Motions

First Nations Voice to Parliament

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:12): I move:

That this house—

(a) encourages all South Australians to recognise our First Nations people as the oldest continuous culture in the world; and

(b) calls on the Malinauskas Labor government to take positive action to establish an Indigenous Voice to the South Australian parliament by continuing the work of the Marshall Liberal government to achieve this historic outcome.

I am pleased to bring this motion to the house. It is a motion that has been on the Notice Paper now throughout almost the entirety of the course of this Fifty-Fifth Parliament, and here it is coming to the house at this time late in 2022 and almost a year into the period of the Malinauskas Labor government and more than a year after the introduction on 13 October last year by the Premier, the member for Dunstan, of the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill.

It is timely that this motion comes to the house at this time because not only does it provide yet another opportunity to urge this Malinauskas government to take steps to adopt the good work that was done by the previous government towards the establishment of the Aboriginal representative body and not only does it provide an opportunity to remind all members of the bill that has now been reintroduced by me—and I had that honour some several months ago and it has been sitting on the Notice Paper now for several months, with the government having the opportunity to take up and continue and apply that good work—but, in the particular circumstances that we find ourselves in of the last week, it is informed now by some elucidation of what has been going on in this regard on the government's side over the course of the last year.

I hesitate to couch this in partisan terms. It is not my intent to conduct this debate or this important work in partisan terms, but it is important to highlight that what we have seen is the fully formed proposal for an Aboriginal representative body presented to this house now more than a year ago off the back of what was thoroughgoing, credible, workmanlike and practical consultation undertaken by Dr Roger Thomas in his role, established by the former Premier, the member for Dunstan, for that purpose among many other practical purposes. It led to informing the bill that was put before the house now more than a year ago.

On one of the most proud, if not the most proud, days of my time as Speaker in this house, I recall that very happy and special occasion on 3 December 2020 when Dr Roger Thomas, in his role as commissioner, came to the floor of this parliament and addressed this house on the outcome of his work. It was the first time that had occurred, and it was, in the words of Dr Roger Thomas if not of anyone else at that time, a very special and significant moment for him. Relevantly for these purposes, at a point in time challenged as it was by the effects of COVID in the course of 2020, it was nevertheless concluded and presented at the end of 2020.

It was then through the course of 2021 that the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill was prepared and then presented to the house, as I have indicated, in October last year—more than a year ago. When the opportunity arose, both formally and informally through the course of this year, the emphasis has been very much on saying to the new minister and the new government, 'You have been handed now a legacy. You have been handed now a gift and a foundation upon which to carry this forward.'

If there is disappointment in my voice today in that regard, it is that reflections and observations, such as they were, on that bill and on Dr Thomas's work in consultation rose no higher at that time than an indication that there was some question about the extent of consultation prior to the bringing of the bill to the house. I have not heard since then a word of criticism of that consultation process. Secondly, there has been a really quite bald observation by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, 'No, we won't be picking up on that work because we will chart our own course.'

We have not seen any reasoning for that. We have not seen any departure from what Dr Thomas has done. Until last week, we had not seen really anything at all. Last week, we were notified in the media, via the publication of two documents, of the outcome of some work that has been done so far. Firstly, there is a report on engagement that has been prepared by the commissioner appointed by the new minister, Commissioner Agius, who has done so far a process of consultation.

On the face of it, it resembles very much a process that was undertaken by Dr Roger Thomas going back two and three years ago now. The question will be: why has it taken so long? What has been the benefit of doing that? Otherwise, the reasonable question will be asked: why the delay? Why should this not be characterised as a re-run of work that really has already been concluded? Why is that not treating those who participated in that prior consultation with other than full respect? Why was it necessary, and what has it given rise to? They will be questions rightly to be asked over the weeks ahead.

The second document was a draft bill. I think it has been described as an exposure draft or in that nature. It is for that reason I do not propose to reflect on its contents. It is not even a document that the government, as I understand it, is proposing to adhere to at this point, but we see something has been circulated. It has been a long time coming. We do not know yet whether or not the consultation process has yielded any fresh information, and we certainly do not know too much about a concluded view of the government in relation to the important representative body that ought to be established.

The question remains: why not adopt the bill that was presented last year and that I had the honour to reintroduce this year? There will be more to do, and I am glad at least to see that the government has expressed something in this space. It is just a pity that it has taken quite this long. That is really a focus in the present circumstances on paragraph (b) of the motion. It is important work that has been undertaken by the previous Liberal government. It is important to highlight the work of the former Premier, the member for Dunstan, in particular in that space, and I again pay tribute to Dr Roger Thomas.

In respect of paragraph (a), it might be something that is regarded as uncontroversial but, like so many of these things, it is important to remind ourselves that, so far as the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies as one particular source of reference has observed, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders of Australia are the oldest continuous culture in the world. This is a history that is stretching back, as the institute indicates to us, 60,000 years. That is a legacy of life and activity and history on this ancient land that is truly profound in the way that it provides a humbling perspective on what we do here and on how we, who are so fortunate to live in this state, ought reflect on the responsibility that we all have to move forward together, reflecting as we do on that extraordinary heritage.

It is with those words that I move this motion. I once again take the opportunity to urge that, as this debate moves forward and as this work is done, we not resort to partisanship but that we look for ways to ever better conciliate and move forward together. I hope that that extends to now some thoroughgoing consideration by the government of the merits of the structure that is the subject of the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill.

I can assure the government and all members of this house that such a thoroughgoing consideration will be given of the government proposed legislation when that comes to be presented—I hope sometime in the near term. I commend the motion to the house.

