<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="4.0" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML">
  <name>Legislative Council</name>
  <date date="2023-02-08T14:15:00+10:30" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>55</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>1</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Legislative Council</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="1879" />
  <endPage num="1923" />
  <dateModified time="2023-07-06T09:45:01+09:30" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>First Nations Voice to Parliament</name>
      <text id="20230208e6526c9e9e4c422390000103">
        <heading>First Nations Voice to Parliament</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="6929" referenceid="53ca1cd2e19847a59766892bec169fa3" kind="question">
        <name>The Hon. S.L. GAME</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <questions>
          <question date="2023-02-08T03:45:00+10:30">
            <name>First Nations Voice to Parliament</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2023-02-08T14:39:51+10:30" />
        <text id="20230208e6526c9e9e4c422390000104">
          <timeStamp time="2023-02-08T14:39:51+10:30" />
          <by role="member" id="6929" referenceid="53ca1cd2e19847a59766892bec169fa3">The Hon. S.L. GAME (14:39):</by>  I seek leave to make a brief explanation prior to addressing a question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on the First Nations Voice to Parliament.</text>
        <text id="20230208e6526c9e9e4c422390000105">Leave granted.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="6929" referenceid="53ca1cd2e19847a59766892bec169fa3" kind="question" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. S.L. GAME</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20230208e6526c9e9e4c422390000106">
          <by role="member" id="6929" referenceid="53ca1cd2e19847a59766892bec169fa3">The Hon. S.L. GAME:</by>  The advance copy of the First Nations Voice Bill 2023, which was sent to my office yesterday but is yet to be publicly released, states that a person will be taken to be a First Nations person if the person is of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. They must also 'regard themselves as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander' and be 'accepted as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person by the relevant Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community'. The bill furthermore states that 'a person will be taken to be of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent if the person is biologically descended from the persons who inhabited Australia' before European settlement.</text>
        <text id="20230208e6526c9e9e4c422390000107">Concerns from Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people have been raised with me about how far in one's ancestry a person can go back before claiming to be an Aboriginal person and how this could be evidenced. For example, somebody who is only able to trace Aboriginality to their great-grandmother, representing approximately 12.5 per cent Aboriginality or seven-eighths non-Indigenous lineage, could be considered an Aboriginal person for the purposes of the bill, despite not necessarily having a confirmed connection to Aboriginal culture or country. An obliging Aboriginal community organisation that is willing to provide 'proof' or 'confirmation of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait heritage' would appear sufficient.</text>
        <text id="20230208e6526c9e9e4c422390000108">The First Nations Voice commissioner's first engagement report highlighted a range of concerns about requirements to demonstrate First Nations identity and that it would need to be carefully considered and managed sensitively and inclusively. It states that many people raised significant challenges finding organisations willing to issue proof or confirmation of First Nations heritage and some community members suggested that any government-led process to decide a person's First Nations identity is inappropriate.</text>
        <page num="1885" />
        <text id="20230208e6526c9e9e4c422390000109">The second engagement report heeds these concerns and the requirement for voters to submit proof of Aboriginality has now been dropped under the current model. My questions to the Aboriginal affairs minister are:</text>
        <text id="20230208e6526c9e9e4c422390000110">1.&amp;#x9;Is the minister concerned about a potential increase in racism and racial resentment due to there being no requirement for voters to submit proof of Aboriginality?</text>
        <text id="20230208e6526c9e9e4c422390000111">2.&amp;#x9;Is the minister comfortable with the scrutiny of First Nations Voice members that might follow from a requirement to prove Aboriginality?</text>
        <text id="20230208e6526c9e9e4c422390000112">3.&amp;#x9;Has the government considered an alternative approach that considers needs-based support for disadvantaged South Australians, rather than support based on race or the place of origin of one's descendants?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4697" referenceid="c1607c57d2294390bdc2b07c15f35010" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. K.J. MAHER</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Aboriginal Affairs</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Attorney-General</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <startTime time="2023-02-08T14:42:38+10:30" />
        <text id="20230208e6526c9e9e4c422390000113">
          <timeStamp time="2023-02-08T14:42:38+10:30" />
          <by role="member" id="4697" referenceid="c1607c57d2294390bdc2b07c15f35010">The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:42):</by>  I thank the honourable member for her question and for her interest in this area. Certainly, they are questions that have been grappled with in the past. As I think I answered the honourable Leader of the Opposition's question, the tripartite test that is involved in the final version of the bill was one which was suggested by a number of organisations who submitted during the consultation phase from the original draft of the bill. </text>
        <text id="20230208e6526c9e9e4c422390000114">It's one that has been considered by the High Court in the past and it's one that is probably the most commonly used definition we have that governments right across Australia use. We think after consultations that it's the most appropriate one that ought to be used.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>