. I have seen the statistics about the significantly poorer outcomes for First Nations people as a whole—on housing, on health, on educational attainment, on life expectancy, on incarceration—but, if you think that doesn't represent the situation correctly, then that's a matter for you. 22:02 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Senator, the matter for you is you previously just said, 'No, not all Indigenous Australians, or those of us of Indigenous heritage, are disadvantaged,' and yet your government is proposing a Voice to Parliament that paints all of us as being disadvantaged. You have highlighted the need for the most marginalised. You've read the statistics; well, I've lived it—that's my family, that's why I'm here, as part of a democratically elected group of Australians, representing those people. So, again, you've recognised their plight, you've recognised that not all of us are disadvantaged, and yet you can't answer the question: does this government consider Australians of Aboriginal heritage, every single one of us, as requiring special measures in the form of a Voice? 22:03 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 22:03 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I preface my comments with a quote from the late David Jackson, who many would know as one of Australia's pre-eminent constitutional lawyers, who, in his submission to the relevant committee, said: The inclusion of the proposed s 129 would mean that we become a nation where, whenever we or our ancestors first came to this country, we are not all equal. How will the Voice interact with the Closing the Gap process? 22:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I've said many times, the Voice will have the ability to provide advice to parliament and the executive on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and I would expect that the Closing the Gap targets would be exactly the kind of thing that the Voice would make representations on. 22:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Wow! You expect that that would be the type of thing that the Voice would make a representation on, yet you have just spent the last 15 minutes, I would personally say, lecturing Senator Nampijinpa Price in relation to the comments that she made. For the Hansard, there is nothing about closing the gap in your handy little booklet, is there? 22:05 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't think there's anything remarkable about the likelihood of the Voice making representations on the Closing the Gap targets, when the design principles, as set out in the handy little booklet that I'm glad you've got a copy of, make very clear that the Voice can make representations on matters involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I entirely reject your assertion that I've been lecturing Senator Nampijinpa Price for the last 15 minutes, and I think anyone listening to this debate would equally reject that assertion. The whole idea behind the Voice is that the Voice has the ability to make its own decisions. We're not dictating to the Voice what it can do. The point of the Voice is to hear from First Nations people and give them the ability to make representations. So, if you're suggesting that either it should or it shouldn't provide advice on Closing the Gap targets, then that runs completely against the point of the Voice. 22:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The question was: how will the Voice interact—not provide advice, interact—with the Closing the Gap process? 22:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Its role is to provide advice. Its role is to provide representations, and that's how will interact. 22:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So what you're saying is that they just run in parallel: the Voice here; Closing the Gap there. My question here is: how do they interact to actually make the situation better? What is the government's intention behind this? 22:07 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Well, as you know, Senator Cash, the Closing the Gap targets were, I think, an initiative originally of the Rudd government, after the apology that Prime Minister Rudd made in another significant moment for reconciliation in our country. The targets were helpfully retained by the government of which you were a part, but they, of course, are a decision, I think it would be correct to say, of the executive government, although they're debated and possibly endorsed by this parliament—I can't remember exactly the interaction there—and that is exactly what the Voice would do. It would provide advice to government on the matters contained in the Closing the Gap targets or anything else that it decided it should provide advice on relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. 22:07 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Will the government rule out using the Voice to negotiate any national treaty? 22:08 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland No. 22:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Will the government commit to local and regional voices, as recommended in the Calma-Langton report? 22:08 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I've many times directed you to exactly that point in the design principles, Senator Cash, so I refer you to my previous answers. 22:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can I just confirm again for the Hansard record that that is a commitment to local and regional voices, as recommended in the Calma-Langton report? 22:08 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government acknowledges the significant work done over the past decade, including the proposal outlined in the Indigenous Voice co-design process final report, which was presented to the previous government—unfortunately, never acted on. The model presented in the Indigenous Voice co-design process final report will be part of the public discussion on the design of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. The design of the Voice would build on the work of Professors Calma and Langton, which emphasised the importance of local and regional voices. Consistent with the principle that the Voice be representative of the diversity of First Nations communities, the government is committed to ensuring remote and regional voices are heard through the Voice. That is why that statement is made in the design principles, as I have mentioned, I think, six times. 22:09 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So it's taken us all that time to get, unfortunately, next to no answers to the questions that Peter Dutton asked in January of this year. On the majority of them, it will be for the parliament to decide. I would now like to turn to the actual legal issues involved. If we turn to the chapeau, to section 129, in that chapeau what does the government mean by the term 'First Peoples of Australia'? 22:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It means the First Peoples of Australia. 22:10 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia What is the legal definition? You could have used other terms. You could have used 'First Nations people'. What do you mean—it is in the chapeau to this section—by 'the First Peoples of Australia'? 22:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland What we mean by 'the First Peoples of Australia' is the First Peoples of Australia. The beginning of section 129 actually specifies that the First Peoples of Australia are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The beginning of section 129 says: In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia … So I'd suggest that the First Peoples of Australia are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. If you have other information, I'd be very interested to know about it. 22:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That's actually not a good answer—'if you have other information'. You are the government. You have legal advisers. You should be able to answer this question. This is a— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 298839 Senator, can you resume your seat, please. I'm going to remind the chamber that I'm expecting us to have a respectful debate and to refrain from interjections. Interjections are disorderly. Senator CASH I0M This is a term which you're asking to include in our Constitution. The court, as you know, will give legal meaning to it. So we now need to drag it out through the parliamentary debate. This is the only resource to those actually referring. So what does the government mean when it uses the term, which will have legal consequences? You have chosen the term 'First Peoples of Australia'. Who are you referring to? 22:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 22:12 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So we'll explore it a little further, then. To clarify, does it include all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were in Australia at the time of European settlement? Does it have a temporal aspect? 22:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm very interested in this question and the suggestion that someone else might have been the First Peoples of Australia other than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It's certainly the first I have heard of it. As I think is pretty well recorded, Senator Cash, 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. As is made clear in section 129, when we are talking about the First Peoples of Australia, we are talking about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. 22:13 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That is not what we suggested. We ask what you mean when you use a term that will have legal consequences if inserted into our Constitution. So, when we talk about the term or when the government refers to the term 'First Peoples of Australia', I asked, 'To clarify, does it include all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were in Australia at the time of European settlement?' And I said, 'Does it have a temporal aspect?' So can I just confirm your evidence, because again this is in our Constitution. The High Court is going to actually interpret this. It does include all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were in Australia at the time of European settlement? Just a yes or no—I'm happy with that if that's what you meant. 22:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer, and I also refer Senator Cash to page 2 of the explanatory memorandum, which goes into more detail. I would have thought it's pretty self-evident. 22:14 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If a new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander group emerge and identify as first people who were not previously identified, would they then be recognised in the Constitution? 22:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 22:15 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Because this is a fundamentally different issue, can I get you now to read into the Hansard record the reference in the explanatory memorandum which you are referring to which you say elaborates on the answer that you were providing? There may be questions that I need to ask. 22:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland No, I'm not going to do that because that document, the explanatory memorandum, has already been tabled in the parliament and anyone who seeks the information that you're seeking is easily able to obtain it. I'm not going to take up the Senate's time by reading something that has already been tabled. 22:15 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia You've stated that it includes all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were in Australia at the time of European settlement. I then asked: If a new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander group emerge and identify as first people who were not previously identified, would they then be recognised in the Constitution? Could I at least ask: what paragraphs in the explanatory memorandum actually answer that question? 22:16 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I've already said that it's on page 2. 22:16 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia For a group to be identified as a first people, is there any requirement for a link between that group and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as they existed at the time of settlement, in a similar manner to the way that native title rights often require a continuing connection to the land? 22:16 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. I also refer to the answer I gave about at least an hour ago about the three-part test of indigeneity. 22:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Does the recognition in the preamble to section 129 apply to First Peoples severally or collectively, then? 22:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 22:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I actually almost think I preferred 'that would be a matter for the parliament'. To clarify, could a single group claim to be specifically recognised as one of the First Peoples, or is there no specific recognition of any individual group and the Constitution will only recognise all of Australia's First Peoples in a collective way? 22:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 22:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia What does it mean to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as First Peoples? Again, this is the term that you are using in the chapeau to this proposed section of the Constitution. What rights, obligations or duties attach to being recognised as a First Peoples in the Constitution? 22:18 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Recognition is exactly what it says. It's recognising that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are the First Peoples of Australia. Senator Cash, I assume you must be quite comfortable with this, given that the opposition's declared position is to support recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as our First Peoples. So I guess the opposition must have already worked this out for themselves. 22:18 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That is hardly an answer to what is an incredibly important question that a future High Court could potentially look at and interpret. In other contexts, a chapeau will frame the interpretation of provisions that sit underneath it or be called on to assist in the interpretation of those provisions in the Constitution. So could a future High Court take that approach here? 22:19 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That is an entirely hypothetical question and I'm not going to speculate on what high courts might do. But, again, I'm surprised that you're seeking these sorts of definitions around recognition and First Peoples, given the opposition has already decided, apparently, that it supports recognition. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 298839 Please wait for the call, Senator. Senator Cash. 22:19 Sen I0M Western Australia ator CASH (—) (): These are not hypothetical questions. What we're trying to do is clarify the intent of the proposed change to our Constitution. When a future High Court comes to comes to interpret this provision, as I stated at the outset, they won't be able to go to the debates of a constitutional convention. They won't have the troves of material—the documents, the development or the provision. All of this happened behind closed doors. However, as we know, they will be able to look at the debates on the Hansard, and, when a future High Court compares how the Voice is working in practice versus what the parliament intended to achieve with this change, they may well look at the proceedings of this committee. So it is completely appropriate to explore this issue here. If we don't do it here in the committee process, we are potentially denying valuable interpretive guidance to a future court. So I ask: could recognition as First People shape the interpretation of the power to make representations to mean that the Voice is in some way restricted to matters that pertain to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as First Peoples—for example, matters relating to native title, culture, language and heritage? 22:21 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I've said many times, the Voice would have the ability to make representations to parliament and executive government on matters related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. 22:21 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Now we'll progress to section 129(i). Under section 129(i), is there any implied constitutional restriction on the type of body that could be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice? 22:21 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Sorry; is the question, 'Is there a constitutional restriction on what body could be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice'? I guess it's the one that's being referred to in proposed section 129. 22:22 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia What are the minimum criteria that must be implied for a body to satisfy the constitutional requirement that 'there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice'? 22:22 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'd say the minimum criteria that must be applied is that it must be passed in a referendum. 22:22 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Would the constitutional provision require the body to have some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander characteristics, and if so what are those characteristics? 22:22 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The main characteristic which must be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is that every member of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice must be an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person, as I said about four hours ago. 22:23 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That's not in the actual constitutional—if I look at the actual constitutional change: In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: (i) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; 'In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia'—so it's merely in recognition of them—'there shall be a body', and that body will be 'called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice'. I'm referring to the 'body'. There's nothing that actually states that there's any of the characteristic that you just stated there was. I want to be clear here. Are you suggesting the government's expectation is that the High Court in the future will imply a requirement that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice be made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? 22:24 Senator 245759 Queensland WATT (—) (): No. I'm referring to the design principles that we've already gone through that will be implemented via the parliament. Again, Senator Cash, you're trying to suggest that these would be matters that a future High Court would deal with. As I've already read out to you, someone as eminent as Bret Walker, who regularly appears in the High Court, has described those sorts of suggestions as being too silly for words. 22:25 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia What we've established tonight is the design principles mean absolutely nothing, because, as you've already stated earlier on, it is actually for the democratically elected parliament to determine what the body will look like, and they don't have to follow the design principles. New section 129 clearly states 'in recognition of'. It merely states that, in recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia, there's going to be a body. I'm trying to explore what the body actually is. Yes, it's got to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, but I'm exploring here what the body is. Would it be possible to enact legislation saying that, for constitutional purposes, my local Rotary club is now the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice? 22:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The composition, structure and operations of the Voice are matters to be decided by a democratically elected parliament. I find it strange that you suggest that a future parliament might decide to use a local Rotary club, to use your example, or non-Indigenous people on a voice to parliament, but if that's what a future government that you might be a member of seeks to do, that's a matter for you. Honourable senators interjecting— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 298839 I remind the chamber that interjections are disorderly. 22:27 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia This is where the crux of the problem actually lies. Again, you've said it'll be determined by a future parliament. You say that the government's intent is set out in the design principles. We now know that the democratically elected parliament does not need to go anywhere near the design principles, so put that aside. That's not in the constitutional change. The constitutional change says: 'in recognition of'. It states: In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: (i) there shall be a body … I'm trying to explore what this body actually is because the most guidance I get here is it should 'be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice'. That's it. I want to go back to my question. I asked: would it be possible to enact legislation saying that—and this is an example—for constitutional purposes my local Rotary club is now the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice or one of the land councils is now the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice and that is actually the body that is represented in the Constitution? Is that correct? 22:28 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland All of these matters will be considerations for the democratically elected parliament. I've just been reminded that the Australian Constitution also provides for the creation of the High Court of Australia. The Constitution of Australia does not set out the number of judges, the matters that it would determine, where it would be based and any number of other things. Those things are done by legislation from a democratically elected parliament. That's what would happen with the Voice, as well. What we're asking people to vote on is a referendum to create a voice to parliament as a way of recognising First Nations people, just as when the original Constitution was developed, a High Court of Australia was created, and the details of that were determined by parliament. That didn't seem to concern anyone at the time. That's why I don't think people need to be concerned at this time. 22:29 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Everything you have just said confirms the exact point that I'm making in relation to section 129(i): In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: (i) there shall be a body … The only guidance we are given here is that 'there shall be a body' and that the body is going to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. It is then up to the parliament—the democratically elected parliament, as you said—to determine what this body will actually do. And you've already stated or admitted earlier today that the design principles do not need to be followed because it is for the democratically elected parliament to determine what this body will actually do. So I ask you: if the parliament were to enact legislation, declaring that a single person was the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, would that satisfy the requirements of section 129(i)? I'm not asking about what the government's intention is by way of the design principles; I am asking for the legal interpretation—and you've got your lawyers there—as to whether or not declaring a single person is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice legally satisfies section 129(i). 22:30 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answers, but I also reject the assertion that all the constitutional provision would do is to provide for the establishment of a body called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. That is of course what subsection (i) of section 129 does. But subsection (ii) clearly sets out the types of activities that the Voice would undertake. 22:31 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia What we are exploring here is: the outer limits of the clause that you are putting into the Constitution. I am exploring here not section 129(ii)—we will get onto that shortly. I am exploring section 129(i) and what criteria a body needs to satisfy section 129(i). What characteristics does a body need to satisfy section 129(i)? Say, for argument's sake, the parliament were to enact legislation stating that Noel Pearson or Professor Megan Davis were the Voice. I am asking the legal answer to: Does that satisfy the constitutional requirement? And, if not, why not? 22:32 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 22:32 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can I then confirm that your previous answer is: 'It is for a democratically elected parliament to determine'? 22:32 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm glad you've noticed. That has been my consistent answer. And, if it were a decision of a future parliament—anything is a question for a future parliament. 22:32 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So does section 129(i) actually contain any implied constitutional requirement that Voice members be Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander individuals? 22:33 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer, but the government has made its position clear via the design principles, which are set out in a very handy little booklet. 22:33 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So the answer to that is 'no'. What we have been exploring is the legal implications of section 129(i): 'there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice'. I have put to you, as the minister representing the government who is asking the Australian people to vote on this: in interpreting section 129(i), would it be possible to enact legislation saying that, for constitutional purposes—I gave the example of the local Rotary club; you could use this example—one of the land councils is now the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice? The answer is: 'That is a matter for the democratically elected parliament.' I then put to you: if the parliament enacts legislation declaring a single person as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, does that satisfy the requirement of section 129(i)? For example, if the parliament enacted legislation stating that Noel Pearson or Professor Megan Davis were the Voice, would that satisfy the constitutional requirement? And, again, it was, 'That is a matter for the democratically elected parliament.' Again I asked you: does section 129(i) actually contain any implied constitutional requirement that the Voice members be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals? I have to say that the people I have spoken to actually believe this. They believe that what they are voting for, if they vote yes, is that this will be a body whose members will be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals, but we now know that that is a matter for the democratically elected parliament. So I'll go back to what we do know. What we know is this. There shall be a body. That's it. We know what the name of the body is, but after that we don't have any detail as to what the actual body itself will look like because that is going to be left to the parliament to decide. We have a booklet—a 'handy little booklet', Senator Watt has referred to it as—that doesn't take us any further in terms of what this body will actually look like. The handy little booklet is worthless when it comes to the legal interpretation of section 129(i). There is no certainty here for the Australian people at all. In fact, I would actually say that there is now even less certainty because we have no guidance other than that this body has a name. We don't know what the composition of the body is going to be. What we do know—and we'll explore this shortly—is that we have a body with some extraordinary power. As we go through this line of questioning, it will be seen that it is risky and uncertain. To quote again the late David Jackson: 'We will become a country whereby we are no longer equal. I would say it's divisive, but, because this is a constitutional amendment, it is permanent.' Could we now see if we can get a little further clarity in relation to section 129(ii). Section 129 states: In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: …   …   … (ii) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; I do want to explore the words 'and the executive government' in quite a bit of detail. What does the word 'representations' mean? Are there any limits on the term 'representations'? 22:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We have gone over this. If there's one thing that we've learned from tonight, it's some of the new scare campaigns that are going to be used by the coalition against the Voice. The idea that the Voice could be one person—whether it be Noel Pearson, Megan Davis, Murray Watt, Malarndirri McCarthy, Michaelia Cash or any one person—is preposterous, and Senator Cash knows that. Certainly it's the position of this government that we've made our position on these matters very clear through the design principles that we've published. We're now getting into what a representation is because we know that the scare campaign really is that it's not just about providing advice or representations but that it will have decision-making powers. So let's deal with this scare campaign. The constitutional amendment provides that the Voice can make representations to the parliament and the executive government about matters that relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. A representation is an official statement from the Voice to the parliament or the executive government. It is advisory in nature. The Voice will be able to provide representations to the parliament and the executive government about matters such as the operation and effect of existing laws, policies, programs, and decisions and proposed reforms to those things to ensure they better meet the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. That's what representations are. 22:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In relation to your opening comments, what we established by working through the legal implications of section 129(i) is that we actually don't know anything about what the body as referred to in section 129(i) will actually look like. 22:39 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Would you like me to respond to that? 22:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia No. 22:39 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland You don't want me to respond to that. 22:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'm going to ask you though— 22:39 Senator 245759 Queensland WATT (—) (): Because that is wrong. That is completely wrong. 22:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia It is a matter for the parliament to decide. 22:39 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland If you, as a member for this parliament, want to vote for the Voice to be one person—whether it be Noel Pearson, Megan Davis, Malarndirri McCarthy, Murray Watt or Michaelia Cash—then that's a matter for you. But this government has made clear what we will be putting forward as a position for this parliament and I've gone over that on multiple occasions. But, if you think that it should be one person only, and if that's the official position of the coalition, that's up to you. 22:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Just describe to me what a representation is. You said it is an official statement. Does a representation have to be in writing or could it be oral? 22:40 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That would be another matter that the parliament could decide and that the Voice could decide. We're not going to be prescriptive about this. Just as in the current Australian Constitution, the section relating to the creation of the High Court doesn't say that the High Court must publish written reasons or verbal reasons. It leaves it to the parliament and the High Court to work those kinds of things out. So we can trust the Voice in the parliament to do the same in relation to the Voice. 22:41 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia What does 'executive government of the Commonwealth' mean? 22:41 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The term 'executive government of the Commonwealth' in the proposed constitutional wording has the same meaning as elsewhere in the Constitution. It is the branch of government that puts laws, policies and programs into effect and is distinct from the parliament and the courts. It includes federal ministers, their departments and a range of other government entities. I expect we are going to now hear some preposterous examples of what might be the executive government. 22:42 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Does it include ministers of state and assistant ministers? If I could get you to confirm each one for the Hansard? 22:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 22:42 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia You've stated it has the same meaning as elsewhere in the Constitution. This is for legal interpretation. I am now going to the legal issues associated with this. There has been considerable debate about what 'executive government of the Commonwealth' means. Does it include ministers of state and assistant ministers? 22:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland You say there's going to be considerable debate about this—not from the government. There has been considerable scare campaigning by certain people claiming that particular institutions and bodies might be members of the executive, but that certainly hasn't been coming from this side of the chamber. I've already referred to my previous answer which says that it includes federal ministers and that, of course, includes assistant ministers. Just to save me repeating it: I've already said before that it also includes departments and a range of other government entities. 22:43 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia For my benefit can I confirm: you said it includes departments so, for example, the Attorney-General's Department or the Department of Home Affairs. It would actually be including all relevant government departments. I should say: is any government department excluded? Perhaps if we do it that way. Is your definition of 'all government departments' all government departments? And is any government department excluded? 22:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm happy to confirm that my, and the government's, definition of 'all government departments' is indeed all government departments. 22:44 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Does it include executive agencies like the National Indigenous Australians Agency? Could the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice make representations to the National Indigenous Australians Agency? 22:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I really can't add to my previous answer. As I foreshadowed, I was expecting us to start getting into all sorts of preposterous examples about possible arms of executive government, but, well and truly before we get to that point, I'm not going to get into whether this is or isn't and what hypotheticals might exist. All I can say, as I've said before, is that the term 'executive government of the Commonwealth' in the proposed constitutional wording has the same meaning as elsewhere in the Constitution, and, just as Australia has survived with the Australian Constitution since 1901 with that working definition, I have no doubt that we are capable of doing the same in relation to the Voice. 22:45 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, with all due respect, you're actually asking the Australian people to vote on this. The Australian people don't have the luxury of actually knowing it has the same meaning as elsewhere in the Constitution, unless you're advising the Australian people to go and look up the Constitution and then go and work out what it means. This is their opportunity to be able to go to one document and to have questions asked and answered. So I again ask you: does it include executive agencies like the National Indigenous Australians Agency, and could the Voice make representations to the National Indigenous Australians Agency? 22:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer, and I refer to, I think, about 25 previous answers pointing out that the Voice would have the ability to make representations on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. 22:46 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, the reason I want to explore this issue is that to date—very much so—we've had very little information provided to us—or, should I say, answers provided to us—other than that it's a matter for parliament or it's set out in the design principles, and we now know the parliament doesn't have to follow the design principles. The Minister for Indigenous Australians, when asked in parliament whether the Reserve Bank would be included, said this: The last time I looked the Reserve Bank of Australia was independent. But then a leading member of the government's own Referendum Working Group said a little while later, 'It includes anything from the Reserve Bank to Centrelink.' That's what I'm trying to explore. Does it include the Reserve Bank? I know it includes Centrelink, because that is a parliamentary department or a parliamentary agency. Does it include the Reserve Bank? 22:47 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Well, it took you about five minutes, but I knew we'd get to the preposterous examples, and we're there. The TEMPORARY CHAIR I0T Senator McKenzie, do you have a point of order? Senator McKenzie 207825 I do. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: What is it? Senator McKenzie 207825 Ministers should answer the questions without reflecting negatively on the senators asking them. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you. I will draw that to Minister Watt's attention, and I'm sure he will continue, in due course, not to do so. Senator WATT 245759 I would suggest that there are many questions that have been asked tonight that have been deliberately framed in a manner to be disrespectful to the Voice, to First Nations people and to many others. But I will do my best to maintain the civility that I think we have maintained over the course of the evening. The TEMPORAR Y CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. Do you have a further— Senator WATT 245759 I refer to my previous answer. I also refer to what I have said previously, which is that the Voice will have the ability to make representations on matters related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. What the government considers that to mean is including matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and matters relevant to the Australian community, including general laws or measures, but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently to other members of the Australian community. That would, I think, give some indication about to whom and on what Voice would be able to make representations. 22:49 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister Watt, can I just clarify with you: did you say that we had been disrespectful to Indigenous people? If you did, I would like you to withdraw. 22:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland If it assists the chamber, I withdraw. 22:49 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, these are the legal questions in relation to the chapeau, section 129(i) and section 129(ii), and we will shortly get to section 129(iii). The reason we are doing this, as I stated earlier, is that, firstly, we haven't been given details but, secondly, we haven't had a constitutional convention. If we had a constitutional convention, we could turn to the debates and look at the questions and the answers. Australians don't have any opportunity to do that. This is our one opportunity, in a Committee of the Whole stage, where we are later to be voting on this bill, to try and ascertain some of the information that the Australian people want. So I will continue asking these questions and you can continue mocking me and demeaning me—that is fine; I accept all of that. Senator Watt 245759 On a point of order, Temporary Chair, I ask that Senator Cash withdraw the assertion that I have been demeaning her. The TEMPORARY CHAIR I0T Senator Cash, I have not heard the minister being demeaning. I would ask that you— Senator CASH I0M If the minister wishes me to withdraw, I will withdraw. I would say, in my humble opinion, you are being dismissive of what are genuine questions. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senators, please return to questions and answers. Senator Cash. Senator CASH I0M We are exploring clause 129(ii). Does it include government business enterprises like Defence Housing Australia? 22:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 22:51 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Does it include other non-corporate Commonwealth entities? For example, does it include the Fair Work Commission, the Office of National Intelligence or the Australian Electoral Commission? 22:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer and I again repeat that it is the government's intention that the only representations that the Voice would be making would be on matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and matters relevant to the Australian community more broadly but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently to other members of the Australian community. 22:52 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'm a little confused now because previously I thought you had said it was up to the Voice to decide what it makes representations on. You've now referred to the government's expectation. Is the government dictating to the Voice or, as per the previous answer that you gave, is it for the Voice to decide? They are fundamentally different propositions. Does the Voice have a right to decide what it makes representations on—if we go to that section of the bill—regarding 'matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples'? Can I confirm: does the Voice have the right to make its own representation? Do they decide what representations they make or is the government going to dictate to them what representations they make? 22:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The words of clause 129(ii) are clear: (ii) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; It is of course then a matter for the Voice to determine which matters it makes representations on, but, as the Constitution requires, they must be matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. 22:53 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I will explore that with you shortly. In terms of the 'executive government of the Commonwealth' and what the government intends that to mean, the Voice could make representations to the Fair Work Ombudsman—is that what you're saying? 22:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland No, I haven't said that. I have said that I'm not going to address hypotheticals about individual entities. What I've said, three times now, is that the term 'executive government of the Commonwealth' in the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment has the same meaning as elsewhere in the Constitution. So I'll be continuing to refer to my previous answers, I suspect. 22:54 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Seeing that it appears to be a defined term, how is that a hypothetical? It is either ruled in or ruled out; it is not a hypothetical. Either the Voice can make a representation to the Fair Work Ombudsman under the government's understanding of what executive government of the Commonwealth means or it can't. I'm just asking for a simple yes or no answer. If the answer's no, that's great. We then rule that one out. But if it's yes, can we at least know so that we do know that that is one of the bodies? Is the Fair Work Commission a part of the executive government? 22:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 22:55 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I will continue to pursue these questions in terms of what is the government's understanding of what is actually part of the executive government. Does it include corporate Commonwealth entities? For example, does it include the Reserve Bank, Airservices Australia and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation? Again, I'm merely trying to understand what the government means by 'executive government of the Commonwealth'. 22:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. I'm not going to continue feeding scare campaigns that we know are going to come. An honourable senator: It's a legitimate question. 22:56 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia How is it part of the scare campaign to ask the minister representing the government that is putting this question to the Australian people what the interpretation of section 129(ii) actually means? What I am now worried about is this: the Voice can make representations to the Fair Work Commission, the Office of National Intelligence, the Australian Electoral Commission, the Reserve Bank, Airservices Australia, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Defence Housing Australia, the National Indigenous Australians Agency, the Department of Parliamentary Services, the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Home Affairs, NBN Co, Snowy Hydro Limited, the Australian Submarine Corporation Pty Ltd, and the Australian Naval Infrastructure Pty Ltd. Just for the benefit of the Hansard, what you are actually saying to the Australian people is that if you ask reasonable questions about how the Voice will work and what it will do, you are 'feeding a scare campaign'. So, Minister, I ask you again, in relation to the legal interpretation—you have lawyers with you—of section 129(ii) and the term 'executive government of the Commonwealth', does it include Commonwealth companies? Does it include, for example NBN Co, Snowy Hydro Limited, the Australian Submarine Corporation, Australian Naval Infrastructure Pty Ltd? 22:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. I also remind Senator Cash again that the Voice, under the Constitution, will only be able to make representations on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. 22:58 Sena I0M Western Australia tor CASH (—) (): That actually is fantastic, but my colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price has again joined me in the chamber. I will start this line of questioning and then let my colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price pursue it in more detail. You referred to your previous answer. In other words, I have no answers in relation to the Reserve Bank, Airservices Australia et cetera. The fact that I raised these questions apparently means that I'm indulging in a scare campaign, which I have to say on half of the Australian people I personally find offensive. I will go to section 129(ii): (ii) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth … We can't establish anything further in relation to what that means. But what you just said was that you wanted to clarify that it was on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, so my first question to you is this: what are matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples? 23:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I can confirm that the government believes that matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. An opposition senator: Such clarity! 23:00 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia On behalf of the Australian people, that is possibly one of the most pathetic answers that has ever been given in this place— The TEMPORARY CHAIR I0T Senator Cash, there's no need to verbal the minister in these kinds of ways when we are trying to have questions and answers. Please come to your question. Senator CASH I0M I'm going to again give you an opportunity to properly respond to that question, because if you cannot tell the Australian people—quite frankly, it's not the Australian people. If you cannot tell Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander peoples what this government means by 'matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples', then, quite frankly, I say: 'Shame on you.' So I am going to ask you again, Minister Watt— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Cash, come to a simple question. Senator CASH I0M I've got another nine minutes to go. I am going to ask you— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: No. Senator Cash, you can make statements— Senator CASH I0M I hope there's trying to shut me down, purely because I'm trying to express an opinion. I would find that— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Of course not, Senator Cash. Please continue. Senator CASH I0M I'm going to ask you my question again, Senator Watt, for the purposes of Hansard. I can tell you that I'm out there, as are all of my colleagues—Senator Liddle, Senator Scarr, Senator Nampijinpa Price, Senator McKenzie and Senator Ruston. This is one of the questions that we are asked every time we talk to someone about this. They ask: 'Can you please tell us what are matters pertaining to or relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples?' So I ask you again: what is the meaning of 'matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples'? What is the government's understanding of the legal implication of that? 23:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I think that it's quite offensive. You've been upset about the way that I've described some of the questions here, yet you go on to describe some of the answers as pathetic, so I would ask that you follow the same standard in terms of your questions if you don't think that they can be described in certain ways. Let's not forget that about half an hour ago you were asking me who the First Peoples of Australia were, when (a) that is a matter of historical record and (b) the introductory words of proposed section 129 state very clearly that it is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who are the First Peoples of Australia. So pardon my surprise if I question the motives of asking me to explain what 'matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' might be when that is pretty self-explanatory. But, to assist you, Senator Cash, the matters may relate to Aboriginal peoples, Torres Strait Islander peoples or both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The phrase is intended to be broad and to include the following, and I have said this already at least once, maybe not twice: matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and matters relevant to the Australian community, including general laws on measures but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently to members of the Australian community. Now, I know there are members of the opposition who are out there trying to whip up fear and concern by suggesting that the Voice might go well beyond that and might make all sorts of recommendations about matters unrelated to Aboriginal people, when the words of the constitutional proposal are clear. I know there are members of the opposition who are also out there trying to whip up fear, suggesting that the Voice may have decision-making capacities. The facts are clear. The facts are set out in proposed section 129. They're very straightforward, they're very easy to understand and they don't deserve to be misrepresented in the way they continually are. 23:04 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Let me tell you what I think is pathetic. It is that Senator Cash comes in here to the Senate at 11 o'clock on a Friday night and tries to tell the Australian people that the Liberal Party and the National Party are not running a scare campaign on the Voice. Get real! It took you less than 20 seconds before you came out and opposed the Voice. We know the National Party opposed the Voice before they saw a single line of detail. Senator McKenzie 207825 Point of order, Chair— Senator McKenzie 207825 No, not at all. Chair, you and previous chairs throughout this debate have made it very clear that we have to be respectful of diverse opinions throughout this debate. I would ask you to consider this very brief but very negative reflection by Senator Whish-Wilson on the Liberal and National parties' position on this question. The language he's using is very disrespectful. The TEMPORARY CHAIR I0T I will pay close attention, but I have not seen a breach of the standing orders thus far. Senator Whish-Wilson, please continue. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Nasty. Mean-spirited. Seriously? You are prepared to oppose the first steps towards reconciliation in this country, to accepting the generous invitation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and all the work that has gone into that for decades, for your own political purposes. You opposed this, the National Party, before you saw any detail. I checked when you did your first press conference on this. And you come in here and try and tell the Australian people that you want to see the detail in this and that that matters to you. You made a political decision to oppose the Voice so you could appeal to your rusted-ons. Seriously? At least be honest. I think the minister is doing a very good job answering the questions here tonight. But this is about truth. This is about truth. To hear Senator Cash say she was shocked and it was pathetic that somehow the minister was implying that they had a political agenda here—well, this is all about politics. It's so shameful that you would use Aboriginal people in this country as a political football for your own benefits, for your own self-interest, to whip up division in this country when we so desperately need to be united. I think it's high time someone tonight put that on record. 23:07 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I love being lectured to by an individual who's completely removed from the circumstances of my family, completely removed from my own circumstances, as a woman who is half Warlpiri. I love it, especially from individuals who see themselves as the saviours of the Indigenous people of this nation! This is not about appeasing your white guilt. This is about asking questions of the government, who wish to make huge amendments to our nation's founding document, the Constitution. So until you come and visit one of my remote communities and hear from Yeperenye, who are nothing but Aboriginal people, and hear what's going on in their communities, I think you need to just take a leaf out of your own book, brother. Back to the questioning: this is so important. I understand that there are some in here that don't recognise the importance of this—that don't understand that there are Indigenous Australians in this country who don't support this Voice to Parliament. I will highlight the fact that my Indigenous colleague from Central Australia has personally visited—and maybe you should go and visit them too—the Yanangu elders, those who I have a spiritual connection with through the marla jukurrpa, and they have told her specifically that they are very disappointed in this process and very disappointed in the term 'Uluru' being exploited by people like you for the purpose of political games and the purpose of pushing for a 'yes' vote in a referendum. Take a leaf out of your own book and go sit down with those elders. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Yes, they might teach you what respect is. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Nampijinpa Price, you clearly have the call, so keep going. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Clearly I do, yes, thank you, Chair. I would like to understand from this government what makes me different to you, sitting across on the other side. What makes me different to you and to Senator Whish-Wilson? 23:10 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We are here debating the constitutional alteration bill, Senator Price. 23:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia With all due respect, Minister, you didn't see the previous exchange, so I will give you the question that I asked and Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price was exploring. We were exploring proposed subsection 129(ii) of the bill. It states: the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth … I finished exploring that—I got nowhere but I finished exploring it. I then asked: what are matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples? The response I was given by the minister was: they are matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. I did not consider that to be adequate. So Senator Nampijinpa Price is now exploring that line of questioning in relation to the legal implications and the legal meaning of 'matters relating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples'. That is to put it into perspective for you. 23:12 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Now that the context has been provided, can I please understand what makes me different to you, Senator Chisholm? 23:12 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I think Senator Watt provided an answer before about what matters would be considered. I stand by that answer. 23:12 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory That's about as clear as mud, Senator. What are the issues that will specifically pertain to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians that don't relate to the rest of Australians in this country? 23:13 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I would refer to Minister Watt's previous answer. 23:13 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Well, are Aboriginal Australians Australian citizens? 23:13 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I think Minister Watt went over who Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians were. Opposition senators interjecting— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senators, it's very late. Let's save hysteria for the weekend, once we're out of here. Senator Nampijinpa Price, you have the call. 23:14 Senator 263528 Northern Territory NAMPIJINPA PRICE () (): I just find it highly amusing that Senator Watt has described to this chamber what I am. I'm confused. One minute we're talking about First Peoples of this country. Is this government suggesting that, if there are First Peoples, there are second peoples and third peoples? 23:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I am not going to get into that kind of stuff. Senator, I know that your party, and I presume you, supports recognising in the Constitution Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia. Are you telling us that you don't agree with that coalition position? 23:15 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I'm putting the question to you, respectfully, Senator: does this government, in recognising— An honourable senator interjecting — Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Senator Watt, as you have suggested, we shouldn't be talking about race. Indigeneity suggests that anyone born here belongs here. Is this relevant to those who consider themselves indigenous, who are born here? You are now talking about First Australians, the Canadian term. This is important to me and my family because my husband is a new citizen. He became a citizen of this country recently, because he loves this nation. I recognise there are many wonderful new citizens in this country, part of the migrant community, who come here and they ask me quite often where this puts them. So, I'm asking you, Senator, whether your government, in recognising First Australians, is suggesting that there are also second and third Australians? This is relevant to this amendment to our Constitution. 23:17 Senator 245759 Queensland WATT (—) (): I, too, love this country, and I'm sure you do as well, Senator. One of the reasons I support recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of Australia in our Constitution and establishing a Voice to Parliament is because I love this country and because I do think that the First Peoples of this country deserve a direct say, through the Voice, in being able to make representations to government. I'm not in the habit of describing anyone as second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth peoples, but it is a matter of historical record that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are our First Peoples. I thought that was the coalition's position as well but I'm starting to wonder if that is right because you seem to be uncomfortable with this idea. 23:17 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I am asking these very relevant questions because they are asked of me by members of the Australian community—those who have become recent citizens, and those who have ancestors who, like some of my ancestors, arrived here as convicts: where do they stand in all of this, in terms of this amendment to the Constitution and providing the opportunity for only a certain group of Australians to have a Voice for special measures or issues relating specifically to them that you can't identify within our Constitution? That is why I'm asking these questions. We can all go back to the different parties. The Greens are haemorrhaging Aboriginal people from their party because they don't listen to the voices that don't agree with the Voice, evidently, but they will lecture my party. I am here to get to the crux of these issues. I am asking these questions on behalf of those Australians who don't know where they stand, who are wanting to understand, should this referendum be successful, where they stand. That is why I am asking these questions. They are asking me to ask you whether this government regards them as second or third Australians given that there is so much prominence given to First Australians—acknowledgements, platitudes, romanticism of culture and all of those things that it is evident those across the chamber don't have much of a clue about, actually. So, again, where does the rest of Australia stand with this constitutional amendment? 23:20 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland What this is about is very simple. It's about recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia and creating a Voice to Parliament through which they can make representations to the parliament and the executive government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It won't diminish the rights of other Australians. One of the Liberal Party members of the House of Representatives, Mr Leeser, has asked, seriously, 'Does anyone believe that Indigenous Australians occupy a place of privilege?' It doesn't have anything to say about the position of non-Indigenous Australians, but it would have tangible benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people because, as we have repeatedly said, we believe that you get the best outcomes when you listen to people. That's what the Voice is about. Again, Senator Nampijinpa Price, you say that people want you to ask the government where they stand. I can only assume that you asked Mr Littleproud and Mr Dutton the same questions when they said that they supported constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of Australia. I'd be interested to know what they had to say about that and whether they thought that that put other people second or third or fourth—because we're told the coalition has signed up to that position. We're told the coalition has signed up to that part, just not the Voice. So, if it was okay for the coalition to claim that they support the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as our First Peoples, then I imagine you've had to have these discussions with your own colleagues. 23:22 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory To be quite precise, what the Labor government is suggesting is creating a body. Recognition is an entirely different issue. You're also suggesting that this body will make representations pertaining to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but you can't actually identify or stipulate what those representations may be about that are specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Minister Chisholm couldn't even answer whether Aboriginal Australians are Australian citizens. I can answer that quite easily. We are. We're Australian citizens, just like everybody else. Therefore, why wouldn't issues pertaining to superannuation, the Fair Work Commission, the Office of National Intelligence, the Australian Electoral Commission—well, that's an obvious one, isn't it?—be the subject of representations? An opposition senator: The ABC. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Or the ABC! With any legislation that comes before this parliament, why would that not relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who are also Australian citizens? 23:24 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland First of all, I don't think that's a fair attack on Senator Chisholm, who was kind enough to relieve me briefly so that I could go to the bathroom. He hasn't been involved in this bill at all, so I actually am grateful to a colleague who's prepared to support a colleague in that way, and I don't think that it's fair to have a crack at him about that. I'm not sure if you were here in the chamber or listening outside when I addressed this previously, but I've made it very clear that section 129 states that the 'Voice may make representations on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples'. I know that it suits the scare campaign to say that that might involve national security, electoral matters and all sorts of things. I understand that you've got a scare campaign to run because you want to defeat this. I understand. But I have repeatedly said that what that means is that the Voice may make representations on matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and matters relevant to the Australian community but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently to other members of the Australian community. As I say, I know that for the scare campaign to succeed you have to put the fear of God into the Australian community and that it's going to go far, far further than that, because we've seen these scare campaigns before from the coalition on similar matters. But the constitutional wording is clear. I've explained it now three or four times, and I'm going to keep referring you back to my previous answers when I receive similar questions. 