S.E. ANDREWS (Gibson) (11:25): I move the following amendments:

Amend paragraph (a): delete 'and'

Delete (b) and insert new (b):

Notes that extensive consultation undertaken by the Commissioner for First Nations Voice overwhelmingly supports a fully elected First Nations Voice, that is able to speak directly to the South Australian parliament; and

Insert new (c):

Congratulates the Malinauskas Labor government for listening to the hopes and aspirations of First Nations South Australians in developing a First Nations Voice to the South Australian parliament.

This motion rightly recognises that this state is home to the oldest continuing culture in the world. For more than 60,000 years, Aboriginal people have called this continent home. We cannot right the wrongs of colonisation, of assimilation or of the stolen generations, but we can commit to reconciliation and take meaningful action to get there. The Malinauskas Labor government is committed to doing just that. It is significant that the very first thing the now Premier did in his victory speech on election night was restate our government's commitment to delivering on the Uluru Statement from the Heart: Voice, Treaty, Truth.

In July this year, our state's inaugural Commissioner for First Nations Voice, Mr Dale Agius, was appointed. A Kaurna, Narungga, Ngadjuri and Ngarrindjeri man, Commissioner Agius immediately embarked on stage 1 of his consultations with Aboriginal communities across the state. This included more than 30 engagement sessions with communities, listening directly to Aboriginal South Australians about what they want the Voice to achieve, how it should work and how it should be built.

Just last week, on 9 November 2022, the government released the report of Commissioner Agius' stage 1 consultation. The report details the commissioner's engagement with over 400 people across the state, across seven metropolitan and 17 regional and remote communities. It was an enormous effort and shows just how dedicated this government is to ensuring the Voice reflects the views and aspirations of Aboriginal communities right across the state.

The report, and the extensive feedback it contains from Aboriginal South Australians, forms the basis of the draft First Nations Voice Bill 2022 released by Minister Kyam Maher last week. The bill proposes a fully elected Voice to Parliament at two levels: a local First Nations Voice bringing together people from a particular region, and a state First Nations Voice bringing together the presiding members of each local Voice. This reflects the feedback we heard from the community.

People want a say on the issues that matter in their local community. There is no homogenous Aboriginal South Australia, and we should not just have one Aboriginal Voice. But, equally, Aboriginal people want a say on the issues affecting them at the state level, and so the state Voice is a critical component and will have a powerful say on issues affecting Aboriginal people. This includes the right to speak on bills in the House of Assembly, the right to present reports and the right to make an annual address to the parliament. Similarly, the state Voice will have an annual ability to hold engagement hearings, to question ministers on issues affecting Aboriginal communities, and it will have a direct ability to communicate with departmental chief executives through chief executives' briefings at least twice a year.

Importantly, though, this is not the final bill. Commissioner Agius is now embarking on a stage 2 consultation with Aboriginal communities. Having heard the views of Aboriginal South Australians and used them to shape the draft legislation, we are now going back to them. We want to make sure this bill reflects the vision Aboriginal people have for their Voice to Parliament and we want their feedback on the further details needed to make this work. That consultation is now underway, with a view to having a final version of the bill introduced to parliament early next year.

I acknowledge the enormous efforts of the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, Dr Roger Thomas, and all those who worked on the former Liberal government's Aboriginal Representative Body Bill 2021. Unfortunately, the former government did a significant disservice to Dr Thomas and to the Aboriginal community in South Australia by leaving the development of their model so late that there were only 11 days of consultation on their legislation before it was introduced to parliament.

The new Labor government has made some deliberate decisions to differ from the previous government's process, which is why we are seeking to amend this motion today. The previous government's bill proposed a representative body that would communicate with a new committee of the parliament, rather than the parliament itself. The body would have been appointed by government at first and was designed to have some appointed seats throughout. Only five of 13 members would have been directly elected by Aboriginal people, and Aboriginal people were only given 11 days to comment on the draft bill before it was introduced to parliament.

All these were concerns held by Labor in opposition, as we expressed when the former bill was presented to parliament, and are things we wanted to consult on having come to government. The feedback that we have heard from Aboriginal people, as detailed in Commissioner Dale Agius' report, is that they wanted a different approach from the one proposed by the former Liberal government.

The Malinauskas Labor government is committed to delivering on the Uluru Statement from the Heart at the state level—Voice, Treaty, Truth. We are consulting closely with Aboriginal people on what they want the Voice to Parliament to look like, how it should be built and how it should operate, and we look forward to introducing a bill resulting from that consultation to parliament in the new year.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:31): I thank the member for Gibson for the contribution to the debate. While I disagree with the amendment and commend the motion in its original form to the house, there might be some brief observation perhaps to leave us all with at this point, in that we anticipate at some point that the government will present a bill to the house.

I listened carefully to the member for Gibson and there is some elucidation of what has been described as the consultation process. I have heard that there is consultation to come, and we have heard something of the nature of the body that is to be the subject of a government bill as may be proposed down the track.

The key point I would emphasise in the course of this debate is that it not be characterised by either a signalling of virtue on the one hand or unnecessary partisanship on the other and to emphasise that whatever step we propose in this place ought to be characterised by humility, informed certainly by consultation and that it must provide for a practical means by which we can progress conciliation in this state and nation. I ask all members to reflect upon that.

It is not about the ownership of a process on one side of politics or another, but rather about what ought to be a uniting, ambitious and thoroughgoing process towards implementing a practical structure through which we can all go to somewhere new together. Again, I say that in all humility. I look forward to seeing the further work that might be done as consultation continues. As I indicated, there may be a bill that is presented that is in a form along the lines of what we have seen so far and we will have occasion to look at that closely subsequently. I commend the original motion to the house.

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.