Question Time

Federal Voice to Parliament Referendum

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Leader of the Opposition) (14:02): My question is to the Premier. Has the Premier's attitude towards the Voice referendum changed over the past three months and, if so, why? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order from the Leader of Government Business.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Standing order 97: the question assumes a level of facts in the question and I ask the member to rephrase the question.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order to the point of order. I will hear the member for Morialta.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The question was: has the Premier's attitude changed? It doesn't presume any facts.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: As the Government Whip helpfully claims, it presumes that he has an attitude and, if that is the standard to which the government thinks anyone should be held—that a minister has an attitude towards a matter of public policy—then that is nonsensical.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! It's a matter of very fine judgement. Different or reasonable people might come to different conclusions about the use of the language. It may be that there is a more neutral way of expressing the same point—for example, what is the Premier's view, or if the Premier—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Yes, indeed. However, I am going to—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Indeed, 'Does the Premier have a view?' The Leader of the Opposition is creative enough, and an experienced legislator, that I am sure he will come to a form of words that will be acceptable to all.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Premier stand by his comments from June? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: In June, the Premier stated in parliament, 'I will do everything I can as Premier of this state to advocate for a yes vote to our national parliament.' In contrast, last week The Advertiser reported that the Premier, and I quote:

...is vowing the...the federal Voice to Parliament [campaign] won't disrupt his 'day job'…

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The question is in order, and the Premier has the call.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Premier) (14:04): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I say that with a moment of pause. Nothing will disrupt me or anyone from the government on executing our day job. Our day job, of course, particularly in respect of myself, is a diverse range of responsibilities, and I do consider one of those responsibilities to be to publicly advocate for a change to the constitution that I think makes Australia a fairer place.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: This is a view that I and my team have had for some time. I am very proud to remind the Leader of the Opposition that the very first policy that we announced as a Labor opposition under my leadership was to initiate a Voice to Parliament and honour the Uluru Statement from the Heart—the very first policy that we committed ourselves to.

The Leader of the Opposition asks if anyone has changed their position, and I think that is a reasonable question. Is there anyone in this parliament who has changed their position on a Voice to Parliament? As it turns out, there are a whole range of people in this parliament who have changed their position with respect to a Voice to Parliament because in the lead-up to the election—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has the call.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: In the lead-up to the election, the then Marshall government had a position not only to support a Voice to Parliament but to legislate one themselves.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Of course, they never got around to it—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Morialta!

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: —which was par for the course for almost every position they had on almost every single issue. They never got around to legislating the Voice.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Morialta is warned.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: We committed to it, and we did it within 12 months of forming office because when we say we are going to do something, we do it, particularly when it is something—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Badcoe!

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: —that is core to our beliefs. On 30 August, only a few weeks ago, I was very proud to be with the Prime Minister of our nation in the northern suburbs of Adelaide to launch the yes campaign for the change to our constitution to establish the Voice to Parliament. I spoke at this event only a few weeks ago with the Prime Minister. I have had the opportunity to be able to do a few different campaign events in and around that. We will maintain our effort on this side of the chamber to advocate for the change.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: It is important for the Australian community, including South Australians, to understand the proposition that is before them. It is very simple: it is whether or not we establish a non-binding advisory committee to advise the Commonwealth of Australia on matters that pertain to the interests of Aboriginal people.

I for one have a pretty simple view, which is that Aboriginal people are entitled to a Voice on matters that pertain to their interests, which is why we have legislated for the Voice to Parliament in South Australia. We look forward to that being up and running next year. No-one on this side of the house has changed their position, but I note that almost everyone on the opposite side of the house has.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!