23:26 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In the first instance, it's not a 'scare campaign' to ask reasonable questions. We are currently within the meaning of section 129(ii). How is it a scare campaign for me or Senator Nampijinpa Price to ask whether or not making a representation to a particular part of executive government includes ASIO? Either the Voice can make a representation to ASIO or it can't. If the answer is no, rule it out. It's very simple. And, if the answer is yes, say yes. How is it a scare campaign to ask a very genuine question in relation to whether the Voice can make a representation to a Commonwealth entity? The Reserve Bank has been raised by people, and that is why we are asking: can the Voice make a representation to the Reserve Bank? In relation to your comments about my questions concerning the term 'First Peoples', First Peoples will be a legal term. I asked you: why did you choose the term 'First Peoples'? Why didn't you use the term 'First Nations'? Do you actually see that there is a difference between 'First Peoples' and 'First Nations'? If you do, it would be great if you could explain it, because the term that is used will be interpreted by a future High Court, as you know. It will actually have a constitutional consequence if the referendum is carried. It is entirely appropriate, given the lack of detail that we have—we have a glossy brochure and a handy little booklet—that we explore in this forum what the legal consequences will actually be. To further the questions that Senator Nampijinpa Price has—and she will continue to ask questions—in the explanatory memorandum, 'matters relating' et cetera is explained as: … matters relevant to the Australian community— and this is the point that Senator Nampijinpa Price is making— including general laws or measures, but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples— and here is the keyword— differently to other members of the Australian community. So Senator Nampijinpa Price in the first instance is merely asking you: can you take us through what some of those matters are? But then I will also ask you: what is the process by which a court will determine whether a measure affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people differently? The issue we now have is, if you're unable to advise the Senate what these matters are, how is the Voice itself—whatever this body may be, because we don't know what this body may be—whether or not the matter that they are making a representation on, to go to the explanatory memorandum, is a matter relevant to the Australian community et cetera but which affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people differently to other members? They in good faith make a representation to you. We're still going to explore what the obligation on the government is in relation to providing them with information. They have taken some time; they've consulted; they've come together and they now have a representation and make the representation. What happens if it's not a matter pertaining to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples? How is the court going to determine what actually is a matter? Are they going to waste their time making a representation? You can't clearly articulate tonight what a matter is that relates to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island peoples. So again I ask you, in relation to the explanatory memorandum, we would like some further explanation. This is explained as: matters relevant to the Australian community, including general rules and measures, but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently— a key word— to other member for the Australian community. Could you please just tell us what some of these matters are? 23:31 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Cash, with the greatest of respect, you repeatedly seem to not come to grips with what the Voice is about. The Voice is about giving our First Peoples, our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, an opportunity to have a say on matters that affect them. You seem to want to keep constraining or seeking limits around the types of things the Voice can make representations on, how they will be dealt with, who will be on there. The point of this exercise is to actually empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to make recommendations to government, rather than having the same top-down approach that governments of both persuasions have engaged in for dozens of years, with the evidence being before us in the lower educational attainment, lower health outcomes, higher incarceration, poorer housing, all those other quite shameful statistics that disproportionately affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. So I'm not going to get into the game of trying to constrain this and narrow it down. This government has confidence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be able to prioritise their work, to be able to run the Voice effectively, to be able to work out for themselves what are the priority issues, what are matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. They don't need me to tell on that. With respect, they don't need you to tell them that. They don't need me to tell them what are the issues that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently to other people in the Australian community. I reckon they've got the smarts to be able to work that out for themselves, and I think we should listen to them. 23:33 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That would be the small problem: if they get it wrong, what is the process by which a court will determine whether a measure affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people differently? What is the process the court is going to utilise? 23:33 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Minister, I suspect that if it ever did get to a court, the court would do what it does in every other matter. That is to interpret the legislation with the assistance of the explanatory memorandum. So I have nothing further to add to my answers. 23:34 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Senator, I want to understand more around what you have been saying about the Voice empowering people. With the Voice up and running, who is going to be disempowered by the Voice? I mentioned earlier in my speech that I travelled last week to Uluru and met with a few of the old people out there. They'd travelled a long way to go to the place that they are responsible for—old men who were quite sick with chest infections and that kind of stuff, normal stuff in winter. I'm interested in hearing what matters the Voice would likely be looking at, because I'm want to understand how consistent it is with matters that trouble them, given how far away they are and given some of the very specific issues that affect them. I understand the Calma-Langton report proposes that there might be two representatives, one male and one female, from every state and territory, as well as a remote representative, but 'remote' in Central Australia, down the bottom towards Uluru, is very different to 'remote' in the Top End or over in Arnhem Land. I want to understand: would matters of culture be deferred to the Voice, or would that be left to traditional owners who have the cultural authority to make decisions about that? 23:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm sure what you heard there would be very valuable feedback, and I look forward to hearing some of it. One of the design principles of the Voice, which is in the booklet, is that the Voice will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures, so the Voice would respect the work of existing organisations. As you know, Senator Liddle—I think you were part of the joint select committee and heard all of the evidence—it will be a matter for the parliament to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. But the design principles set out what this government's intentions are as to how the Voice would work, particularly in terms of working alongside existing organisations and traditional structures. 23:37 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia In travelling to talk to me about how disturbed they were about their misrepresentation, it cost them to get there. Will they be able to ask the Voice about issues related to the cost of living—petrol or diesel is well over $2 there—or do they have to defer that to the Voice? 23:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Do you mean: would they be able to do that through their existing structures? 23:37 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia No. Would it be reasonable for the Voice to look at the cost of living for those people living in remote, hard to reach, difficult places? 23:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, it would be up to the Voice to decide what matters it makes representations on, as long as they are 'matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples'—that's the wording of the constitutional provision. As I said, the explanatory memorandum makes it clear that that would include matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, so if the issues that you're raising are specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, or if they are matters relevant to the Australian community but impact and affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently to other members of the Australian community, then that would be something that the Voice could provide representations on. But that's a matter for the Voice. 23:38 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia In that area, the challenges that they deal with are everyday challenges of threatened species survival, of being able to continue their jukurrpa because the animals that they rely on to continue the stories are actually still in those areas. So their interests are things that often people in the major cities, who've never been out in those areas, don't necessarily understand or give attention to. Threatened species management is one. Fire management is another. Is that the kind of thing that you think the Voice might turn its attention to? 23:39 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, it's not for me or any member of the government to dictate to the Voice what it can and can't provide advice on. It's up to the Voice to decide what it considers to be matters specific to Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander peoples or matters that affect Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander peoples differently to other member for the Australian community. Whichever example is given, I'm not going to be saying yes to this, not to that. That's up to the Voice, provided the matters relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, which is what the Constitution requires. While I'm at it, Senator Liddle, I don't think that I've necessarily been to the communities you're talking about. I've certainly been to a number of Indigenous communities across the country, and I'm very well aware of some of the particular cost of living pressures that they experience due to remoteness and the transport costs of getting food—what food is available—to those communities. So I'm very conscious that that is a serious issue facing many remote Indigenous communities. 23:40 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Given that you've done that, and that you've clearly brought those issues to these chambers, why do we need a Voice to Parliament? 23:40 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't know why you think it's funny, Senator Cash. I think it is a pretty serious issue. You're sitting there laughing. The CHAIR 287062 Senator Cash? Senator Cash I0M Chair, I would like Senator Watt to withdraw that. He has no idea what I was thinking or what I was reacting to, thank you very much. Would you please ask him to withdraw? That is an imputation on me and a reflection on me. The CHAIR 287062 Minister, it is poor form. Senator Watt 245759 I wasn't— The CHAIR 287062 You were imputing improper motives. Just withdraw and let's move on. Senator Watt 245759 I was observing Senator Cash laughing. I withdraw. The CHAIR 287062 Members of the Senate should be allowed to sit in their chairs and not have inferences drawn upon them unless they are engaged in debate. We all know that. It's late. Let's proceed with the committee stage. Senator WATT 245759 Why I and the rest of the government and some members of the Liberal Party and some former members of the National Party believe that we need a Voice—and, more importantly, why those who attended the Uluru dialogues and all the land councils in the Northern Territory and why surveys tell us that about 80 per cent of First Nations people think we need a Voice—is because the approach that we've been taking for over 200 years, which involves governments deciding things for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, hasn't really worked. Senator Nampijinpa Price, you have raised a number of concerning issues that happen in some Indigenous communities. Both Senator McCarthy and I have made clear repeatedly that we don't condone violence in any situation. As is clear from the Closing The Gap targets, we know that as a group Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have much poorer health outcomes, housing outcomes, educational outcomes, employment outcomes and life expectancy, and much higher rates of incarceration. I would suggest that the system has not been working very well, and I reckon it's time to try something different. No one really cares what I think. What matters more is what the Uluru dialogues thought. They have come up with this idea, which we have listened to, as a way of delivering practical outcomes. That's why we need a Voice in my opinion. 23:43 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I know you love referring to the Uluru dialogues and the Uluru statement. Here I go again: I will have to lend some truth telling for you. The government needs to understand that 1,200 invite-only participants is not representative of the over 800,000 Indigenous Australians in this country. I have pointed out, and my colleague Senator Liddle has pointed out, that the word Uluru has been exploited for the purpose of this exercise. There are Anangu elders who are very upset about the exploitation of the word Uluru as part of the Uluru statement. You talk about, and I notice the Greens always talking about their respect for Indigenous Australians and culture, but the appropriate cultural processes did not take place in order to bring about the Uluru Statement from the Heart. You keep referring back to it as if this is a significant statement. You keep attempting to convince the Australian people that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people wholeheartedly support this statement. No other race of Australian people are treated in this way. To suggest that 0.03 per cent of the population of Indigenous Australians putting their signature to this document is a fair representation of Indigenous Australians and our views, as far as I'm concerned, is utterly disrespectful. Yet you use your positions in these chambers to throw this at us—representatives like myself and Senator Liddle, those of us who actually do have a spiritual connection to Uluru—as if this legitimises your argument. It's completely and utterly flawed. It's disgraceful, in fact, and I won't be lectured to on issues such as the Uluru statement and culture and all of those issues, especially when you can't identify what the issues are that are specific to Indigenous Australians that make us different to the rest of Australia. I'm quite concerned about the term 'different' and the use of the word 'differently', which suggests that we are different to other Australians. Certainly it is my sense that we're looked upon differently. Certainly there are members of the Greens party who want to rescue us because we're so different! This word 'differently' sits within the memorandum. You can't identify what issues are different for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians as opposed to the rest of this nation, but that is your justification for the requirement of a detail-less voice to parliament. Senator, can you outline what makes us different? 23:47 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory There is certainly no disrespect intended at all whatsoever to anyone in this chamber. And there's certainly no disrespect intended to any Anangu or any First Nations people who've been involved or who are not involved. Either way, there's certainly no disrespect at all. I think it's important to clarify a few things here. One is the journey of those in terms of the Uluru dialogues. With the many dialogues they had across the country in 2017, leading up to the gathering on Anangu country, it was an important journey for them. On those signatures that you refer to—we spoke with Sammy Wilson just recently as well, through the referendum engagement group and through the working group, who took us around Muti and different places to reaffirm the commitment that they have to the Uluru statement. It's fine that we all differ, that we come at this from different areas and that we have different family groups who may say what they need to, but at no point on this side of the chamber has there been any disrespect shown towards any of those family groups. I want to put that on the record. I think that's really important. In terms of the questions around matters, the Voice's broad remit is to make representations, and we know that these matters that impact First Nations people will be what the Voice will raise. It can be done. Whether it's housing, education or the areas that Senator Liddle spoke about in terms of the distances and the cost of living, common sense tells us that these will be issues that no doubt those representatives on the Voice, should we be successful in getting the referendum up, will want to have input into. But can I reassure the Senate that at no point is this about any disrespect at all to First Nations people. 23:50 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Again, I'm curious to understand what matters, specifically, the government can outline that aren't specific to Aboriginal Australians that perhaps the Voice won't make representations on? 23:50 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answers. What we are talking about here is matters that the Voice is able to provide representations on, not matters that it can't. 23:51 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I'm just really trying to understand. So every bit of legislation and every matter that comes before us will be relevant to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country—is that what you are suggesting? 23:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland No. I refer to my previous answers. I think it's now up to seven times that I've said that the matters that the Voice will make representations on are matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples or matters that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently to other members of the Australian community. Just as I'm not going to get into 'Yes, it can make representations on this and, no, it can't on that', I'm not going to get into the types of things that it can't or won't make representations on. Provided it meets those requirements, it can make those representations and it can make those decisions for itself. 23:52 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Again—so it can basically make representations on absolutely anything, because anything can affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, as Australian citizens. 23:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland No. That's obviously not what I said. I refer to my previous answers. 23:52 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory No; I'm asking you, and you can just say yes or no. All matters that come before us here will affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in some way or another, whether it's different or whether it's the same, but, ultimately, there's nothing to say that the Voice can't make representations on absolutely anything that affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as Australian citizens. 23:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That's not right, and I refer you back to my previous answers. What you're trying to suggest is that the Voice can make representations on anything. That's clearly not the case, and, if you have a look back at my repeated answers, I've made that clear. 23:53 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory So therefore the Voice is restricted in what it can make representations on? 23:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answers. 23:53 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Your previous answers are as clear as mud. All I'd like to know is: is the Voice restricted in making representations? 23:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answers. I can't do anything about it if you don't like my answers or you don't want to accept my answers, but I will keep referring you back to them. 23:54 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If I could move on—the explanatory memorandum to the bill says the following: This would include representations about any matter within the executive power of the Commonwealth, such as law reform, policy development, decisions made under specific legislation, and other matters of government administration … How would the Voice fulfil its constitutional function of making representations in relation to a decision under specific legislation if it didn't know the government intended to make such a decision? So I'm going to the duty to notify the Voice. 23:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm struggling to understand exactly what the question is, Senator Cash. 23:55 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The bill talks about the representations that can be made. They include representations about any matter within the executive power of the Commonwealth such as law reform, policy development decisions made under specific legislation and other matters of government administration. My question is: how would the Voice fulfil its constitutional function of making representations—and we've established that it has that constitutional function—in relation to a decision that is going to be made if it doesn't know the government intends to make such a decision? What is going to be the obligation on the government to notify the Voice that such decisions will be made so they know they can make a representation? 23:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Now I understand. Obviously the Voice—should it be successful at the referendum—will have the capacity to proactively make representations to the parliament and the executive government. Equally the parliament and the executive government would have the ability to consult and seek advice from the Voice. But there is no obligation under proposed section 129 for the parliament or the executive to consult the Voice before taking action or to follow its representations. The Voice doesn't need to wait for an invitation to make a representation. As I say, it can be proactive, but both the parliament and the executive government may seek advice and may seek representations from the Voice, but they're not under any obligation to do so. 23:56 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia With all due respect that wasn't the question I asked. How would the Voice make representations in relation to policy development if it didn't know a policy was being developed? 23:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't think it's the intention that the Voice would make representations on every single thing that governments are considering or every single piece of policy that the government is developing, but the Voice will have the ability to determine what it considers to be priority issues. It can proactively make representations if it were to decide, for instance, that addressing the high levels of incarceration of Indigenous people was a priority and if they had some ideas about what could be done differently to reduce the rate of incarceration. If it had ideas about how we could improve the standard of housing that many First Nations people live in in Australia, then it could make those representations. The parliament and the executive government, if considering actions on those issues, could seek advice, but it is up to the Voice to decide what it does and doesn't want to get involved in. 23:58 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory With all due respect, Minister Watt, everything you just described then—if we were to refer back to your previous answers—is just made up, because the parliament will determine those things, I thought. Isn't that correct? 23:58 Sen 245759 Queensland ator WATT (—) (): No, because subsection (ii) of section 129 makes it clear what the Voice's role is, and that is to make representations to the parliament and executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The parliament's role under section 129 is set out in subsection (iii), and that is to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. 23:58 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Really what we're talking about here is a duty to notify. As I've stated, the explanatory memorandum to the bill says, in terms of section 129(ii) and the representations that can be made, this would include representations about any matter within the executive power of the Commonwealth. It's any matter. It's quite wide; in fact, it's very wide. It's any matter because there are no limits on it. Then, in the explanatory memorandum, we've got some examples: law reform, policy development decisions—and that's very important—made under specific legislation and other matters of government administration. What you've failed to answer is—you said the Voice can make representations; we've established that. We haven't established what it can make representations on, but we've established that it can make representations. The issue, though, becomes, in terms of the obligations on the government to notify the Voice, that the Voice has a constitutional right to make representations, and, as you keep telling us, the representations are to the parliament and the executive government of the people on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. My question to you is, though: how does the Voice make representations in relation to policy development if it doesn't know a policy is being developed? What will be the duty on the government to notify the Voice of a particular policy development decision? There's no point in telling the Voice, after an announcement has been made: 'Guess what? Here it is. Here's the final product. What do you now think?' And they say: 'Guess what? Crikey! Moses! You'll actually have to go back to the drawing board, because we don't agree with any of it. That's our representation to you.' It is obvious that you are going to have to notify them. It is easy to see how a future High Court could say that the Voice would need to be provided with adequate notice of a decision relating to Indigenous peoples in order to fulfil its constitutional function of making representations. We're trying to explore here the ability to make or to carry out or, more, to fulfil my constitutional function of making a representation, so tell me: how would the Voice make representation in relation to policy development if it didn't know a policy was being developed, and how can the government guarantee that a future High Court will not imply a constitutional obligation to provide such notice? Saturday, 17 June 2023 00:02 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Therein lies really what this is all about, Senator Cash, and I just want to give an explanation. I'll leave the legality to our rep for the Attorney-General. If we look at a lot of the reasoning as to why the dialogues leading up to the Uluru statement came to be, in terms of the intent behind the Voice, it is the mere fact that they've not had any influence in terms of policies about them, and I'll give an example, and it's only one example. You're right; it is about how the representatives on the Voice influence policy or give advice on particular policies—for example, the Northern Territory intervention. I'll just throw that out there as one example. How do they become involved at the inception of the thought before it becomes a policy at the end? Now, we all have opportunities, and you know, having sat around the cabinet table, that you get a chance to have reports from different groups who have a response on whether a particular bill will be sufficient or on what the weaknesses and strengths of that bill are. In this instance, it's akin to the fact that First Nations people have not ever had that involvement and say. So that is a constant view that has kept coming through over the years with the dialogues, and even with the conversations now. So, again, if we are successful in this referendum, the most appropriate way that that can be done will be something that I look forward to debating here in the Senate so that that advice can be there at the very inception of any kind of policy that will have an impact—and, as I said, in such a dramatic fashion, such as something like the intervention or anything similar. 00:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator McCarthy, for helping us to understand some of that context. Senator Cash, there is no duty on the parliament or the executive to notify the Voice or to seek advice from it on matters that relate to Aboriginal people. However, it is this government's very clear view, based on advice from the Uluru dialogues and many other sources that I've gone through already, that we get better outcomes when we listen to people. There are so many other parts of government where that happens: stakeholders are consulted about issues, they're listened to—they're not always agreed to by government, but they're listened to—and very often that drives better outcomes. We think the same principle should apply in relation to our First Peoples. The advice that the Solicitor-General provided that was attached to the Attorney-General's submission to the joint select committee that inquired into this bill confirmed that the proposed amendment does not impose any enforceable obligation upon the parliament and the executive government to consult or follow the Voice's representations. So, if a parliament or an executive government wants to go ahead and make a decision that directly impacts on Indigenous people without consulting them, then the parliament and the executive government can do that. But this government's view is that that would be likely to lead to a poorer outcome than if we did consult and if we did listen. This is the mechanism that we're establishing to do so. The Solicitor-General also advised that the Voice's function of making representations will not fetter or impede the exercise of the existing powers of the parliament or the executive government. It can't be any clearer than that. 00:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'm going to quote Senator Nampijinpa Price here. That was as clear as mud. Everything you have just said just goes to the point. We are talking about an implied constitutional duty to consult by giving notice and providing information and an implied constitutional duty to consider. These are actually critical. You have just said, and in fact Senator McCarthy said, that you want to get people involved 'from an inception of thought'. That is a huge problem now because they have a constitutional right under clause 129(ii) to make a representation. We now have it on the record that you want them to be involved from 'an inception of thought'. In relation to the implied constitutional duty, how is the Voice going to make representations in relation to policy development, or anything, if it doesn't know that the policy is being developed? Senator Watt, you are also a lawyer. You have lawyers sitting here. This is a very serious issue. You can have a constitutional right. They have a constitutional right as set out in clause 129(ii). That constitutional right is to make a representation. If you read many of the submissions from eminent constitutional lawyers that were provided to the select committee that looked into this, one of the very issues they raise is in relation to what flows from a constitutional right. Are there then implied constitutional rights? Senator McCarthy has now said that she wants people to be involved—I would say from day one, but Senator McCarthy's words were 'from an inception of thought', which therefore means there must therefore be a duty on the government to actually notify them. I'm trying to find out at what stage the government is going to notify the Voice of, for example, policy development to ensure that they are able to fulfil their constitutional function of making a representation. It is actually a very serious legal issue, as you know. 00:09 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't think it is a serious issue. I think it is another attempt to invoke fear and confusion among members of the Australian public. That's what I think it's about, as most of the questions that have been asked tonight have involved— Senator Cash I0M So flippant! Senator WATT 245759 I'm not being flippant with the Constitution. What I'm actually doing is citing the Solicitor-General. It doesn't really get a lot higher than that. If anyone in this room thinks that they know more about the Constitution than the Solicitor-General, then feel free. It doesn't get a lot higher than former chief justices of the High Court and former justices of the High Court who all have said that the various concerns that are being raised here are not valid, in a manner of speaking. Senator Cash, you assert that there's going to be some implied right to be consulted. You're the only one saying that. We don't accept that. The Solicitor-General doesn't accept that. The former judges of the High Court who've been involved in making recommendations don't accept that. What I've said to you is that there is nothing in the constitutional provision itself that requires the parliament or the executive government to consult. Of course, subsection (iii) grants various powers to the parliament, and a future parliament may decide to legislate about whether representations of the Voice need to be considered by the government, but that is not this government's intention. And, as I say, the Solicitor-General and many other eminent former High Court judges have made clear that this concern, among many others, does not have any validity. 00:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, with all due respect, Senator Watt, the Voice can't work if it does not have any knowledge of the things it is meant to advise on. That is a very basic fact. The constitutional right is to make representations. If I don't know what I'm making representations on, then the Voice itself can't work. So the answer to the question is actually very clear. The Voice can't work if it doesn't know about the things it is meant to advise on. Therefore, in order for the Voice to work, one thing the High Court could do is imply a reciprocal constitutional obligation to give the Voice notice of a proposed decision or a policy. That is the risk you are asking the Australian people to vote on. You are giving them a constitutional right to make representations, but you are making light of the fact that there will be other implied constitutional rights that a High Court will find that they have. For the life of me, I cannot work out how the Voice itself can work if it does not have knowledge of the things it is meant to advise on. That is something that I am asked by people regularly. I have now no answer to them. What is the answer to how the Voice can work if the government does not provide them with information in relation to the decisions that it is making? You also made comment about the weight of legal opinion. In relation to the weight of legal opinion: that is a contested position, and you know that. Some have one view and some have another view. It is a contested position. What it means is that you are asking Australians to take a risk with their Constitution. You're asking them to take a risk with their Constitution, with their rule book. But what you're forgetting to tell them is that the risk they are taking is a permanently embedded risk. And you are not able to articulate to me or to the Senate how the Voice makes representations in relation to policy development if it doesn't know that a policy is being developed. In other words, there is an implied constitutional duty to consult. What does an implied constitutional duty to consult mean? It means the government will need to give notice and provide information to the Voice. In your comments you also referred to the legal advice provided by the Solicitor-General. What you forgot to say, though, was that that was the legal advice that the Attorney-General's Department at estimates openly admitted was prepared for public consumption. That was always prepared for public consumption. There are three other legal advices. We knew of two of them. At the recent Senate estimates, we discovered, lo and behold, the government have not been up-front about the legal advices—they had us all thinking there was three. Well, guess what, we actually found out there is now four legal advices: one for public consumption and three other legal advices. If the government is so sure of its legal position, why will the government not release these legal advices to the public? So again I ask you: in relation to the implied constitutional duty to consult—in other words, by giving notice and providing information—how does the Voice make a representation in relation to policy development if it doesn't know a policy is being developed? This is a very serious question. The Voice has a right to make representations. What are the implied rights that flow from that? 00:16 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The only person who is talking about an implied right here is you, Senator Cash. The Solicitor-General isn't talking about it. The former High Court judges are not talking about it. You're the only person talking about it. So I'm not going to give it any credibility whatsoever. You did spend a lot of time, and the opposition spent a lot of time, demanding the Solicitor-General's opinion. It has been provided. We know you don't like it, but it confirms that the proposed amendment doesn't impose any enforceable obligation on the parliament and the executive to consult or follow the Voice's representations and that it won't fetter or impede the exercise of the existing powers of the parliament or the executive government. I know you don't like it. I know you'd prefer it didn't exist, but it does exist and it's been provided to the committee. 00:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, Senator Watt, you fail to clearly understand: the advice that was quite deliberately released for public consumption by the Attorney-General was not the advices we were looking for. What we would like the Australian people to see are the three secret advices. They are the advices that we would like the government to release. Advance notice of decisions is essential, so that the Voice has the opportunity to obtain information about the matter and then make a representation if appropriate. Janet Albrechtsen has looked at this in detail. In plain English, she says: This view is reflected in the voice design principles released by the government, which provide (among other things) that: The voice will be able to make representations proactively. The voice will have its own resources to allow it to research, develop and make representations. The parliament and executive government should seek representations in writing from the voice early in the development of proposed laws and policies. Accordingly, in addition to the specific matters listed above, the voice hereby requires you to give us advance notice … This is the problem: how do they make the representations, Senator Watt, if they don't have the advance notice? I ask you this question: how would the Voice fulfil its function of making representations in relation to a policy or decision if it did not have any information about that policy or decision? 00:18 Senator 245759 Queensland WATT (—) (): I refer to my previous answer. 00:19 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia How could the Voice make meaningful representations if it did not have sufficient information to understand what was proposed and what the implications might be for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? Bearing in mind that you had an extensive discussion with Senator Nampijinpa Price in relation to 'the ability to make representations on matters that are relevant to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people'. The explanatory memorandum says: … matters relevant to the Australian community— et cetera— but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently to other members of the Australian community. So I ask you: how does the Voice make meaningful representations if it does not have sufficient information to understand what was proposed and what the implications might be for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? 00:20 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Chair, I refer to my previous answer. I don't have it to hand but I'm sure there must be a standing order about repetitive questions. I think basically the same question has been asked about six times in a row. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 It is often interpreted liberally. You are under no obligation to answer the question if you believe that is so, but the senator is in order to ask whatever question she wants. Senator Cash. 00:20 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Could a person litigate to seek an order compelling the government to provide information about a decision to the Voice in order to allow it to fulfil its constitutional function? 00:20 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland No, because there is no constitutional duty to consult the Voice. 00:21 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia But there is a constitutional right to make a representation. A future High Court may determine that there therefore is an implied right for the government to notify the Voice and provide information to it to ensure that the Voice, as it is going to be set up, actually works. So basically you are asking every Australian to take an unknown, unquantifiable risk with their Constitution, with what I would say are potentially catastrophic consequences for government. In relation to the duty to consider, if the Voice makes representations to the executive government in relation to a matter, will the government be obliged to actually consider those representations? 00:22 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer on exactly that question. 00:22 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia What is the point of the Voice if the government doesn't have an obligation to consider the representations? Why are we even having this debate? 00:22 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Cash, you might have been part of a government that wouldn't listen to Indigenous people or a body like a voice, but I'm certainly part of a government that intends to. We won't necessarily accept everything the Voice recommends but we'd certainly be pretty keen to listen. As I say, the point of the Voice is that it's about listening, just as we listen to lots of other people out there, and I don't reckon we should treat Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people any differently. Maybe if we listen— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 we might get some different outcomes, because what doing now ain't working. 00:23 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia With all due respect, Minister, we are talking about a duty to consider representations. Under subparagraph (ii) of proposed section 129, as we've established, the Voice would have a constitutional right to make representations to the parliament and the executive government. The corollary of a right to make representations is an obligation on the parliament and the executive government to receive and hear the representations. Without an obligation to receive and hear, the right to make representations is actually illusory. Nothing in the parliament's proposed power under subparagraph (iii) of proposed section 129 can impinge on the right of the Voice to make representations. So the parliament is therefore prohibited by the Constitution from passing a law to prevent or substantially limit the executive government from receiving and considering the representations. They have a constitutional right. I ask you again: what is the extent of the obligation on the government to consider the representation? If you say there is none, you've actually just diminished the right to make a representation to an illusory right, because why would I even be making the representation if the government does not actually have a right to receive and consider the representation? So I ask again: what is the obligation on the government to actually consider the representation? 00:25 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I've answered that question about three or four times. 00:25 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia You haven't answered that question, because we're actually now talking about a duty to consider. You've answered in relation to the duty to consult, but not to consider. But, even in the curated version for the public consumption, the public version of the Solicitor-General's opinion, it says there is room for argument. His advice says that there is room for argument as to whether there is an implied constitutional to consider representations. So again, it is a matter of record from the third tranche of advice from the government's own Constitutional Expert Group that there were differing views among the expert group as to whether the proposed amendment is likely to be interpreted by a court as giving rise to a constitutional obligation for government decision-makers to consider relevant representations by the Voice even if parliament did not require this. How can the government guarantee that a court would not give rise to a constitutional obligation for government decision-makers to consider relevant representations? 00:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm glad that you are quoting from the Solicitor-General's advice, Senator Cash. You might also like to refer to paragraph 11, where the Solicitor-General writes: The proposed amendment is not only compatible with the system of representative and responsible government established under the Constitution, but it enhances that system. He also writes, at paragraph 17: … the introduction of proposed s 129 into the Constitution would not alter the existing distribution of Commonwealth governmental power summarised above. He goes on to say, at paragraph 19(a): Proposed s 129 would not impose any obligations upon the Executive Government to follow representations of the Voice, or to consult with the Voice prior to developing any policy or making any decision. The text of proposed s 129 imposes no such requirements. Further, no such requirements can be implied by reference to proposed s 129(ii)… So, again, Senator Cash, you seem to be on your own in suggesting that there is some risk of an implied right, and I have stated on a number of occasions now that there is no duty to consult. There is no duty to obey. There is a constitutional duty or right to make representations. I'm afraid that's another scare campaign that has no legs. 00:28 Senator I0M Western Australia CASH (—) (): With all due respect, Senator Watt, it really doesn't matter what you say. Senator Watt 245759 Well, it's the Solicitor-General's— Senator CASH I0M You can say whatever you like. There is no duty to consult. There is no duty to obey. Ultimately, it is the High Court of Australia who will decide what the right to make representation means. At least two important matters should be evident from the discussion that we have just had. First, the right to make representations will not be treated by the High Court as a hollow right. If it's a hollow right, why we actually standing here tonight? There must, at the very least, be an obligation on the executive to hear and consider representations, otherwise the notion of the Voice would be utterly undermined and the right to make representation would be merely an illusory right. Second, even the Solicitor General recognises—and you quoted selectively from his legal advice—in his written opinion that there is room for argument. He states that in his advice, as to whether decision-makers within the executive government would be required to consider representations of the Voice in certain contexts. That's paragraph 19(b) of the advice. The Solicitor General also recognises that it is possible, contrary to his considered view, that Parliament would not be empowered to legislate to specify the extent to which any consideration of representations by the Voice is required. That is the Solicitor General at paragraph 19(b) and (c). I will actually therefore now make a third point that should become evident. If section 129 becomes part of the Constitution, then the only person or body expressly recognised by the Constitution as having a right to make representations to the parliament and the executive government would be the Voice. No express constitutional right of representation is afforded to any persons or bodies who are external to Parliament, including Australian citizens and corporate bodies. Hence conferral of an express constitutional right to make representations would be both special and significant and would necessarily have significant legal consequences, because the parliament's power under subparagraph 3 of section 129 to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Voice is expressed to be subject to the Constitution. In other words, the parliament cannot in any way diminish that special right to make representations. Finally, it is one thing to say the proposed section 129 would not threaten representative and responsible government. But to say, as the Solicitor General does at paragraph 21, that it would enhance the existing system of representative and responsible government is actually a value judgment; it is not a legal opinion. The basis of that value judgment in that advice is simply that 'the Voice serves the objectives of overcoming barriers that have impeded effective participation by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in political discussions and decisions that affect them.' That's his opinion. That's his judgment. A reasonable contrary view is that giving one proposed body a special and preferred constitutional right to make representations to the Parliament and the executive is antithetical to our system of representative government under which all Australians have legal rights. Ultimately I go back to what I said in the beginning. It is not you, Senator Watt, it is not the Solicitor General, it is actually the High Court of Australia that will decide what the right to make these representations means. And you are unable to give us any further guidance tonight in terms of what those implied duties may or may not be and what impact they will actually have on the operation of government in Australia. It's a matter of the record from the third tranche of advice from the government's own constitutional expert group that there were differing views amongst the expert group as to whether or not the proposed amendment is likely to be interpreted by a court as giving rise to a constitutional obligation for government decision-makers to consider relevant representations by the Voice even if Parliament did not require this. There is another part of the constitutional expert group's advice that says 'there is no obligation to follow the Voice's representations, but it is possible that executive government decisions could be found invalid if the government failed to consider a relevant representation by the Voice.' That is the constitutional expert group's advice. For clarity, does that mean that if a government decision-maker did not consider the voice's representations, the decision may be invalid? 00:34 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you for that very lengthy comment, Senator Cash, with little bits of the Solicitor-General's opinion taken out of context and pretty important bits left out. The advice that you're citing from the Constitutional Expert Group actually led to the government agreeing to amend the provision in section 129(iii) to broaden the powers of the parliament which cure the issue that you're referring to, so those issues and concerns do not remain. They have been dealt with by amending the language in subsection (iii). 00:35 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So release the other three advices of the Solicitor-General so all of Australia can see— Senator Henders ZN4 The truth. Senator CASH I0M Exactly—so all of Australia can actually see the truth, as opposed to deliberately releasing an advice for public consumption— Senator Henderson ZN4 The curated version. Senator CASH I0M The curated version of the advice. In section 129(iii), you actually cannot get around the words— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 Point of order. Senator Watt 245759 Two senators—both Senators Henderson and Cash—have alleged that the Solicitor General's opinion is curated. I would suggest that is offensive to the Solicitor-General and his independence, and I ask that that be withdrawn. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The Solicitor-General is not protected under the standing orders, but you may like to reconsider the question. Senat I0M The Attorney-General of Australia released advice for public consumption. That says something. Why wouldn't he release the other three advices? I'll let the public make that determination themselves. If you've got nothing to hide, release the other three advices. The fact that you don't clearly states that you have something to hide. In section 129(iii)— Senator CASH I0M No, I've got a question for you, In section 129(iii), can you please advise how the parliament gets around the words 'subject to this Constitution'? 00:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland For starters, you keep making this point about other Solicitor-General's advices, and I remind you, Senator Cash, you actually reappointed this Solicitor-General whom you now say has presented curated opinions for the Australian public. As you well know, no government releases Solicitor-General's advices that are provided to cabinet. The government that you were a part of didn't do so. For all I know, the Solicitor-General might have provided advice to cabinet about sports rorts and other things, but those sorts of advices went released. They might have provided advices on police raids on union offices, leaked by ministers' offices, but those advices weren't released. The government has continued the practice of many governments in not releasing the opinions of the Solicitor-General that are provided to cabinet. But we have released this advice, and we stand by it. I really am still struggling to understand what you mean by your question: how does the parliament get around to the words 'subject to this Constitution'? Again, you keep asking me to explain words that have a plain English meaning. What subsection (iii) does is say that the parliament shall 'subject to this Constitution'— Senator WATT 245759 Seriously? Today, I've had to explain to you who the First Peoples of Australia are, even though people know that. It's a matter of historical record, and it's actually in the wording—being the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. I've had to explain to you what the word 'representations' means, and now I have to explain the words 'subject to this Constitution', even though those words are contained in many other provisions of the Constitution. I'm not going to indulge this behaviour any longer. The words have a plain English interpretation. They've been interpreted many times by courts, and that's what they mean. 00:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia There you go—the parliament's power to make laws is, as you say, subject to this Constitution. That means the power to make laws is subject to the power to make representations, in section 129(ii), and any reciprocal constitutional obligations would be placed on the government. The basic problem is you cannot out-legislate the Constitution, which you seem to fail to understand. In relation to the curating of any advice, the curating was actually done by the Attorney-General in cherrypicking what to ask so that it could be released. This government has a pattern of behaviour when it comes to releasing advice of the Solicitor-General, but only when it is politically advantageous to you. You cherrypick and then you release. The three that we would like to see are the three that you refused to release. In relation to the duty to consider, does this mean that a person could litigate, as I said, to overturn a decision on the ground that a decision-maker did not adequately consider representations? Could a person litigate to, say, overturn a mining lease or exploration permit on the basis that the decision to grant the lease or permit did not adequately consider relevant Voice representations? 00:41 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answers—and the one benefit of this lengthy debate is we are getting a foreshadowing of every scare campaign that will be run through this referendum process. So thanks for letting us in on another one. 00:41 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My only response to that is: the parliament's power to make laws is subject to this Constitution, and that means the power to make laws is subject to the power to make representations. That's the logical flow of that, and any reciprocal Constitution obligations would be placed on the government. One of those reciprocal obligations is a duty to consider. So I hardly think it is a scare campaign to ask questions on behalf of the Australian people, who don't have the ability to stand here tonight. I am representing Western Australia; Senator Henderson is representing Victoria; Senator Nampijinpa Price, the Northern Territory; Senator McKenzie, Victoria; and Senator Askew, Tasmania. We are asking these questions on behalf of the people that we are here tonight representing. So it is not a scare campaign to ask a genuine question on the legal implications of what the government is asking the Australian people to vote on. Now I ask: is there any requirement that a person launching an administrative law challenge would themselves have to be an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person? 00:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I guess it's not surprising that, at nearly 12.45 am, we really are getting into ridiculous questions. Senator McKenzie 207825 It's your decision. We could be doing this on Monday. The TEMPORARY CH 283585 Order. One at a time. Senator WATT 245759 It's not my decision to ask ridiculous questions. Again, in all the preamble to this latest ridiculous question, you keep asserting the existence of some duty to consult and duty to consider, which I've repeatedly said don't exist, so everything that flows from those false premises isn't worth addressing. Senator 207825 Temporary Chair, on a point of order, part of the committee process is allowing senators from right across the chamber to ask questions of the minister of the day about the legislation before the Senate. Calling any questions ridiculous, superfluous and scare campaigns, as this minister has chosen to depict very genuine questions being asked by the shadow minister and other senators on this side of the chamber, I would argue should be ruled out of order. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I will ask you, Minister, not to reflect on the motivation of any question that's put and to refrain in future from doing so. 00:44 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I personally would have thought that these were the key issues that will actually make the Voice unworkable. Senator Watt 245759 Well, you want that to be— Senator McKenzie 207825 They would have been raised— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 One at a time. You'll get your chance. Senator CASH I0M These are the key legal issues that will make the Voice unworkable. Senator Watt 245759 You want to paint it as being— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister, you'll have your chance to reply. Senator CASH I0M So again I ask: is there any requirement that a person launching an administrative law challenge would themselves have to be an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person, or could it be any one of us who decides to launch a legal action on their behalf because we believe that the government did not properly consult, did not properly consider, did not properly notify? 00:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. I'll just leave it at that. 00:45 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If a person did commence an administrative law challenge to overturn a government decision on the grounds that a Voice representation hadn't been adequately considered, would there be any requirement that the Voice itself agree with that decision to litigate? 00:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I think we're getting pretty close to questions such as: 'Could someone begin an administrative law action on Tuesday between the hours of 2 pm and 3 pm? Could they file that proceeding in the Bendigo court, the Wodonga court or the Melbourne court?' I've already made clear that there is no duty of the kind that you are asserting would be needed for those types of legal actions. So every question as to this kind of action or that kind of action, or this kind of applicant or that kind of applicant, or Tuesday 2 pm or Thursday 4 pm, just makes no sense because there is no duty. 00:46 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, with all due respect, Senator Watt, it is the High Court of Australia that will decide in the event that a legal challenge is commenced. It is simple as that. If I could now turn to section 129(iii). That is the broad power to make laws about the Voice that is prefaced with the words—again, as I said—'subject to this Constitution'. Is it correct to say that, if there's a constitution function or power to do something, you can't override it with legislation? 00:47 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Subsection 129(iii) would allow the parliament, subject to the Constitution, to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. Subsection 129(iii) confers upon the parliament a broad power to make laws on matters related to the Voice without detracting from its constitutionally guaranteed existence under section 129(i) and representation-making function under section 129(ii). The broad powers conferred under section 129(iii) would include the ability for the parliament to legislate in relation to the legal effect of the Voice's representations. The Solicitor-General stated in the advice attached to the Attorney-General's submission to the joint select committee's inquiry into this bill that subsection 129(iii) would allow the parliament to make laws about the legal effect of representations to the executive government. The Solicitor-General's view was that subsection 129(iii) does not prevent the parliament from legislating about the legal effect of representations. 00:49 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That was not my question. I asked if it was correct to say that if there's a constitutional functional power to do something you actually can't override it by legislation. In this case, if there's a constitutional function of, say, making representations, you can't override or limit or narrow that function by legislation—is that right? In other words, you can't out-legislate the Constitution. 00:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer Senator Cash to my previous answer. 00:49 Senator I0M Western Australia CASH (—) (): In effect, what that therefore means is that, if there's a constitutional duty to consider representations, the parliament could never legislate to mitigate the impact of that duty. Isn't that correct? 00:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 00:50 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In effect, what this bill does is say that parliamentary supremacy is maintained, except when it comes to the Voice's constitutional function of making representations, and if a future High Court implies that the constitutional function of making representations imposes reciprocal obligations on government, such as a duty to consult or consider, parliament would not be able to legislate to fix it. So how can you guarantee that that risk won't crystallise, and how can you ask Australians to take that risk? 00:50 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 00:50 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If I could, I would now turn to the design principles that we had previously been referring to. I ask: what legal force do the design principles have? 00:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The design principles are a statement of the government's position, in consultation with the relevant groups who've advised the government on these matters. But as to their legal effect, that will be determined by the parliament after what we hope to be a successful referendum. 00:51 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'm asking now: what legal force do the design principles have? We established earlier this evening that the parliament does not have to in any way adopt, follow, adhere to or even consider the design principles, so what legal force do the design principles have? Do they have any legal force? 00:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 00:52 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The answer, therefore, is no. They clearly do not have any legal force. So who will decide whether or not the government has adequately implemented the design principles? 00:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The Australian people would decide that, just as they decide what sort of job the parliament is doing each and every day. 00:52 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia What are the consequences if the government fails to implement the design principles? 00:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The Australian people will have their say every three years or so. 00:52 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I can just confirm, then, that the design principles have no legal force and, in terms of what the consequences are if the government fails to implement the design principles, there are none. So, ultimately, these two pages here, which you're telling the Australian people they should have a look at, in addition to the handy little brochure, actually have no legal force and there are no consequences if the government actually fails to adhere to these design principles. And what we established earlier on in the evening is that it doesn't really matter what the design principles themselves say; if the referendum is successful, ultimately it's the parliament that decides. Can I go to the first design principle? The first design principle is that the Voice will give independent advice to the parliament and the government. That's what it states. How will the government guarantee that the Voice representatives are not aligned with any political party? 00:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I answered that two hours ago. 00:52 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia For the benefit of the Hansard record, we're actually on a different topic now. We're now talking about the design principles, so I ask you again: how will the government guarantee that Voice representatives are not aligned with any political party? It clearly states that the first design principle is, 'The Voice will give independent advice to the parliament and government.' How does the government guarantee that this is truly independent advice and that Voice representatives are not aligned with any political party? 00:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 00:55 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia With all due respect, they are not answers to questions. Senator Watt 245759 I've answered it. I answered it two hours ago. Senator CASH I0M Well, would you like to then answer it again, for the benefit of the Hansard record? 00:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland At five to one, I don't intend to repeat answers that I gave two hours ago. 00:55 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Under the first design principle, there is a point saying, 'The Voice would be able to make representations proactively.' How will the Voice decide whether to proactively make representations on an issue? 00:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland By making a decision. 00:55 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In terms of making a decision, it would therefore need to be notified of anything that the government intends to do so that it can proactively make a decision. Therefore, you go to the section we were just discussing, which is the implied constitutional rights that the Voice does have. It can't proactively make a representation if it doesn't know what it is actually making a representation on, hence the implied constitutional right to provide notification to the Voice. If the Voice doesn't make a representation about something that someone is concerned about or another Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person is concerned about, would that person be able to seek a writ or some other direction in court ordering the Voice to consider the issue and therefore potentially make the representations? This goes backs to what we had discussed previously: a) what is the body, b) who is able to sit or be a representative on the body and c) how many do you have, to ensure that you are properly making representations in relation to the people you represent? 00:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm in the rare position of agreeing with Senator Cash: this does go to matters that we were discussing previously, and I refer to my answers to those questions. 00:57 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia With all due respect, Senator Watt, you haven't answered those questions. These are actually different questions. They are now directly in relation to the design principles. The first questions we asked were in relation to the unanswered questions that the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister many, many, many months ago, and the Prime Minister has still failed to provide answers to those questions. We then turned to the actual legal implications of section 129, section 129(i), section 129(ii) and section 129(iii), and also the chapeau. I'm now directly dealing with the design principles here. With all due respect, if you have no desire to answer the questions, I have no issues with that. That is your choice. All that says to the Australian people is—it might be one in the morning, but we only started the committee stage at around 6.30 tonight. There was no constitutional convention. None of these questions have been asked. There is a lot of debate in relation to this matter. This is, without a doubt, one of the most serious bills to ever come before this parliament. I personally take very, very seriously that I am standing here as a senator for Western Australia and I am debating a bill that will potentially change our Constitution. So, with all due respect, I would ask you again. I have spoken to Indigenous people, as has Senator Nampijinpa Price. They are very concerned that they will not be heard. I come from Western Australia. We've got a pretty big state. The further away you go from a capital city, the more disadvantaged you become. I would love to know how the voices of people in Roebourne, Laverton and Warburton are going to be heard. I can tell you, this ain't going to make no difference to them, and they're very upfront about that. So, with all due respect, we are talking about how the Voice will operate. They are the questions that we get asked each and every day when we're out and about talking to people about this issue. They ask us for detail. And tonight I'm standing here on behalf of those people who want detail and I am asking you very, very reasonable questions. I'm merely asking about whether another person could force the Voice to consider making representations through litigation. 01:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I know you're asking me that, because you've asked three times, and I refer you to my previous answers. 01:00 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, Senator Watt, shame on you for not providing answers and for thinking that is actually an adequate answer in relation to one of the most significant bills to come before this parliament. Again, under the first design principle, there is a statement to the effect that the Voice would have its own resources that would allow it to research, develop and make representations. Conducting research, developing policy and making submissions are accepted functions of government departments and the Public Service. This is a question that many people have raised: how will the government to ensure the Voice does not simply duplicate the functions currently in the NIAA or other parts of the Public Service? 01:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, the role of the Voice is to provide a voice to First Nations people on matters that directly impact on them. That is a different task to that of the Public Service, which is to provide policy advice to government, to implement government decisions and the various other activities that government undertakes. They are quite distinct features, and they are quite distinct work programs. So that is the answer to your question. 01:02 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia This is a question most people ask when you're out talking to them, and it goes directly to the functions currently in the NIAA. There is a lot of confusion about how that actually is going to interact with the Voice. Does it simply duplicate the Voice? Again, in terms of the NIAA specifically, how will the government ensure the Voice does not simply duplicate the functions currently in the NIAA? They are also set up to represent Indigenous Australians. 01:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Cash, as you well know, and you could be explaining to these people who you say are asking you these questions, the role of the NIAA is to support a minister, is to provide advice to a minister and is to deliver programs, whereas the role of the Voice is to provide a direct channel for the voices of First Nations people to make representations to government. I would've thought it's fairly clear that they are quite separate and distinct roles. 01:03 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Under the first design principle, there is a statement to the effect that the parliament and the executive government should seek representations in writing from the Voice early in the development of proposed laws and policies. Are there any consequences if the executive government fails to do so? 01:03 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I've already addressed that extensively by talking about what the role of the Voice is and the ability of the parliament and the executive to seek those representations. But there is no duty to do so. We spent about an hour on that about half an hour ago. 01:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, that wasn't the question that I asked. Under the first design principle, it makes a statement. The statement is to the effect that the parliament and the executive government should seek representations in writing from the Voice early in the development of proposed laws and policies. Again, it goes to the implied duty to notify and to consult. So my question is about consequences. You have here a design principle which makes certain statements in relation to what the role of the parliament and the executive government is. If they don't, and if we go back to what I can make representations in relation to, it is matters that relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. So there are going to be a lot of representations that need to be made. Are there actual consequences if the executive government fails to do so, because, if there are not, what stops the executive government from not doing that? 01:05 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, I have addressed this extensively and I refer to my previous answers. There is no implied duty. It's just Senator Cash who keeps asserting that there is one. 01:05 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, with all due respect, you have not answered the question: could the executive government be subject to adverse public comment from the Voice, or other political consequences, if there is a perceived failure to seek representations in a timely way? 01:06 Senator W 245759 Queensland ATT (—) (): Of course it would be within the rights of the Voice to make commentary on matters regarding its operation. We live in a democracy, last time I looked. 01:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Under the first design principle there is a statement to the effect that the Voice would be able to respond to requests for representations from the parliament and the executive government, albeit that we know now that there are no consequences if the executive government fails to do so. Would the Voice be under any compulsion to respond to such requests? 01:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland No. 01:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Would there be any consequences if the Voice refuses to make representations following a request from the parliament or the executive government? 01:07 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Sorry, Senator Cash, could you ask that one again? 01:07 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Would there be any consequences if the Voice refuses to make representations following a request from the parliament or the executive government? 01:07 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland There's nothing in the constitutional amendment that would impose those types of consequences. I would think that a parliament or executive government that sought advice would hope to receive it, but there is nothing in the constitutional amendment that mandates that or imposes those sorts of consequences. 01:07 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The real issue here is that the handy little booklet that you put into the public domain, purportedly, as you said at the outset tonight, to help explain the Voice proposal, has no legal force and doesn't explain how the Voice would operate. I ask, to try and get some more clarity: could a person with standing commence legal proceedings to compel a government department to seek representations on an issue? 01:08 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm glad that you seem to have accepted that it is a handy little booklet. I certainly think it is. You'll see, even in the way the wording is drafted in the handy little booklet, that it says, for instance: The Voice would be able to make representations proactively. The Voice would be able to respond to requests for representations … There's no mandating of things. As to your specific question, we dealt with that some time ago and I'm not going to be repeating answers. 01:09 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia We haven't dealt with that question but I'll ask another question. Could the parliament pass a law requiring its departments and agencies from seeking representations in writing from the Voice? 01:09 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Sorry, Senator Cash, I'm not sure if you're wording was correct there. I think what you said is: would it be possible for the parliament to pass a law requiring— Senator Cash I0M To seek representations in writing. Senator WATT 245759 a department to seek. All of those matters are matters that the parliament will be able to consider should the referendum succeed. 01:09 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Senator, are you able to explain how NIAA differs from the Voice? 01:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I explained that 10 or 15 minutes ago. I'm not going to repeat my answers. 01:10 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I don't think you actually explained the difference between NIAA and what the Voice proposes to be. 01:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I did do that, and I'm not going to repeat my answers. 01:10 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory The description of NIAA's operations suggests: We work with a broad range of stakeholders across the Commonwealth, state and territory governments and the business sector, and partner with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, communities and leaders. We work across the Commonwealth Government to strengthen outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, supporting them to identify and implement approaches that provide culturally appropriate and accessible services that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities can access. Working in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is central to the NIAA's work—it enriches our advice to government, informs decision making, and contributes to better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Can you please explain how this differs from what the Voice is proposing do? 01:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answers. 01:11 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Specific to what I've just explained here, especially given that it suggests here that 'working in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is central to the NIAA's work', and that 'it enriches advice'—aren't these two entities both advisory bodies to government? 01:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I explained the different roles 10 or 15 minutes ago, and I encourage you to have a look at the Hansard. 01:12 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory There's no clarity here, unfortunately. One thing that I think is really important—and you don't have to be an Indigenous Australian to understand it—is that duplication of entities, services and ideas occurs a lot when it comes to attempting to address issues around marginalised Indigenous Australians. Does the government not think that the Voice would be duplicating work that NIAA carries out? 01:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I answered that exact question 10 or 15 minutes ago. 01:13 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I don't believe you did answer that question because I don't recall anyone asking that exact question previously. I'm asking about duplication. Does this government consider that the work of NIAA would be duplicated by the Voice? Senator Watt 245759 Chair, I know you're very familiar with standing orders. You probably know about standing order 196, relating to repetitious questions. This is a pretty good example. The CHAIR 287062 Is that a point of order or a conversation with me? Senator Watt 245759 A bit of both, but a point of order. The CHAIR 287062 The topics have been addressed. The questions are not identical and the standing orders are narrow. You seem to be doing very well in responding, so I'm going to rely on your responses. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 I will take it, then, that the Voice is going to duplicate work that the NIAA are currently funded $4 billion a year to carry out. 01:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, if you look at Hansard from 10 or 15 minutes ago, I said exactly the opposite. But if you want to mischaracterise what I say, then that's a matter for you. 01:14 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory That's what I heard. That's how I understand. Apparently as an Indigenous Australian, I think differently. I'm different to you so that's how I take your repetition, in terms of your answers. Recently, after conducting an audit of NIAA, the Australian National Audit Office found: The NIAA's management of provider fraud and non-compliance risks is partly effective. It also suggested in its conclusion of the audit: The NIAA's frameworks for managing provider fraud and non-compliance are not fully fit-for-purpose. There is a risk management framework and a risk-based conceptual approach for managing provider fraud and non-compliance risks. The frameworks for managing fraud and provider non-compliance do not fully comply with legislation or the NIAA's internal policies. Elements of the provider fraud and non-compliance framework, such as the underlying policies and procedures, are not always aligned. There are weaknesses in the design and implementation of governance and assurance mechanisms. Will the Voice also be subject to audit by the Australian National Audit Office? 01:16 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland For starters this bill is about the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of Australia and the creation of a voice, rather than the NIAA's operations. The second point to make is that the Auditor-General's report that you refer to largely related to the operations of the NIAA under the former coalition government based on principles that were set by the former coalition government. I'm pleased to say that Minister Burney has put in place various integrity measures to deal with those problems that occurred under the former coalition government. 01:16 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Again I'll ask my question: will the Voice be subject to audits by the Australian National Audit Office? 01:17 Senator WAT 245759 Queensland T (—) (): That is, again, something that would be determined by the parliament, but we've already said—I think four hours ago—that the Voice would be subject to standard governance and reporting requirements to ensure transparency and accountability. That's one of the design principles. If the referendum is successful, that would be the position of this government that we would seek to implement via legislation. 01:17 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory It's incredible how you've got answers for some questions but not others. Referring to issues talked about four hours ago, you tried to suggest that perhaps I was speaking ill of particular members of the Voice working group. I will point out the concerns that I raised around conversation about race in this debate and that those members of the Voice working group have been those who have established in public discourse the element of race quite early on in the piece and made criticisms directly of myself and my family, in fact. Which will I start with? There was a comment made by Marcia Langton criticising me. She suggested: We have to take these matters seriously. This is too important to play nasty electoral politics about … it would be terribly unfortunate for all Australians if the debate sinks into a nasty, eugenicist, 19th century-style of debate about the superior race versus the inferior race. She made those comments after my party room supported the 'no' position going forward. She made direct reference to race. Following that, there were also other very disparaging remarks made by Mr Pearson himself. I won't repeat those remarks. I won't dignify them, that's for sure. But there are certainly other remarks that I will refer to and, of course, you've quoted my colleague, Mr Julian Leeser, many times this evening. Of course, he's been the target of such horrible, racist remarks by Mr Pearson: I'm wondering whether Julian expects us to wear a tattoo, identifying ourselves as Indigenous … Or that our clothes should be adorned with some kind of badge identifying us as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander? Here's another offensive, racist remark, Marcia Langton, in reference to my own father, in fact: The bleating about "detail" is clearly a sign of laziness among the opposition parties, but there is another tactic at play. Think George Orwell's Animal Farm and the pigs. When Andrew Bolt interviewed Price's father on Sky News, the purpose of the whining about "details" became obvious to me. She goes on also to talk about Mr Craven: Joining Craven is Nationals leader David Littleproud and Celtic-Walpiri Senator Jacinta Price. Price falsely claims the Voice is a "new governance structure" that will be "placed with some sort of priority over our current Westminster system". This is nonsense and as a new senator she might wish to be briefed on the committee system already established, to which a Voice would likely make reports. Here's another remark from Marcia Langton, once again: This is the Australia we live in; it is racist. So this could be the political making of a whole lot of people who want to help us get this over the line and create a permanent system of empowerment for Indigenous people … If we want to mute racism, we have to raise our own voices. We have to make sure that we win this campaign, because if we don't, then the racists will feel emboldened— I wonder who she's referring to by 'racists'. Most recently, of course, we have Jackie Huggins, who is part of Passing the Message Stick, with the chief executive of GetUp. It's been suggested that, in order to shift the narrative, they are: … urging advocates, organisations and journalists to alienate opponents and encourage them to make racist comments so more Australians join the Yes camp, as its research shows nearly half of Indigenous Australians don't even know about the upcoming referendum. So, yes, like many other Australians, I'm concerned about conversations around race, and understanding that this is absolutely an issue pertaining to race, but I would suggest that the derogatory comments about race certainly aren't being made by those of us who oppose this Voice and this referendum. I would like to hear from the government whether they condemn these racist remarks, remarks pertaining to myself and also to members of my family, made by members of the Voice committee. 01:24 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Our government condemns racism, full stop—any form of racism, irrespective of where it takes place. Whether it's in the Senate, outside, on the football field or in shopping centres or malls, racism is abhorrent. I point out, Senator Nampijinpa Price, that you have no doubt experienced your share, as I have and continue to do so. But, again, I call on all Australians to elevate themselves in this debate, in this journey.We are not going to agree on everything, but I would encourage all Australians listening—hopefully not at 1.30 in the morning but listening generally—that we must do so always with dignity and respect. Of course this government does not support racism in any form. 01:25 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland To add to that, I was actually encouraged by the remarks of the National Party leader, Mr Littleproud, when he disowned the comments that had been made by the opposition leader, Mr Dutton, when Mr Dutton claimed that this proposal would 're-racialise' either the constitution or Australia. I think it was pleasing to see that Mr Littleproud did not support Mr Dutton's attempt to introduce that kind of racially based language into this debate. I certainly would hope that Senators Cash and Nampijinpa Price would, equally, disown Mr Dutton's remarks seeking to introduce those sorts of racially based comments into this debate. I want to commend Senator Bragg for making this point about the fact that this is not a debate about race. Just this week he said: There is a lot of misinformation out there. As I said, we have race based policy at the state level, which is predominant, and we have race based laws at the national level. We have a country that has had race at its heart for 250 years. To argue that this is the introduction of race today is fundamentally untrue. Of course, though, it isn't really about race when the no advocates make this case. These laws and policies exist, not because of race but because they recognise the unique relationship that the first people of Australia have with this land, and always will have. That is about the first people; it isn't about race. So I think we could all do well to listen to those sorts of contributions. Even though Senator Bragg and I would never vote the same way when it comes to an election, I think he's actually right on this. 01:27 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory As unfortunate as it is, this is certainly an issue about race, and it's completely and utterly unavoidable. It is unavoidable. I can stand here as a person of Warlpiri heritage and tell this chamber that there's not a day that goes by that I'm not reminded of my racial heritage in this place, because it is brought up over and over again. Whether it is in the form of virtuous platitudes or not, it is still brought up. Ultimately, as Australian citizens, we would hope that we can be all treated as such equally, without a requirement of special measures enshrined in our Constitution. Ultimately, your government and all of us want to see the gap closed. We all want to see all Australian citizens on an equal footing. That doesn't happen by constantly singling us out because of our heritage, our race, whatever you want to call it. It's in the memorandum: 'difference'. The focus is on difference. The focus is not on understanding basic human similarity, understanding how human beings become successful based on the experience of other human beings regardless of their racial heritage, whatever heritage it is; it's pertaining to race. It would be beneficial that we could one day simply be treated as equal going forward. Does the Albanese government aim for true equality? Is that what the final outcome is? 01:30 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I said—I think five hours ago—what this proposal is about is recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia and creating a voice to parliament. As I say, about five hours ago I pointed out that there's nothing in the language of the proposal that is about recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples because of their race. The recognition is about their position as the First Peoples of Australia. Senator Rennick, you might need to read your own party's policy because, last I heard, you all claimed to support recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia. I actually thought you were okay with that. Senator Nampijinpa Price, it would also appear you're out of step with your party leader, Mr Littleproud, who has expressed his disagreement with Mr Dutton introducing this idea of the Voice re-racialising Australia. I'm pleased to hear you say that it shouldn't be about race; unfortunately Mr Dutton doesn't seem to think that's correct. But the end point here is to listen to our First Peoples about matters directly affecting them, with the intention of improving a range of outcomes affecting Indigenous people in our country, which are far, far worse than for the rest of the community. That's what it's about. 01:31 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory If it's been acknowledged in these chambers that not all of us who are of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage—who belong to that particular race of Australians—are marginalised, the idea would be to provide the opportunity for our marginalised to have the same opportunities that the 11 Indigenous Australians elected to this parliament have had, including Senator McCarthy and me. Isn't that in contrast to what the Voice is suggesting, in that the Voice is suggesting that Senator McCarthy, Senator Stewart and I—because we belong to this racial group—are disadvantaged? 01:33 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I reckon it was somewhere between four and five hours ago I answered that, so I'm not going to repeat my answers. 01:33 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Therefore doesn't the Voice being constitutionally enshrined defeat the purpose of its objectives? 01:33 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland No. 01:33 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Does the government acknowledge that constitutionally enshrining a voice is constitutionally enshrining disadvantaged? 01:33 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland No. 01:33 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I now turn to design principle 2, which states: The Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities. How will the government decide what constitutes a local community? 01:34 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The way that members of the Voice would be chosen would suit the wishes of local communities. You've talked about language groups and you've talked about different groups within particular states and particular regions. That will obviously need to be determined following a successful referendum, should it be successful. 01:34 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So will there be electorates? 01:34 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, those issues will need to be determined by the parliament, just like the parliament has had to determine many things which weren't set out in full in the Constitution. We seem to be capable of doing that for all sorts of things. I don't see why we wouldn't be capable of doing that for all sorts of things in relation to the Constitution. I don't see why we couldn't do that for this. 01:35 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Earlier tonight when we started, you referred to the design principles and the handy little booklet that you had provided—all we're doing tonight is sitting here and interrogating the decision that have put out into the public domain. So, again, 'The Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities,' but the parliament is going to decide what constitutes a local community, the parliament will decide whether there will be electorates. Can I ask: will local communities align with traditional boundaries? 01:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That's also a matter for the parliament. I don't think we need to be fearful of the parliament. I think it contains some very intelligent and thoughtful people, not only on the Labor side. I reckon we should listen to people, and the parliament is capable of working that out. 01:36 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia With all due respect, it's not about being in fear of the parliament; it's about the fact that the proposition being put forward on the Voice is risky, unknown and permanent. Will their electorates cross state and territory borders? 01:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It hasn't been decided that there will be electorates as such, Senator Cash. All that has been decided at this point in time is the wording that is being put forward in proposed section 129. There are many matters that will need to be determined following what I hope will be a successful referendum, and they are exactly the matters that the parliament is empowered to determine under section 129(iii). 01:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia 'Subject to this Constitution'—you need to remember those very important words. The second design principle states: Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government. This is a slightly different point in that it refers to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities' role in the process of selection. Can you please confirm that only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities will select Voice members, and how will the government decide who is part of such a community and who is not? 01:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We went through the definition of indigeneity—what are we at now, 1.38 am—I would say about six hours ago. I refer you to those answers. 01:38 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia This is a completely different question: this is about the definition of 'community'. About 20 minutes ago, you suggested that I had asked a question about litigation to compel government departments to engage with the Voice; in fact, what I asked was about litigation to compel the Voice to provide representations. The two issues may sound similar, they may use similar words, but they are fundamentally different. Perhaps you thought the questions were the same because you've given up listening at this time of the morning, but when you keep saying, for example, 'I refer you to my previous answer,' you are really just saying to the Australian people that you don't want to engage with them and you won't give them answers. It is ironic that in a debate about a Voice the government is refusing to provide answers because it won't listen. So again I'll ask you, how will the government decide who is part of a community and who is not? The TEMPORARY CHAIR 298839 Just before we continue, I'm looking at the hour, and I would like to remind people to please make sure we are not making imputations and being disrespectful. Let's keep it respectful. 01:40 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I have answered these questions. It's not a matter of me or anyone in the government choosing not to listen. It's a matter of not wanting to waste the Senate's time answering questions that have already been answered. 01:40 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I think it's important, especially for a lot of remote indigenous Australians, to have a little bit of understanding of how they feel they might be represented. You've mentioned the four land councils coming together. They've got lovely videos of some of their representatives saying 'This is about my voice.' But it's unclear to any of us here in parliament how their voices will actually be represented. It's obviously unclear to those who the land councils have put up to make these suggestions on their videos in support of the Voice. I am acutely aware of many traditional owners who come to me with their grave concerns about being disregarded, not recognised by the land councils and completely ignored by the land councils. In fact those representatives came to this parliament a couple of months ago and wanted to be able to engage with the government and have their voices heard. They wanted all parliamentarians to hear them, but nobody from the government bothered to listen to those representatives that had come here to voice their concerns about not being represented or respected and acknowledged by the land council that is supposed to acknowledge them and act on their behalf. So for the sake of those individuals, can you please clarify how a community will be determined? 01:43 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator Nampijinpa Price. Firstly I think, if I can just go to your comment in regard to the families and individuals that came down here, that you were referring to, if I reflect and put on the record here in the Senate, that was the day, I understand, that we had the working group here to make the announcement in regard to the question that would be put to the Australian people with the Prime Minister. So there was certainly no intention of any disrespect. In fact, the invitation just came the night before that event. It was just unfortunate that such a late request had come through, when the calendar was already filled with a huge day of the Prime Minister delivering that announcement with the support of the working group. So there's no disrespect there at all. In fact we are always happy to meet with anyone provided we have the appropriate time and notification of people 's visit to parliament. 01:44 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I'm quite happy to return them to parliament to be heard, if that's the case. It probably would have been nice for them to meet the working group also. But the question was, how— Senator McC 122087 On a point of order, if I may: all of those things can happen, Senator. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 298839 Resume your seat. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Going back to the question— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Can you please resume your seat? Just a reminder to everyone: please wait until you're given the call. Senator Nampijinpa Price. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Going back to the question: how will communities be recognised in order for individuals to be selected to be representatives on the Voice? 01:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We went over this extensively several hours ago, so I don't have anything to add to those answers. 01:45 Senator NAM 263528 Northern Territory PIJINPA PRICE () (): And there wasn't an answer to that question previously, either. Senator Watt, have you seen the AIATSIS Map of Indigenous Australia? 01:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I have. 01:45 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Then I guess you would understand that there are hundreds of language groups, regions and boundaries. Given that that is the case, how is every one of those different language groups to be represented through the Voice? 01:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, several hours ago we went over how the membership of the Voice would be determined, so I don't propose to add to those answers. 01:46 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory But there was no answer previously specific to those different areas and regions. Warlpiri is one of the largest spoken languages. We have over 2,000 speakers of the Warlpiri language. Will specific language groups be recognised? Will the Voice seek leadership or representatives from specific language groups, particularly languages that are used now in communities, these languages being the first languages of those groups? 01:47 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answers. 01:47 Senator 263528 Northern Territory NAMPIJINPA PRICE () (): In my research, when I was previously director of Indigenous research at the Centre for Independent Studies, we could identify that our most marginalised Indigenous Australians were those whose first language was not English and who still speak their traditional languages—people like, certainly, my immediate family members. Will the Voice have a specific focus on bridging that gap between those individuals and individuals of Indigenous heritage who aren't marginalised? 01:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The role of the Voice is to make representations on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. 01:48 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory In my experience, I have come to witness and understand that some of our most prominent Indigenous leaders in this country are those who have had the opportunity to gain an education, to have access to the media and to be heard, and our most marginalised are those who in fact haven't had any of those opportunities. Will the Voice guarantee that those individuals who are our most marginalised, who have been spoken on behalf of over the decades, will in fact have the opportunity to determine decisions that will benefit them and their communities? How will that occur? 01:49 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory If the referendum is successful, Senator, then I would dearly like to be able to see that those people who are living in our regional and remote areas of Australia are very much represented, whether they speak one Aboriginal language or six Aboriginal languages, and I would hope to think that, if we were successful in the referendum, that we could have this conversation in the kind of legislation that we would put going forward. 01:50 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory The government cannot guarantee that this will occur, though, can it? 01:50 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory You're asking questions along the lines of whether we can even guarantee to win a referendum, Senator. What I can say is this: if we do win the referendum, I would certainly do my utmost to ensure that those who are on the periphery are very much represented in whatever form our legislation would look like. 01:51 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRI 263528 Northern Territory CE () (): It has been suggested by the government and the proponents of the Voice that the Voice will improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. My concern is predominantly with marginalised Indigenous Australians, because those of us who aren't marginalised don't require special measures. But the government and the proponents of the Voice cannot in fact guarantee that this is the outcome that the Voice will provide, can it? 01:51 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I believe I've answered that to the best of my ability, Senator. 01:52 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory So I will accept, then, that it is the hope of the government and proponents of the Voice that it will provide the outcomes it is hoping to provide—that it is, in fact, not a guarantee. We can only hope— Honourable senators interjecting— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 298839 Senator Nampijinpa Price, could you resume your seat? I'm going to remind the chamber that interjections are disorderly. Senator Nampijinpa Price. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Hope—tell that to my family. Tell that to the women who are beaten and who are fleeing. Tell that to my aunt— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Return to your seat, please, Senator Nampijinpa Price. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Tell that to my aunt who rang yesterday because police had to collect her from her home at Yuendumu because she was under threat by other community members. Hope doesn't cut it, I'm sorry. Hope doesn't cut it for the children who are at risk of sexual abuse and whose only safe space in their community is their school. Hope doesn't cut it. You can only hope to appease your white guilt, but what we require is overcoming issues that are impacting people right now and impacting Indigenous Australians right now. So I want to confirm that there is, in fact, no guarantee and that, in fact, it is hope that this Voice hopes to provide to Indigenous Australians? 01:54 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory We need to just clarify your assertion there, Senator. The previous question was in relation to the remote and regional areas of Australia being represented and having the ability, in terms of language speakers, whether they spoke one language or four languages, and that was the reference in which I made my response to you. Now, in terms of hope, hope is a beautiful thing, Senator. It's a really beautiful thing. It's what we have when we feel we have lost everything—like my families, who've lost a lot of things. It's hope that's helped us and carried us through. So I wouldn't rubbish hope, Senator. I would hold onto it like a flame that keeps us strong. Over to you, Senator. 01:55 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Well, I hope that this government can fund the Yipirinya School's proposal to make the lives of the most marginalised children on our streets safe. They are hoping that those in power can act to improve their lives right now so that, when they are picked up by police at six o'clock in the morning and police ask them, 'Do you want to go home or do you want to go to school?' and they say, 'I want to go to school,' they have a bed to go to at their school and an adult responsible for them at that school. I guess I can hope that this government will support this proposal. That's all I can do, I guess, because hope, unfortunately, hasn't brought about that outcome. My question, specifically, was: can the government guarantee that the Voice will improve the lives of our most marginalised and not just appease white guilt? 01:56 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory There are a lot of issues across the country and we know, Senator, that in dealing with Central Australia we have seen terrific steps taken by local organisations like Lhere Artepe, who are doing a tremendous job on the streets of Alice Springs, and with a great deal of hope—there is nothing wrong with that. They've got 50 to 80 representatives in that organisation who, in the morning, the afternoon and the evening, have their foot patrols. I'm very grateful for the work they are doing. They've stepped up because they've been supported and encouraged, but they've come up with solutions of how they want to deal with that and I thank the businesses of Alice Springs, who've embraced and welcomed that. We still have a long way to go, but there is no way I'm going to put that down. I'm very conscious of the fact that we still have a lot of youth, not just in Alice Springs but right across the country, who need support, and we will continue to do the best that we can with them. 01:58 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory We come here as parliamentarians not to hope but to actually implement legislation to improve the lives of Australians. There are a lot of Australians right now hoping that their electricity bills can be lowered. There are a lot of Australians out there hoping that they can pay their next round of bills and buy their groceries, because of the cost of living right now. While I am sure hope is wonderful, it doesn't answer the question, doesn't provide outcomes and is actually quite irrelevant to the conversation that we're having when we're determining legislation for the benefit of Australians or when we are determining legislation for an amendment to our Constitution, because our Constitution is our nation's rule book. My question hasn't been answered. Senator Henderson ZN4 We can't operate on a wing and a prayer. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Exactly: we can't operate on a wing and a prayer, and we certainly cannot guarantee that a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament will improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. What I'm hearing is we can only hope that that is the case. In fact, we can't even determine how the Voice to Parliament will be structured or how representatives will be appointed or elected. I recall a conversation recently with the Minister for Indigenous Australians around the distribution of the $250 million promised to Central Australia—the way in which it is supposed to improve the lives of our marginalised in our communities. I was told that there are going to be four recognised regions—I wasn't told what those regions were—and a committee will be formed who will determine how those funds are implemented. Then, when I asked, 'Well, are those committee members going to be appointed or elected? How is that going to come about?' the member for Lingiari said, 'Oh, we're just going to leave it up to them to decide that.' Is that how the representatives of the Voice are going to be determined—just leave it up to the mob out bush to determine how they're going to pick whoever and not provide any framework around that? Is that how this Voice is going to be determined? That to me is deeply concerning, because right now we don't know how the proposed $250 million is going to improve the lives of our marginalised, who are confronted with an emergency situation. Yes, Lhere Artepe are doing a great job. They've reinstated the elder patrol, which had previously been established while I was Deputy Mayor of Alice Springs Town Council. And, of course, my mother was an elder on that patrol, patrolling those streets at night for those kids. That's all wonderful, but will those being appointed to the Voice be determined in the same manner that it was suggested to me, by just letting the communities or the regions—which we don't know how they're going to be determined yet—decide? 02:02 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Marion Scrymgour is the member for Lingiari, and I think she's doing an absolutely outstanding job for her constituency. She cares very deeply for all of those communities, right across the central area and the northern area, and her input has been invaluable to try to improve the lives of people across the Territory not just recently but over her many years as a parliamentarian and also in the health worker field, working to improve lives in the Aboriginal community health sector. I commend you, Marion, when you listen to this, for all the work you're doing, and I thank you for that. I know there would not be any steps taken by Marion to see this not work. If we're talking about family groups, I know that you've got a passion for Yipirinya School. I know that your mum works there. You declared that at estimates, hence the continued raising of it, which is important. I know your mother has a great deal of passion for wanting to do that. But it is important to recognise that what this debate is about is the principles that Senator Watt has raised throughout the last six to seven hours. And if we are successful, we sincerely want to ensure that, whatever the design looks like, it would be something that we would do here in this parliament in consultation with First Nations people. 02:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If I could turn now to design principle 3: 'The Voice will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, be gender balanced and include youth.' Is there anything in this bill which requires that to be the case, or is it just set out in the design principles? 02:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, Senator Cash, as you very well know, there's nothing in the bill that specifies that. It's set out in the design principles. 02:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you. That is actually the first answer I've got that goes straight to exactly what I asked tonight. The answer is no. And, as we know, the design principles themselves do not actually need to be even considered by the parliament, should the parliament choose not to. Which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities will be required to select youth members? 02:05 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, we've spent a very large amount of time explaining how the representatives on the Voice would be selected, and I can't add anything to those earlier answers. 02:05 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I actually haven't yet asked a question in relation to youth. Again, the third design principle itself states: The Voice will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities … Yes, we've talked about communities. Senator Nampijinpa Price had a number of questions in relation to communities. I'm now specifically looking at the design principle from the youth perspective. Again, which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities will be required to select youth members? 02:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answers. 02:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If the government imposes criteria on a community, such as an obligation to select youth, how will it ensure that Voice members have cultural legitimacy? What if a community does not want to be represented by a youth, whether for cultural reasons or otherwise? 02:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We spent a lot of time talking about the method of selection earlier, and I am not going to be adding to that. 02:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, we're asking these questions because we haven't had the benefit of a constitutional convention. We've merely been provided some design principles and, as Senator Watt said, 'a handy little booklet'. But, quite frankly, it doesn't seem that we're getting any further in relation to finding out any more detail. So I ask you. When all of the Voice representatives come together, they will represent vastly different Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures from across Australia. If they do not agree on the content of a representation or whether a representation should indeed be made, how will they resolve their differences? Will they vote like a parliament, will they write individual and joint opinions like a court, or will they be required to reach consensus, as in a treaty negotiation? 02:07 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer you to subsection (iii), which sets out the powers that the parliament has regarding the operations of the Voice. 02:07 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Is that just another way of saying it is subject to the parliament? 02:08 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It's another way of saying that there are many matters regarding the operations of the Voice to be decided by the parliament, including the issues you're talking about now. 02:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That is the answer. There is no answer; it's subject to the parliament. If the Voice representatives vote like a parliament, how will the government ensure that different Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are fairly represented? 02:08 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answers. 02:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Will the number of Voice representatives be determined on a proportionate basis, like a house of representatives? If so, how will the government ensure that, when differences arise, voices from smaller Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are not drowned out by larger ones? 02:09 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answers and remind you that the Voice, under the design principles, will have specific remote representatives as well as representation for the mainland Torres Strait Islander population. 02:09 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I now need to remind you that we established a number of hours ago that the design principles are effectively just that. You have said several times this evening—in fact, multiple times this evening—that the body itself is going to be designed by the parliament, and you have stated the parliament does not in any way have to have any regard at all to the design principles. Can I ask, in particular as a Western Australian: if it's not dealt with like a house of representatives—so on a proportionate basis—will the number of Voice representatives be determined on a state-by-state basis like a senate, and, if so, how will the government ensure that smaller Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, again, do not have a disproportionately large voice? 02:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answers. 02:10 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can I just confirm again, because I just need to tick off what is going to be subject to the parliament: it'll be subject to the parliament making a determination? 02:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answers. 02:10 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If the Voice representatives make representations individually, like a court, how is the government meant to know what to do when there are multiple different representations from different Voice members on a single issue? 02:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answers. The parliament will have powers to determine these matters. 02:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If the Voice is required to arrive at a view on an issue by consensus, how will the government ensure that the Voice is able to respond to issues swiftly so as to avoid governmental gridlock? 02:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland In my experience, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are quite capable of reaching decisions quickly, and I have every faith that they can do that through the Voice. 02:11 Senator I0M Western Australia CASH (—) (): Under the third design principle, there is a statement to the effect: The Voice will have balanced gender representation at the national level. The main way you'd do this is through quotas. How will the government decide whether an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community—we've discussed communities earlier today—is allocated male or female representation? 02:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Sorry, are you advocating for quotas or against quotas? Senator Cash I0M I'm just asking questions. Senator WATT 245759 Well, again, these are matters for the parliament. 02:12 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia What if a community, though, does not want to be represented by a person of a particular gender? 02:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answers, Chair. You're going to be hearing this a lot. 02:12 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Unfortunately, the reason that we'll be hearing it a lot is that, quite literally, this is it. That is actually it, along with— Senator CASH I0M Well, it's actually a handy little booklet. The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU Order! Interjections are disorderly. Senator CASH I0M It's a handy booklet that we have established tonight actually means nothing, and despite the fact— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! Senator Cash, resume your seat. Senator Whish-Wilson, interjections are disorderly. Likewise, Senator Duniam. Senator Cash, you have the call. Senator CASH I0M What we've heard so far tonight and what we now hearing into the early hours of this morning, I have to say, will give the people of Australia no comfort whatsoever. This is a committee process. It's important during a committee process to scrutinise the bills that come through this place. This is actually a bill. In fact, I would say it's probably one of the most important bills to ever come before this place, because it proposes a huge change to our nation's rulebook, our Constitution, and what we are hearing to date is that the government wants the Australian people to vote at a referendum to make a change to the Constitution but, as we stand here at 2.15 in the morning, the bad news for the Australian people is—I was going to say the government won't give them the detail they need to make the decision. I think it's actually worse than that. The government doesn't have the detail the Australian people need to make the decision. I now turn to design principle 4: The Voice will be empowering, community-led— Honourable senators interjecting— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Cash, please resume your seat. Before you go to this point, there are conversations on my left and my right and at the back of the chamber which is making it difficult to hear. If you wish to have conversations, please leave the chamber. If you wish to follow the debate, please do so in silence. Senator CASH I0M As I was saying, I now turn to the fourth design principle. Prefacing my questions to the fourth design principle, what I would say is this: when the government released the design principles, as those opposite would know, the Prime Minister expressly said they were endorsed by cabinet. So the design principles have been endorsed by cabinet. The referendum working group, if I recall—and colleagues might recall—stood with the Prime Minister on a stage and, on behalf of Tony McAvoy SC, he hoped the design principles 'will go a long way to eradicating the fears that some people might have about this Voice'. He said of the design principles: 'This is how we set out where the Voice should go.' These are materials which you put into the public domain to explain the Voice. But tonight, what we've learnt is they have no force, they are potentially unworkable and, in fact, mean nothing because it's all subject to the detail. There's no explanation of how a voice will work at all. It's all up to the parliament, and the Albanese government is asking the Australian people to sign a blank cheque. Let's now turn to design principle 4 and see whether or not we can get a little more detail. The fourth design principle is that the Voice will be empowering, community led, inclusive, respectful and culturally informed. What does 'empowering' mean in the context of a referendum to change the Constitution to establish a single body? 02:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I really should have brought a dictionary with me to this debate because of the number of questions where I've been asked to explain what words mean. I've been asked to explain what the First Peoples of Australia are, even though it's five words before that in the provision. We had been told that the coalition supports constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, but that part of the debate made me really question whether that was sincere or not. I think I've also explained the meaning of the word 'representations'. There are two or three other words, and now I'm being asked to explain the word 'empowering'. Last time I looked 'empowering' mean giving power or providing power to people, and that is what the Voice is about. It is about listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, rather than telling them what to do. Senator WATT 245759 Senator McKenzie, is there something you want to say? There's a lot of huffing going on over there. The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU Minister, ignore the interjections. Senator WATT 245759 The Voice is about listening so that we can collectively achieve better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, rather than telling them what to do which has manifestly failed. 02:18 Senator I0M Western Australia CASH (—) (): Again, Minister, with all due respect, as I previously stated, when the government released the design principles, the Prime Minister expressly said they were endorsed by cabinet, but the referendum working group stood with the Prime Minister and, on behalf of Tony McAvoy SC, they actually said that they 'hope the principles will go a long way to eradicating the fears that some people might have about the Voice'. All we have confirmed tonight is that people should be very, very fearful about the Voice. What does 'community led' mean in the context of a referendum to change the Constitution? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Cash, please resume your seat. Senator Whish-Wilson, you are wilfully and repeatedly defying standing orders. Please follow the debate in silence or leave the chamber. Senator CASH I0M What does 'community led' mean, in the context of a referendum to change the Constitution to establish a single body? What does 'inclusive' mean in the context of a referendum to change the Constitution to establish a single body? What does 'respectful' mean in the context of a referendum to change the Constitution to establish a single body? And what does 'culturally informed' mean in the context of a referendum to change the Constitution to establish a single body? 02:20 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I do find it surprising that at 2.20 am I am being asked to provide definitions of the words 'empowering', 'community led', 'inclusive', 'respectful' and 'culturally informed'. But I'll give it my best shot. I have already addressed 'empowering'. I would say that 'community led' means led by the community. I would say that 'inclusive' means an approach that includes people. I would say that 'respectful' mean full of respect, and I would say that 'culturally informed' means informed by culture. If this is the quality of questions that you have at 2.20 am, it's no surprise— The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU Order. Senator McKenzie, you have heard me call other senators to order. Under standing order 197, interjections are disorderly. Please follow the debate in silence. Senator WATT 245759 I can tell you, Senator Cash, that in all the many discussions that I've had with people about the Voice, I have not had a single person come to me and say 'You know what I'm really wondering about the Voice? I'm wondering what you mean by 'respectful'. That's what I really want to know when I'm making up my mind about the Voice.' You know and I know, Senator Cash, that these questions are not genuine. You know and I know that these questions are all designed to stoke fear, risk and feed the No campaign. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister, you need to withdraw that. That's an imputation about motor. Senator WATT 245759 I withdraw. Seriously, at 2.21am, if the best questions that the opposition has are about the definition of terms that are quite self-explanatory, we have a lot of work to do with the opposition. 02:22 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The problem you have, Minister, is that these design principles are so vague that they don't actually explain anything at all. To the point that you just made, you said that community led means led by the community, but the problem is we have spent considerable time tonight talking about exactly what community means. You have been unable to inform the chamber as to what that is. You basically said 'I refer to my previous answer—that is a matter for the parliament.' Senator Nampijinpa Price went through what the government means in relation to community. You were not able to answer. When you say that community led means led by the community, you are actually failing to answer the question, because in the first instance you don't even know what the meaning of community is. Let's now go to your answer to me in relation to what it means to be culturally informed. Again, I put to you that you have had a considerable debate tonight with Senator Nampijinpa Price in relation to that exact issue. Again, you have failed to answer any of those questions. When you say to me, 'What does culturally informed mean? It means to be informed by culture', you have failed to answer tonight what that even means. What does the government mean when it says that Voice members must connect to their communities, seeing that we can't even establish tonight what is actually meant by community. Will they be expected to fly around their state or territory to meet community groups? How do they actually go out and meet with their communities? 02:24 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, Senator Cash, in all the many conversations I've had with people about the Voice, you know one question that I haven't been asked? I haven't been asked whether members of the Voice are going to catch a plane, a bus or a train to go and talk to their communities. These questions are all designed to support the 'no' campaign, and I don't intend to indulge them. The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU Senator Whish-Wilson is on his feet. Senator McKenzie, you don't have the call. Please resume your seat. Senator Whish-Wilson, you have the call. 02:25 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Chair, I don't want to reflect on your previous ruling that the minister withdraw the comment he made about these questions being designed to stoke a fear campaign, but I do want to highlight that we had a very clear indication previously from Senator Cash when she said to the chamber and to anyone watching, 'People should fear the Voice.' Those were exactly the words she just used, while she was asking those exact questions. I just want to give everyone their 2.25 am reminder that the Liberal and National parties opposed the Voice before they saw any detail. So here we are, early in the morning— Opposition senators interjecting— The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU Order on my left! Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Thank you, Chair. So here we are, early in the morning, asking detailed questions. It's a farce. They don't care about the details. The Liberal and National parties don't care about the detail. They opposed the Voice before this detail was even released. They'd made up their mind. I think we need to keep coming back to this the whole time. You can say whatever you like and you can ask whatever questions you want, but at the end of the day you've never supported the Voice. I just want to say that of course this is not going to be perfect, and there are a lot of things that need to be ironed out, and the answers we've had from the minister tonight are that that will occur through a parliamentary process. I think that's a reasonable thing to ascertain. This is about taking steps along the pathway to reconciliation. That's what the generous invitation in the Uluru Statement from the Heart was. It was an invitation for our country to take steps along the path to reconciliation. Of course, the Voice, truth and treaty are a lot more than that too, but that is the nub of it. The question for the Liberal and National parties—you can smile all you like, Senator Cash—is: are you prepared to be generous enough to listen to Aboriginal people, the people involved in the Uluru statement— Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I just said: the people involved in the Uluru statement, the many people around the country in Aboriginal communities and white communities who support the Uluru statement— Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 That's fair. Not all Aboriginal people do. It's pretty clear in this chamber that that is the case. But are you generous enough in your own heart to listen to what Aboriginal people have to say? Are you generous enough to take up the invitation from those in the Aboriginal community in this country who support walking the path of reconciliation? Senator McKen 207825 Not all of them do. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I just made a very clear notation, Senator McKenzie. I'm happy to take your interjection. For those many who do, are you not prepared to be generous enough to accept their invitation to walk this path of reconciliation? And, if not, why not? Why would you not want to walk the path of reconciliation in this country? What possible reason could you have for not wanting to do that except for your own selfish politics? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Whish-Wilson, resume your seat, please. We allow a fairly broad scope— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator McKenzie, I'm speaking. If you can't remain silent, please remove yourself from the chamber. Senator Whish-Wilson, we have a fairly broad scope during the committee stage, but the intention is to address questions to the government regarding the bill, not have a debate with an individual member from the opposition. If you have more you'd like to contribute in the general order of a committee stage, please do, but please don't engage in just a one-on-one dialogue with a member of the opposition. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Thank you, Chair, but I'm addressing the elephant in the room here that no-one else is prepared to call out. I think the government are doing a very good job and being very calm in answering these questions, but there are bigger issues at stake here. I've been singled out several times by Senator Nampijinpa Price about white guilt. I said it in my second reading speech, so I'm happy to say it again: I do feel guilty. I do feel guilty that my ancestors invaded this country and colonised this country and dispossessed the First Nations people that were here. I do, and so do many other Australians. That is why we do want a pathway to reconciliation. I'm prepared to admit that. I think that's what this is about—this is about uniting the country and accepting the generous invitation from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and I know a lot of other Australians feel that way. I just don't understand why we can't agree on accepting that invitation and walking that pathway. Every which way I look at it, it comes back to the politics of the LNP—the politics of self-interest, deliberately stoking division in this country for their own electoral gain. It's opposition for opposition's sake. It sickens me that we are in here at 2.30 in the morning hearing detailed questions from a political party that opposed the Voice before the detail was even available. They don't want to hear the answers to this. They are simply here to be oppositional. I will be devastated, as I know many other Australians of all colours will, if the Voice referendum fails in this country, because I do not know what the pathway forward will be for reconciliation. 02:31 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Chair, I certainly don't feel like Senator Whish-Wilson is acknowledging or paying his respects to me as a First Nations person in these chambers tonight with his imputations that— The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU Senator Nampijinpa Price, I recognise that Senator Whish-Wilson has made a number of comments directed towards your position, but the purpose of the committee stage is to interrogate the government about a bill. I invite you to make a contribution in line with the purpose of the committee stage. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Thank you, Chair. I will not accept paternalistic assertions that I, as an Indigenous member of parliament, or, indeed, my colleagues are acting with any self-interest. We are purely here to represent the concerns of our constituents, which includes members of remote communities whose first language is not English. It is highly paternalistic to suggest that all Indigenous Australians across this country think the same and want this Voice to Parliament. I'm here to reflect the views of those Indigenous Australians who do not support this Voice to Parliament and who require questions to be answered about one of the greatest changes to our Constitution, which will impact all Australians. This is what it is about. It's about the impact on all Australians and the potential to further marginalise our most marginalised Indigenous Australians. This constitutional change isn't about appeasing white guilt. It's supposed to be about improving the lives of marginalised Indigenous Australians. There are some that I would suggest who [Warlpiri language not transcribed], which in Warlpiri translates to 'speak very little they do not', and should probably instead [Warlpiri language not transcribed]—listen! Listen to those of us who are elected Indigenous voices to this parliament who have a differing view, because, believe it or not, we don't all think the same. We are individuals in our own right, and this proposal does not recognise that. Now, I go back to the line of questioning that we were wanting to understand from the government. I understand, and, of course, Senator McCarthy understands, that, in order to get to remote communities, we have to, in some cases, use a charter to fly there. This proposal is about representatives of language groups of Indigenous Australians, supposedly from those who come from remote communities. Government senators interjecting— Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 It's funny, isn't it! It's hilarious! Honourable senators interjecting— Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 I am glad you find this funny. The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU Order! Senator, would you resume your seat. Colleagues, it may be 2.35 in the morning, but the rules still apply, and the courtesy should be applied to the person who has the call to make their contribution in silence. I would ask both sides to respect that. Senator Nampijinpa Price, you have the call. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Once again, how will these representatives represent? As is outlined in the pamphlet, how will they reflect the wishes of their community? Will they be given a travel budget to carry out their duties, in terms of reflecting the wishes of their communities, and to move around what we know can be vast chunks of our country? I know this. Senator McCarthy understands this. We both have to travel around the Northern Territory and to these very remote places. The delegation from Ngukurr that came here took two days to get here. Unfortunately, it didn't get the opportunity to speak to the government, despite two days of travel. So I think it's a legitimate question to ask how this will occur. 02:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It probably is a legitimate question to ask. Senator Cash asked it about 15 minutes ago, and I answered it, and I'm not adding to the answer. 02:37 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory No, you didn't answer the question, so please answer the question. 02:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Refer to my earlier answer. 02:38 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Wow! Thank you for your understanding, Senator Nampijinpa Price, because, when you come from a state like Western Australia, you actually have remote communities. Senator O'Sullivan knows this because he used to do a lot of work in them. You see, that is the type of question they ask, because their voices are almost never heard. One of the questions they have asked in relation to this proposal is: how will they come and talk to my community? And what you have said is: 'Well, no-one has ever asked you.' So, on that basis, there's really no answer to the question. But it is a very legitimate question because the biggest issue that so many people in remote communities have is: is this an elitist, top-down, Canberra based voice? With your nonanswer tonight, you have confirmed exactly that. This is an elitist, top-down, Canberra based voice, and the parliament will decide how it operates. That doesn't give any comfort, particularly to the people who have come to us—and, in particular, to Senator Nampijinpa Price—and asked: 'How will my voice be heard?' The bad news for them is that, clearly, it won't. The farce, quite frankly, of this process tonight is that the government is trying to force through a massive change to our system of government on the basis of a glossy two-page brochure and a refusal or inability to answer questions. I now turn to design principle 5: 'The Voice will be accountable and transparent'. In terms of the accountability and transparency, what is meant by 'accountability'? Who will the Voice members be accountable to? If the Voice members are accountable to their communities, how are they any different to politicians in this place? 02:40 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We had a lengthy discussion about this three or four hours ago. I refer you to my answers. 02:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, the farce is trying to force through a massive change to our system of government on the basis of a glossy two-page brochure and a refusal and an inability to answer any questions. In terms of the transparency, when we are talking about the Voice, what does 'transparent' mean in relation to this design principle? Will there be a publicly advertised selection process based on clearly identified criteria, which is what 'transparent' does mean in some contexts? Does this mean that Voice deliberations must be held in public? Where will those deliberations be held—when, and how often? Is there an obligation to publish all representations? 02:41 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, I refer you to my earlier answers. It says quite a lot about the coalition that they need me to explain to them what 'transparency' means, just as they needed me to explain what 'inclusive' means, 'respectful' means and 'empowering' means. They must be concepts that are not understood in the coalition, and I guess we've seen a little bit of that lately. 02:41 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, you merely confirm the farce that this process is, and the proposal that the government is putting forward. In terms of the transparency, how does it work if the representation goes to a national security issue or if the Voice is being granted access to national security classified information to help inform its deliberations? 02:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my earlier answers on all these issues. 02:42 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia We haven't actually discussed national security, so, in terms of your earlier answers, can I confirm that your earlier answer was: 'It is a matter for the parliament.' This is an important issue, and an issue that is often raised by people in relation to the Voice is the fact that it does have a constitutional right to make representations, as we have established, in relation to absolutely anything. If it is absolutely anything, it will include national security. So again I ask: how does it work if the representation goes to a national security issue or if the Voice has been granted access to national security classified information to help in its deliberations? The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 Minister? The minister is not seeking the call. 02:43 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The bad news for the Australian public is that we don't appear to have an answer to the question of how that works if the representation goes to national security or if the Voice has been granted access to national security classified information to help inform its deliberations. So I ask: will Voice members' eligibility be subject to public scrutiny, and should potential Voice members be expected to publish their personal, financial and any criminal records to ensure transparency? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister? 02:44 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again? Now, instead of— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Sorry, Senator Cash. You can't speak a third time. We need someone else to speak before I call you again. Senator Nampijinpa Price? 02:44 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory How does it work if the representation goes to a national security issue or if the Voice is granted access to national security classified information to help inform its deliberations? 02:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to all of my previous answers where we had a lengthy discussion about the accountability and transparency requirements. 02:45 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, we did not discuss the issue of national security. I have to say that this night has taken a twist that even I hadn't anticipated: where the minister just doesn't answer a question so a person can't get the call. Can I now ask: what constitutes serious misconduct? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister? 02:45 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Under the fifth design principle, there is a statement to the effect that the Voice members will be able to be sanctioned or removed for serious misconduct. Who would make that decision? What constitutes serious misconduct: (a) corrupt conduct while a member of the Voice; (b) corrupt conduct before becoming a Voice member; (c) sexual assaults unrelated to the person's role as a Voice member; (d) crimes of violence unrelated to the person's role as a Voice member; (e), crimes of dishonesty unrelated to the person's role as a Voice member; (f), domestic violence; (g) sexual harassment; (h) workplace discrimination; (i) bullying or harassment? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister? 02:46 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Who will decide whether a Voice member may be removed? Is it the Minister? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister? 02:47 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I have to say, I have been in this place for 15 years and I have never seen a minister, even in the previous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, behave in the way that this Minister is behaving tonight. You can treat us with contempt. I have no issues with that. But you treat the Australian people with contempt and do not even attempt to answer any of the questions. You could answer these questions by saying, 'I don't know.' You could answer the question by saying, 'There is no answer.' You could answer the question by saying, 'It is for the parliament to decide. But, instead, the Minister tonight representing the Albanese government, Minister Watt—I am assuming that you're tired and you want to go home; well, guess what, we still have more questions, serious questions, to go through—has now decided that he will just sit in his chair and say nothing. That is an indictment, quite frankly, on the way this government is handling this entire process. You did not have a constitutional convention. There are no documents other than a glossy brochure and a handy little document that the public is able to refer to. This is the one chance that the opposition gets— Senator Watt 245759 On a point of order, Chair: can I draw your attention to standing order 196, which has something to say about repetitious questions. The reason I haven't answered the last few questions is that I provided a comprehensive answer to a series of questions about the transparency and accountability requirements of the Voice several hours ago. I don't regard it as a good or proper use of the Senate's time to now be relitigating the same issues four hours later. I am wondering if we should set our clocks and expect the same questions back at about 10 minutes to 7 am, in another four hours' time. Standing order 196 is pretty clear when it comes to repetitious questions, which is what we have had for the last hour and a half. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 I don't think there's a point of order there. Senator Cash? Senator CASH I0M Again, you're treating the Senate with contempt. Like Peter Dutton said over five months ago, your behaviour tonight simply shows that you are treating the Australian people like mugs. In terms of serious misconduct and the ability to remove, the question I would like answered is how is that ability to be removed, in particular for serious misconduct, consistent with a requirement that a Voice member must serve a fixed term? 02:50 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answers. 02:50 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can I confirm that that answer is 'that is a matter for Parliament'? My understanding was Voice members will serve a fixed term. My question is, in terms of being able to be sanctioned or removed for serious misconduct, how is that consistent with the requirement that a Voice member must serve a fixed term? Is the answer 'that is a matter for Parliament?' 02:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The design principles say both of those things, that someone would serve on a fixed term, but also that they would be able to be sanctioned or removed for serious misconduct. They are not mutually exclusive. 02:51 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If I could now go to design principle 6: 'The Voice will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures'. How will the Voice work alongside existing organisations if it determines it is not in the interests of Indigenous people's for those organisations to continuous performing their current roles? 02:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, we dealt with this several hours ago. I refer to my previous answers. 02:52 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia We didn't actually deal with this point. We had a discussion in relation to how they might work alongside and which existing organisations they work alongside. My question is, if the Voice now determines it is not in the interests of Indigenous people to work alongside those organisations, how is that going to work? Who will mediate if there is a conflict between the Voice and traditional owners, prescribed bodies corporate or other groups? 02:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland What the Voice does, if the referendum is successful, is make representations to the parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. So the Voice would have the ability to make the type of representations that you're talking about. 02:53 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Minister, I've been listening to the answers for a long period of time. When you said the appropriate processes and governance structures would be conducted within standard processes, will the appointment of members of the Voice be subject to cabinet processes? 02:53 Senat 245759 Queensland or WATT (—) (): It's a matter for parliament exactly how the election of the members of the Voice will be made, but that will be done by an election, so that they are selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the executive. 02:54 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria So the election by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders of members of the Voice won't actually proceed through any other processes within the executive, either with the Governor-General or indeed the cabinet? 02:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It would be a matter for the parliament. 02:54 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I find that quite incredible. Is it the parliament that usually makes decisions about whether things are cabinet in confidence or are things that cabinet considers, or is that actually something the executive themselves determine? 02:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Chair, we've extensively covered the manner of selection of Voice members, and I refer to my earlier answers. 02:55 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Minister, with respect, I have listened to that process. I've listened to the extensive analysis of the glossy brochure. I have never heard cabinet mentioned tonight, nor the process that cabinet undertakes as the executive arm in our parliamentary system. I am interested very much in whether, once Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders elect their representatives for the Voice, that list will be presented to cabinet. Will it be presented to the Governor-General? What is the actual process? Is it just that the AEC says, 'Done; election conducted'—a little bit like local government—and away we go? I'm interested in where those results are reported and whether there is a process that those names and those individuals have to go through within the parliament itself. It's not up to parliament to approve a list of people. I find that very curious. I've only spent 14 years here, but I'm yet to see that. Whether it's the ARTC Board, any regional development corporation in the agriculture sector, Infrastructure Australia et cetera, there is not a list of people that is put before the parliament to approve. These are usually processes of executive government. If it's not going to be executive government and therefore a cabinet process, I'm asking if it will indeed be the representative of the sovereign, the Governor-General, who will be examining those people elected to the Voice or if it will just be the AEC. 02:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my extensive answers when we talked about how the members of the Voice will be chosen. 02:57 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Minister, with respect, you did not provide extensive answers on what would actually occur once Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders had gone through the electoral process yet to be determined and yet to be set up by parliament. What happens with the elected Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who will sit on the Voice? Who approves that end result? Is it simply a matter for the Australian Electoral Commission, or will it, like every other body within our parliamentary system, be approved by cabinet? 02:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland All of those matters are matters for the parliament, as I've been saying for several hours. 02:58 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I was interested in a line of questioning from Senator Nampijinpa Price late yesterday around cultural practice et cetera. I was quite disturbed, actually, by some of the examples she raised. I listened to Senator McCarthy's very strident and appropriate comments around the government not condoning violence in any way, shape or form. For me, as someone who is not Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, I'm listening to this conversation, hearing these practices that are legitimate under customary law and cultural practice, as outlined by Senator Nampijinpa Price. I'm also similarly hearing from the government, through Senator McCarthy, that the government won't condone practices that are violent. I'm just asking: what happens when there's a conflict between Australian law and cultural practice? 03:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I think you've answered your own question. If it's the law, it's the law. Senator WATT 245759 Yes, the Australian law. I don't know what other kind of law could be applying to this situation. 03:00 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria With respect, Minister, there were very specific examples from Senator Nampijinpa Price about cultural law, which, if we are going to enshrine a voice in our constitution, will trump—in the language of those that play Five Hundred—Australian law. Are you giving the guarantee to the Senate tonight, Minister, that Australian law will trump cultural law should a Voice be enshrined in the Australian constitution? 03:01 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory If you had been listening to our debate earlier, when I spoke about cultural customary law, it also incorporates so many aspects of it. In my area, we have the jungkayi ngimarringki, who's responsible for a wide area of country, certain dreaming sites and sacred sites. It also determines who is responsible for being able to look after certain sea animals. We are li-Anthawirriyarra, which means our spiritual origins come from the sea country. So we are very aware of the customary responsibilities. But, in terms of violence, full stop, just like any other aspect of the Australian way of life, this government does not tolerate violence at any level. We had the four land councils meet in Barunga last weekend, along with the Kimberley Land Council and the Cape York Land Council, and all those land councils have reiterated their support for the Voice but also offered their collective wisdom in how we can navigate a way forward, and that's what we will continue to do. 03:02 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I do appreciate the senator's explanation. I was in the chamber when you gave that earlier answer. I am not Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. I don't pretend to come to this debate with a strong understanding or appreciation, like millions of Australian who are going to have to determine how they vote on this. But I come in a spirit of reconciliation and recognition. I am a respectful 'no', but you know my work both as a minister and as a senator in this area. So I do appreciate that explanation. I am gladdened about the minister's guarantee that Australian law will override customary practice where it is violent. I am also interested in Senator Nampijinpa Price's example around underage marriage and how females particularly will be treated. We've all worked very hard, irrespective of our race, to ensure young women and girls aspire to a positive future in this country, and I would hate to see something enshrined in our Constitution that potentially, through unintended consequences, could take that backwards. I'm seeking a guarantee. Thank you. 03:04 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I think I just said in my previous answer that the four land councils across the Northern Territory, plus Kimberley and Cape York, came together to support a 'yes' vote for the Voice. But, also, we are looking to their collective wisdom in all of these areas. The push for women in particular on these councils is absolutely essential. It's also the case for our women's law and cultural ground, and we know that we've still got, like in mainstream Australia, a long way to go to keep making sure that our women are represented at every level. The need to have that gender equality is very much incorporated as part of the design principles. 03:05 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you, Minister. Minister Watt, earlier you were making some contributions about the High Court determining outcomes. Are you confident that the High Court will actually back Australian law over customary law if we enshrine the Voice in the Australian Constitution? 03:05 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes. 03:05 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'll turn now to design principle 7, which states, 'The Voice will not have a program delivery function.' Is there is a constitutional principle that would prevent a future parliament from passing legislation to confer it with a program delivery function? 03:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The parliament, as I've said over and over, has the power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Voice. 03:06 Senator C I0M Western Australia ASH (—) (): That's fine. Again, it is subject to the parliament. I'll now turn to design principle 8. This one, again, has been the subject of much debate. It says, 'The Voice will not have a veto power.' Whilst it may not have a veto power or the power to actually say no, the issue that does arise—in particular, in relation to the ability to make representations and the potential implied right to actually be consulted, to receive information et cetera—is whether or not procedural hurdles could then arise in terms of government decision-making. In terms of the eighth design principle, whilst it is the case that the Voice will not have a veto power, it still could be the case, because of the procedural hurdles, that there could actually be an impact on government decision-making. If the Voice seeks to be consulted or to obtain information to make representations, potentially enforceable by a court order, how will the government guarantee that those types of procedural steps don't then slow down the government's decision-making? 03:08 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Probably the best way to answer this is to point you to the Solicitor-General's advice, which, at paragraph 19, states very clearly that the Voice's function of making representations will not fetter or impede the exercise of existing powers of the executive government. 03:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia As we all know, ultimately, it's for the High Court of Australia to make any decisions in relation to whether or not there are any implied rights. I asked a question in relation to the program delivery function. Just so that I have what you stated correct, could I just confirm: the Voice could, at a future point, have a program delivery function? Is that what you were stating? 03:08 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland What I was stating was what I've stated many times, which is that the parliament will have the power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Voice. 03:09 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So, if the parliament determines that the Voice, going forward, should have a program delivery function, then that is something that the parliament could decide. So, yes—if the parliament decides, it could actually have a program delivery function. Going to the procedural hurdles that could be in place if the High Court were to find that there were implied constitutional rights—for example, to receive information and to be consulted—and given we have established that the Voice is able to make representations in relation to matters that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, if there is a circumstance in where the government needs to make an urgent decision, but the urgent decision is now subject to the constitutional right to make a representation, and the Voice wants to make a representation, how will the government guarantee that the expectation to consult and the Voice's right to make the representation do not become a de facto procedural veto? 03:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland There's so much wrong in there it's really hard to know where to start. We have spent considerable time saying and explaining that there is no duty to consult or duty to consider. For some reason, Senator Cash, you keep wanting to put up straw man arguments that aren't real, such as that government's ability to make decisions or take action would be potentially slowed down or impeded. That's, of course, despite the Solicitor-General making it very clear at paragraph (9) that that is not correct. Again, I repeat his advice that the Voice's function of making representations 'will not fetter or impede the exercise of existing powers' of the executive government. That could only occur, Senator Cash, if the Voice were designed in the ways that you're implying it is, which it's not. To be very clear, not only is it a design principle of the Voice that it will not have a veto power but also it's the government's position that the Voice will not have a veto power. The only role of the Voice that would be constitutionally enshrined would be to make representations. So there is nothing in the constitutional amendment that would give the Voice the power to have a veto or a decision-making role, and for anyone to go outside this chamber and to suggest otherwise would be fundamentally dishonest. 03:12 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia It still doesn't get over the fundamental point that it is the High Court of Australia that will decide what the right to make a representation means. If the Voice were to be delayed in considering and making representations in relation to an issue, they have a constitutional right to make the representation. The government, though, does have an urgent decision to make, and this is the problem: they have a constitutional right to make the representation. Does that delay not then transfer to the ability of the government to make that decision, because they have the constitutional right to make representations? 03:13 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We've gone over this in at least two different sections of this debate, and I refer to my earlier answers. It's pretty clear that Senator Cash is just dragging this out by asking the same old things over and over again. 03:13 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia We actually haven't gone over it before. We were talking about the potential for there to be a veto, even though the design principles state that the Voice will not have a veto power. We're actually talking here about procedural hurdles. In any event, let's have a look at what we have established tonight. Over the course of around nine hours, what we have now seen on the part of the government is an extensive inability to answer questions about how the Voice will work. We have shown that there are genuine legal risks that the Australian people are being asked to accept. We have shown that the only real attempt at explaining the Voice is a glossy two-page brochure that isn't even worth the paper it was printed on. Quite frankly, what we've heard both last night and now, into the early hours of this morning, will give the Australian people—and that's who we're asking the questions on behalf of—absolutely no comfort whatsoever. As we all know, or at least on this side we appreciate, the committee process is an important way for this parliament to scrutinise bills that come through this place. I, Senator Nampijinpa Price, Senator Kerrynne Liddle, Senator Bridget McKenzie and those on this side understand that the committee process is an important place for us to undertake this scrutiny. In particular it is important when looking at a bill like this which proposes a huge change to our nation's rule book, our Constitution. What we have established tonight is that the government wants the Australian people to vote at a referendum to change the Constitution, but again, as we've seen here, they won't give them the detail that they are so desperately asking for. Australians want to make an informed decision. They want to, but after tonight the bad news is this is it, people. This was the final, in fact it was the only chance that on behalf of Australians we had an opportunity to interrogate this process. Senator Watt may have been armed with his helpful little booklet, but what he wasn't armed with were answers, answers that the Australian people both want and deserve. Just telling Australian people that it is a matter for the parliament, which on my count happened more than 100 occasions, is quite frankly not good enough. But then we actually got to 'I refer you to my previous answer', which is even worse. These are important questions about how the Voice will work. It is not good enough. Australians deserve to know how this referendum will change the way in which they are governed if it is successful. All we have confirmed from the committee process tonight is that the Voice will be four things. It will be risky, it will be unknown, it will be divisive, but on top of all that, because of the nature of the bill that we're discussing tonight, it is permanent. Australia's Constitution is our most important legal document. Every single word can be open to interpretation. That is what we tried to explore tonight: the meaning of the words in the chapeau; the meaning of the words in section 129(i); the meaning of the words in section 129(ii); the meaning of the words in section 129(ii). Because enshrining the Voice in the Constitution, despite what Senator Watt has said, does mean it is open to legal challenge, and if it is open to legal challenge it is open to interpretation by the High Court of Australia. It does not matter what Senator Watt says, quite frankly; it is the High Court of Australia that will ultimately determine what the right to make a representation means. What we now know throughout this entire process to get here tonight is that legal experts don't agree and they cannot be sure how any High Court will interpret such a constitutional change. This does open a legal can of worms. The proposed model, as we know, is not just to the parliament; it's to all areas of executive government. It gives an unlimited scope, as we've heard tonight, from the Reserve Bank, potentially, to Centrelink, or in the words of a constitutional law professor, from submarines to park tickets. There is a risk of considerable delays to government decision-making. This obviously risks dysfunctional government. That is what people are potentially voting for. Australians themselves have not changed our Constitution by referendum since 1977. This is a huge decision for the Australian people, but the Labor government, the Labor Party, refuse to provide any details before the Australian people vote. They're asking Australians to vote without knowing exactly how the Voice would operate. As we have seen tonight, cart, horse, Labor is putting the cart before the Voice. Some Voice activists says that this will be the first step to reparations and other radical changes. I think the biggest danger with the proposed constitutional amendments is the disruption of equality of citizenship. I quoted the late David Jackson tonight. He said of the principle of equality of citizenship that we will be a nation whereby we are no longer equal. Enshrining in our Constitution a body for only one group of Australians does mean—no matter what Senator Watt says—you are dividing Australians by race. As Senator Nampijinpa Price, who will speak shortly, has said, we should bring Australians together, not divide them. We should be one together, not two divided. All we are doing is intentionally embedding in the Constitution paramount rights in favour of one group of people. It doesn't matter what Senator Watt says, it is based, as Senator Nampijinpa Price said, on their race. And these rights are superior to the rights of all other Australians. What we're going to end up with—it doesn't matter now what the result is—is the Voice forever a symbol of division rather than an instrument of unity. The Constitution, as Senator Nampijinpa Price has articulated at length tonight, will say to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: yes, you have superior rights to the rest of the people in Australia forever, but, this in turn says—to some of the most marginalised Australians—you are different from everyone else and you will be treated differently for evermore. As Senator Nampijinpa Price said, this does nothing to help build confident human beings in Indigenous communities who want to stand on their own two feet, build better lives for themselves and their families. Everyone in the Coalition wants better outcomes for the most marginalised people in our community. We want to lift them up, we don't want to put barriers in their way. In our national anthem, we now proudly sing 'we are one and free'. But what Mr Albanese wants to do with this proposal is divide Australia. This does not make us one. Again, we should be one together, not two divided. The simple proposition of whether we are willing to divide our country on the lines of race is something we should all examine closely. Once the Voice is in the Constitution, it cannot be undone. Once a High Court makes an interpretation, parliament cannot overrule it. We will be stuck with negative consequences and bad outcomes. What we've seen both last night and this morning is that this government will not tell Australians the most basic details. Senator Watt didn't have the answers. Let's just confirm the message, the big message out of all of this tonight: if you don't know how the Voice is going to work, vote no. If you don't know, vote no. 03:23 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland You will be surprised to hear that I utterly reject Senator Cash's characterisation of both this debate and what this proposal is! Frankly, if there was one person in the opposition who I would think is least qualified to put an argument about what a proposition is, it would probably be Senator Cash. Because we all know and have all come to learn that Senator Cash's stock-in-trade is exaggeration, hyperbole, misrepresentation, fear and scare campaigns. It was only yesterday, as it turns out—being Friday yesterday—that in question time, I was making the point— Senator McKenzie 207825 On a point of order: the minister is reflecting on another senator in a very negative way— Senator WATT 245759 That's exactly what she did and I let it go. Senator McKenzie 207825 The shadow minister reflected on the debate, not on senators personally. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I have been listening carefully. I think the reflections are on the debate, but I will caution the minister that you are getting pretty close, so maybe just keep your comments to the debate and to the subject of the matter that's before the chair now. Senator WATT 245759 Thank you for that ruling, Chair. As I say, it was only in question time yesterday, being Friday, that I was making the point that in the debate surrounding the government's industrial relations legislation, it was Senator Cash who was running round the Sky News studios and every other place that she haunts, saying that our laws would close down Australia. She was saying that it would take Australia back to the dark ages. And now Senator Cash is doing it again, mounting these completely dishonest, hyperbolic arguments about recognition and the Voice. Senator McKenzie 207825 A point of order: if this minister doesn't like an opposing view, it doesn't mean it is dishonest or that Senator Cash has been dishonest in this chamber. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator McKenzie, that's a debating point. Minister. Senator WATT 245759 Senator Cash, in fact, even introduced concepts that she didn't dare to introduce during the committee stage, such as reparations, which she knows in her heart and her head are not what is being proposed now. There is only one reason that she's introducing those concepts now, and that is to induce fear in the Australian community. She's making suggestions that the Voice will control interest rates. She's asserting the existence of implied rights which, as I have repeatedly pointed out, not just I but also the Solicitor-General and retired High Court judges say don't exist. So I guess Australians will have a choice when it comes to the referendum: whether they listen to Senator Cash, who mounts arguments that are false, that are dishonest and that introduce concepts which the most eminent constitutional lawyers in this country say are not real, or whether they listen to the goodwill of our First Peoples, who have made a generous offer to us, seeking their recognition in the Australian constitution and seeking the right to be listened to about matters that directly affect them. I know who I'm going to choose to listen to, and it's not Senator Cash. Far from what Senator Cash is claiming in what has become an even worse debate as it has gone on, what Senator Cash is claiming is simply wrong. This is a simple proposition in two parts: that we should recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of our country and that we should listen to them about matters that directly impact on them. As I say, as a minister in this government, I spend a lot of time listening to stakeholders, listening to all sorts of different groups of people, to try to deliver the best possible outcomes in matters that affect them, and that's all that our First Peoples are seeking here—the right to be listened to, the right to be consulted, the right to make representations about matters that directly affect them. I think that if we do succeed in this referendum then it will be an incredible uniting moment for this country. We know that there will be people who will do everything they possibly can to divide the country over the course of this campaign by pushing these dishonest falsehoods and appealing to some of the not-great parts of people's thought processes, but I think there is a better way through this. That is to appeal to the better angels in people's natures, to bring people together. And we're seeing it happen already. We're seeing many Australians come together to support this proposition. We've seen the four land councils in the Northern Territory come together on it. We've seen all sorts of sporting codes, faith groups, unions, community organisations and business groups come together, and I have every confidence that the Australian people overall will come together to support this when we get to the referendum. I have every confidence that that is even more likely if members of the opposition cease to make the dishonest arguments that they've been making over the last few months. But, really, that's on them and their consciences. I think that we have an opportunity through this debate and through this referendum to celebrate the First Peoples of our country, the oldest continuous civilisation in the world. It's an incredible honour for Australia to host and be home to these people. We even have the opportunity to recognise them as our First Peoples in our nation's founding document, and I truly hope that Australians take the opportunity to do that. I do hope that we take that opportunity to recognise and that we listen to our First Peoples, because we do know that better outcomes come from listening to people. It seems to have been disputed by some members of the opposition, but we do know that our First Peoples are, as a group, the most disadvantaged group within our society, with life expectancy rates, incarceration rates, health outcomes and many other factors that are shameful in this day and age and that we have an opportunity to turn around. If people think that continuing to do the same thing that we've been doing for the last couple of hundred years—of having government's dictate terms to our First Peoples—is going to improve things, all I say is: look at what 200 years of that has produced. It's time for us to do something different. It's time for us to listen, it's time for us to recognise our First Peoples and it's time for us to come together. And that's exactly what this referendum gives us the opportunity to do. 03:30 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory What an interesting experience this has been—participating in the committee process and having accusations directed at me and my colleagues suggesting that we're only using these processes for self-interest and not conducting ourselves with due diligence when it comes to the proposal, which is going to make one of the greatest changes to our Constitution that we'll probably ever be confronted with in our nation's history. It has largely been based on the foundation being the Uluru Statement from the Heart. There has been conversation around listening and truth telling. I would suggest that the truth is that the Uluru Statement from the Heart isn't representative of First Nations Australians in their entirety. It was, again, signed by 250 unelected individuals who represent 0.03 per cent of the entire population, which is not a sound representation of Indigenous Australians by any measure. And there were conversations with 1,200—well, from what I understand of the dialogues, it wasn't 1,200 completely Indigenous Australians because there were those who were not Indigenous who were part of those dialogue conversations. Again, that is not a sound representation of Indigenous Australians by any measure and, therefore, not a sound basis for this referendum proposal to go ahead. We heard from Senator Liddle that she has had conversations with traditional owners who have been disregarded and ignored and who are very upset with the way in which their spiritual place has been exploited for the purpose of this referendum, for the purpose of emotionally blackmailing Australians to support a 'yes' vote and for the purpose of justifying the position of those across the other side of the chamber. It seriously means nothing when there are those that want to consistently capture or attempt to capture the moral high ground and use terms like 'truth telling' when these are the cold, hard facts before us. I am amazed that, while being accused of only participating in this process for self-interest, there are those who have admitted to their own self-interest in appeasing their white guilt for the purpose of voting yes and constitutionally enshrining a voice to parliament. Accusations of fearmongering have been made, when what we are trying to do, as part of our due diligence, is to understand what the detail of the Voice is and how it is going to impact not just Indigenous Australians or marginalised Indigenous Australians but all Australians. There are those that might be satisfied with no detail, but certainly we are not satisfied with the lack of detail. We are not satisfied that the Australian people are being asked to make a huge change to our Constitution with no detail—to sign a blank cheque to make a permanent change to our Constitution based on no detail. We have been attempting to squeeze blood out of a stone, through asking questions around the design principles of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, getting nowhere, and then understanding that, actually, these two pages here—if it's, ultimately, up to the parliament of the day—mean absolutely nothing when it comes to the creation of this supposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Yes, there are many reasons to be concerned going forward with this referendum—many, many reasons to be concerned. It is actually members of the Voice committee that provide those concerns for the Australian people. There are those who have been quoted in the Australian as saying: People who are opposing (the voice referendum) are saying we are destroying the fabric of their sacred Constitution. Yes, that's right, that's exactly what we're doing. It's followed by: Our Constitution is racist … it was designed as a racist Constitution. If this is the belief of a very prominent member of the working group, then why are we moving forward to amend the Constitution with zero detail whatsoever? It will appease those with white guilt; it'll do something for them. Why is the government moving forward with such a potentially destructive amendment that could potentially destroy the fabric of our sacred Constitution? They're not my words. They're the words of Professor Langton, of course. They're not my words. I am simply pointing out why the Australian people are very, very concerned and why they have asked us to ask the questions of the government to provide detail to in fact appease their concerns. Everybody knows that Australians have an incredible amount of goodwill towards Indigenous Australians. There are those people with that goodwill who want to see the lives of marginalised Indigenous Australians—remembering that not all of us are marginalised and require special measures, despite the fact that the Voice is supposedly for all of us, even those of us who are quite privileged. The fact is that we do not live in a racist country. We live in a country where there is incredible goodwill, and those individuals with that goodwill want to contribute meaningfully and therefore want to understand how supporting this Voice will in fact contribute meaningfully to our most marginalised Indigenous Australians. Those answers could not be provided for those Australians of goodwill tonight. They could not be provided. This has been an incredibly disappointing exercise. No, we don't want to have to be here till the early hours of the morning, but we are here. Again, that is for the purpose of practising due diligence, as being members of this parliament requires us to do, in order to be able to better inform the Australian public. Unfortunately, we have failed tonight. We have failed in our endeavours to better inform the Australian public as to what this referendum and the Voice to Parliament mean—what its functions would be and what its outcomes would be. (Time expired) The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 I will go to Senator McKenzie and then I will come to Senator McKim. 03:40 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I have a question for the minister. How will the Voice be involved in native title claims, and what will be its impact upon and interaction with state governments, particularly when it comes to the construction of infrastructure projects? 03:41 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Subparagraph (ii) of proposed section 129 is very clear: the Voice's role is to make representations to the Commonwealth parliament and the Commonwealth executive government. 03:41 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria So, in jointly funded projects—for instance, in the suburban rail loop in Melbourne, that $2.2 billion is a lot of money—what will be the impact of the Voice's representations to government in terms of either approving or not approving investment of Commonwealth funds in jointly funded infrastructure projects? 03:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I have been saying for many hours that the role of the Voice is to make representations on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and anyone who chooses to go outside and pretend that the Voice might have a broader role than that is being completely dishonest. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I did say I was going to go to Senator McKim, but did you have a quick follow-up question, Senator McKenzie? Otherwise, I will got to Senator McKim. Senator McKim, you have the call. 03:42 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I've been in the chamber for most of the debate tonight—not all of it, but most of it—and I've watched most of the bits that I haven't been in here for. If there's one thing I've learned above all else tonight it is that Australians should brace themselves for the mother of all misinformation campaigns from those who don't support the Voice. We're going to hear lies. We're going to hear deliberate misrepresentations. We're going to hear distortions. We're going to hear outright fabrications. Facts will be mercilessly and dishonestly turned into fiction. Dishonesty and pretence will dominate the arguments of those who don't support the Voice. My stomach sinks when I think about what we are collectively facing. I fear for the truth and I fear for our country and its people, in terms of what they are clearly and obviously going to be subjected to by the 'no' campaign. I fear that our country's spirit is going to be sorely tried during this debate and that our nation's heart is at risk of being torn asunder by the lies and the ripping of the fabric of truth that I have no doubt is coming from the 'no' campaign, having listened to the way that those opposite have prosecuted their agendas this evening. I hope that our country is strong enough to collectively bear the massive pain that is coming down the line. I hope with all my heart that we collectively say yes at the referendum, but, whatever the result, this country is going to need some healing after this time, because it's going to be a dark time. And it's going to be made a lot darker by the lies that are going to be told by the 'no' campaign, by the misrepresentations, by the distortion and by the deliberate, cold, calculated stoking of fear in our community. 03:45 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Minister, given the Voice's role will be open to interpretation by the High Court, can you, as you did earlier, rule out the Voice being empowered to make, alter, negotiate or adjudicate native title claims? 03:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We've seen these sorts of fear campaigns from the National Party in the past in relation to native title. It seems that we're going to have it again. You'd really hope that people would learn that spreading misinformation about native title and people losing their farms and their backyards and their suburban rail loops—I mean, we know where this is going, Senator McKenzie. As I say, the role of the Voice is simply to make representations on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to the Commonwealth parliament and the executive government of the Commonwealth. If you choose to go outside and claim otherwise, then that is wrong and dishonest. 03:46 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria There's been a lot of chat in the chamber today about sovereignty, but there is one thing our Australian Constitution makes clear. I think it's why we are the envy of the world and why so many people from war-torn places across the globe seek to make this place their home and risk life and limb to actually become citizens. For them and subsequent generations, whether you arrived as convicts, whether you arrived as clearances from the Scottish Highlands, whether you arrived as Vietnamese boat people or whether you arrived for the Snowy Mountains Scheme after World War II—accepting, recognising, that there were people here before the rest of us got here—no matter how you got here, our Constitution— Senator McKENZIE 207825 I would appreciate, Senator Whish-Wilson, if you would not continually deride, denigrate and attack people that have a different view to you. We live in a democracy. It is actually why people seek to join us. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 Point of order: Senator McKenzie knows not to address other senators directly. She should direct her comments through the chair. By the way, she continually interjects and did exactly the same thing— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 Senator Whish-Wilson, that's a debating point beyond your initial point, which you've just made. Senator McKenzie has heard what you've said. Senator McKENZIE 207825 Our Constitution makes very clear it is the citizens of Australia, one and all, who are sovereign in this country. Our Constitution has a set of arrangements and institutions that it empowers to reflect that sovereignty by making sure we have a Senate, fashioned on the American system; we have a House of Representatives, fashioned on the House of Commons; and we have a High Court that isn't elected and can take the politics out of making decisions around matters of justice. On a whole range of areas, our Constitution sets up the Australian people, all of us together, as sovereign. This is what I've been very concerned about in this debate that we've conducted over recent days. The government has won an election on a commitment to hold a referendum on this question. The Australian people voted for that. We respect that mandate. But the approach you have taken to changing our Constitution—our founding document—and the relationship we have to each other and to the powerful institutions in our country is abhorrent. If you really trusted the people, if you really believed they were sovereign, you would have taken them into your confidence, you would have given them the detail, you would have trusted them with your great idea and you would get the result because it was the right thing for Australia. If you were true democrats, that's exactly the approach you would have taken, following the Calma-Langton report, whose first chapter is on local and regional voices—seeing how things go, making sure we roll this out, checking whether it's working for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. The whole framework is there, but you threw that in the bin and put them under a bus so that Albo could have a referendum before the next election. This was political from the start. This has got nothing to do with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. I was a member of the first joint committee way back in the day. This has been a long journey for our country, for our political class and for all of us. The culminating report was the Calma-Langton report—'Okay, guys and gals, how do we actually do this? How do we unify our country?' You threw it in the bin, and you've chosen your own path to instigate a voice, not following the framework that they outlined. You've chosen to be incredibly non-transparent, and tonight is another example of you failing to take responsibility for being ministers of the Crown in this place. Part of that is showing up and actually answering the questions. It's tough. Some of us on this side have had the great privilege and responsibility of doing that. It is not about 'leaving it to the parliament'. If you were a government that knew what it was doing, if you were a government that thought you'd have this voice up and running by the next election, post-referendum, you would have had a little conversation. The Attorney-General's Department would have a framework. You'd have a time line. You'd have it all sorted. You can't answer basic questions tonight. You refused to have a constitutional convention—an open and transparent arena where all Australians can participate—and you've chosen this way to conduct this great change. You either don't have the answers, which means you will not have the Voice in place, or you are deliberately refusing to tell us. Your lack of detail is disrespectful in the extreme. I try very hard, particularly on this topic, to be incredibly respectful. It is an emotional topic and a topic that people have very divergent views on. If you can't conduct the debate in a respectful way, we won't come out of this as a healed country. I've had to sit and listen tonight to mockery of individuals, perspectives and worldviews just because you don't agree with them. It's actually not the right way to conduct the behaviour. Scare campaigns, invalids—these are exactly the tactics people use to silence, subjugate and deride. I want to say thank you to Senators Nampijinpa Price, Cash and Liddle for bringing to this their technical expertise and also their lived experience. I don't have that lived experience. Most of us in this chamber don't. Most Australians don't. It's important to have that conversation—that truth—in this place. People don't have to listen to it. People can mock it. But what that does is put it on the Hansard, and future generations will be able to say there wasn't a constitutional convention; there weren't the typical structures that we've put in place as a democracy to ensure that the sovereignty of the Australian people is respected when we have these difficult constitutional conversations, which we have had over our history. Those mechanisms weren't put in place, to deliberately silence opposing views. Because you have stood up and put that on the record, future generations will know that there was a differing opinion and that it was articulately, eloquently, honestly and respectfully delivered. I want to say thank you to all of you. I hope, as a nation, we proceed towards the referendum with a respectful heart. I am committed to reconciliation. I am committed to recognition. I am a very respectful 'no' to enshrining a voice in our Constitution. I don't like to change the constitution. One of my first actions in this place was to cross the floor on the local government recognition, because it is a serious thing. I hear the mockery even now, as I'm expressing my opinion—not from Labor Party senators, obviously, but from others in the chamber. Again, this is the problem as we go forward to a referendum. The polls would suggest this is much closer than anyone would like it to be. No matter where the Australian people land on the substantive issue, we've all got a lot of work to do, irrespective of whether you're on a 'yes' campaign or the 'no' campaign, to heal our country and make sure we are stronger, more sustainable and more prosperous in the future. 03:57 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland On what date will the Voice referendum be held? 03:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As Senator McGrath well knows, that's a matter for the Prime Minister. 03:57 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I just wanted to make my hourly reminder that the Liberal and National parties opposed the Voice before they got any detail, yet here we are at 4 am now, with senators from the Liberal and National parties seeking detail on the Voice when they've already made their mind up. I would have respect for them if they'd reserved their position until they got the answers or didn't get the answers, but they've come into this chamber having made up their mind and having done their press conference many months ago opposing the Voice. Senator McKenzie said she had a respectful heart towards the Voice process, but she had made up her mind too. She stood next to do Mr Littleproud in the press conference when they said they opposed the Voice. We're politicians. We have political agendas. That's fair enough. We make political judgements. My political judgement is clear, as is my party's: we want to walk along the road of reconciliation until we can get Truth and Treaty in this country. We want to walk on that road. That is the political judgement of our party, as I know it is for the Labor Party. You know what? We can judge each other. We can judge each other's political parties and each other's political agendas, but I'll tell you who will be the final judge of each and every single one of us in this chamber tonight for this historic debate leading up to the referendum. The final judge of each and every one of us will be history. The final judge will be history, and I do not believe, based on what I've heard here tonight, that history will judge the Liberal and National parties well at all, especially if this referendum fails. You've gone out of your way to divide this country and make this referendum fail so that we can't take up this generous invitation of the Uluru Statement of the Heart for the many in the Aboriginal community and in the white community in this country that want to see reconciliation. If the referendum fails, I genuinely don't know what the pathway forward will be for reconciliation in this country. 04:00 Senator M 217241 Queensland cGRATH () (): Minister, you said before that it is a decision for the Prime Minister as to when the date for the referendum is to be set. Why doesn't the Prime Minister trust the Australian people and set the date now? 04:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It's interesting, that these questions are coming from Senator McGrath because he knows the answers to these questions, having been a campaign director over many elections. Senator McGrath knows that prime ministers always have the ability to choose dates for elections and referendums. We actually haven't even passed the bill yet. So it would probably be a little premature for the Prime Minister to set a date for a referendum that hasn't yet been facilitated by parliament, but perhaps we'll get to that at some point. 04:01 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland When will the Prime Minister make a decision as to the setting of the date? 04:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That's a matter for the Prime Minister. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 Senator McCarthy. Senator McCarthy, you are yielding? Senator McGrath. 04:01 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Thank you, Senator McCarthy, for that indulgence. I thank you, Senator McCarthy. I think you have been a very humane, empathetic voice during the course of this committee process, and I have been watching it very carefully. I think you've done your best to contribute to the conduct of this debate in a very professional and respectful fashion. I deeply appreciate that, and I deeply appreciate and listen very carefully to every contribution that you make in this place. I want to convey that to you. I think that has assisted this chamber greatly. Firstly, I thank you for that, and you have my deep and abiding respect. Can I say—through you, Temporary Chair O'Sullivan—to Senator Whish-Wilson: I understand you are passionate about these issues. I do understand that. But please know that there are people on this side of the chamber who have a deep fear that what is being presented is dividing Australia instead of bringing us together. One of my heroes is Neville Bonner. He was a senator who represented all Queenslanders. I believe every single institution in our Constitution should be open to the full and equal participation of all Australians, and that is the point of principle where I have a fundamental objection to what is being proposed. With respect to your comment regarding detail, the fact is that we still do not have the detail. That was manifest tonight on so many levels. There is no detail. There is a bill with 303 words, and on that basis, the government is seeking a mandate to change our Constitution forever. I think it is very, very legitimate for those on this side of the chamber to raise questions. The third point I'd like to make is: where are those asking questions with respect to the information that was disclosed by my good friend Senator Liddle yesterday in the debate, with respect to the views of elders from the Northern Territory and their concern? That causes me a lot of concern with respect to what has actually happened during the course of this process. There is deep concern. I think everyone here needs to reflect deeply on that. I certainly am looking to make further inquiries to answer the question: how did we get into this position where some of our elders, as passionately put by Senator Liddle, are so aggrieved by this process? How is this bringing us together? How did we get to this position? Are we reflecting on the fact that in 1967 over 90 per cent of Australians—it was almost unanimous—supported the constitutional referendum, and now here we are at 50-50. Whatever happens at the referendum, I will certainly be doing my best not to be personal in terms of how the debate is conducted. Whatever happens in the referendum, I will certainly be acting in good faith to respect the decision of the Australian people. 04:05 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you for your words, Senator Scarr. They are deeply appreciated from my point as well. I would like to take this opportunity to also thank our Clerk of the Senate and all staff who have been with us all through these hours of debate until the early hours, and also all staff, both on our side and on your side, because it is an incredibly historic time for our country. Yes, no or in between, it is a historic time for our country. I would also like to make special mention of Ken Wyatt, a man of great wisdom, someone who I believe has really charted this course in a way that was incredibly dignified and difficult. I want to put on the record what an outstanding parliamentarian Ken Wyatt was, our first Indigenous affairs Minister who is Indigenous, a coalition minister, who carried the Uluru Statement from the Heart in his heart throughout his time as a cabinet minister and certainly post his life as a cabinet minister and working now with the referendum working group and the engagement group. I'd also like to thank the Liberals for Yes and Julian Leeser. It is important that we do try to look at the debate as best we can from a spirit of respect and dignity. I do appreciate the work of Julian, in particular, and also Senator Andrew Bragg. This will be a very difficult time, but I share a different view from Senator McKim in the sense that I am a very hopeful person. I have a lot of love for this country. I have a lot of love for our Westminster system and form of democracy. I do believe that is if there's ever a time for our country to bring the best out of each other, it is this time. This is the time for our country to really strive to be the best that it can be, whether you are yes person or a no person or in between. This is about the journey and the way we walk it, whatever the results are when we come out the other side of this. I like to think of it as akin to going onto the footie field or the softball field. You want to bring your best skills to the game; you want to stand up and feel proud, but you want to do it because you love what you do. In this instance we all love our country, Australia. Let's make sure that whatever happens, on that field after the referendum we can shake each other's hands and be proud that we are all who we are and we have made our country greater. Thank you. The CHAIR 287062 The question is that the bill stand as printed.    

The committee divided. [04:13]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 41 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Askew, W. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Payne, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 12 NOES Antic, A. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Fawcett, D. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Rennick, G. Scarr, P. M. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Ordered that the third reading of the bill be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

 ADJOURNMENT 199 ADJOURNMENT