Bills

First Nations Voice Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:32): I will resume from where I left off prior to lunch. Just a quick recap: I was making a key point that I think on these sorts of issues it is important that we try to put our political stripes aside and debate the merit of the issue. The general point I was making is that I think it has largely been the case for some substantial time that the issue of Aboriginal affairs has been a bipartisan issue and, in fact, a multipartisan issue.

That does not mean there have not been disagreements about policy. Of course there have been disagreements about policy and, in fact, there is a disagreement about this proposed legislative change at the moment. I see no issue with that. I just think it needs to be acknowledged that some of these issues are of such importance that we need to ensure that the joint objective does not get clouded by some of the political argy-bargy which, to some extent, may be inevitable, but it is important that we all keep that in mind.

I made the point prior to lunch that I think the proof in the pudding, if you like, that Australians and South Australians have been committed to Indigenous affairs and improving the lot of Aboriginal Australians and South Australians is borne out in many ways, but the two ways I chose to highlight that was, firstly, through the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, which maintains a register, which I outlined, of every Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporation that is available to assist Aboriginal people here in South Australia. It lists at the moment some 191 such organisations; I was quite surprised to hear it was that high. That in itself suggests a real commitment by the people of South Australia, who are funding them of course, to Aboriginal people.

Furthermore, I mentioned prior to lunch the, the Indigenous Expenditure Report the Productivity Commission produced in 2017, which outlined the expenditure for Indigenous people in Australia relative to non-Indigenous people, and it was roughly double. Again, I think that serves to add further justification to the point that this is an issue that is taken seriously by Australians and South Australians, and is something that I think the evidence bears out.

Along those lines, to suggest that Australian and South Australian citizens are not making a genuine effort, a very substantial effort, to improve the circumstances of Indigenous Australians is not supported by the facts. The obvious question becomes: to what extent will this bill do that? To what extent will this bill do what billions of dollars and all these organisations and institutions cannot? In that light, the debate becomes about how the parliament takes steps to improve the plight of Aboriginal South Australians; that is, how we actually do it.

Labor's proposed solution is contained in the bill before us. I say at the outset that I am of the firm belief that the measures proposed in this bill are not the answer to furthering the social inclusion and general wellbeing of Aboriginal South Australians. Although proponents of the bill may be well intentioned—I have no doubt they are—I am not at all confident it will achieve any better outcomes for Indigenous people in South Australia.

Legislating this one specific group unprecedented access to and influence upon the machinery of state, based solely on their race, will ultimately severely undermine the democratic principles that have served us so well, and may potentially lead to deteriorating outcomes. Of course, I am not arguing that is the intention—nobody is arguing that—but it is the risk, I feel. There are consequences here and potentially unintended consequences as well.

When introducing this bill the Attorney-General stated that Aboriginal people must have the ability to make representations to this parliament and to the government and to have a voice in that process, and I totally agree with that. The same should be said for all South Australians. Each of us elected as members are responsible for representing our constituents, including Indigenous South Australians. Every Indigenous South Australian, like every other South Australian, has access to the local members, state and federal, as well as senators and MLCs, who are well positioned to listen to and represent their views through deliberations within the parliament.

We also have a minister, of course, who is responsible for Aboriginal affairs in this state who, presumably, would ensure that Indigenous people have a voice throughout our processes wherever relevant in the same way South Australians with disabilities, domestic violence victims, veterans and children in state care have representation through their own dedicated ministers. Each of these groups will inherently at some stage be affected by the actions of this parliament and the state government of the day. However, I doubt there would ever be a suggestion that these other sectors of the community have the same direct and exclusive participation in the democratic process as is proposed for Indigenous Australians in this bill.

It is feasible that the passage of this bill could be the catalyst for other minority groups to demand the same rights and access to the parliament, the executive and the bureaucracy as this bill proposes for Aboriginal Australians. What chance does any of us feel that any other group would have in achieving special legislation creating these privileges for them? I suggest no chance at all, as it would be seen as a violation of important democratic principles, yet that is exactly what is being proposed by this bill and is my primary reason for objecting to it.

I am of the implacable view that every person should have equal opportunity to have their voice heard by their elected representatives. That is an essential and foundational principle of democracy. We do not have need for a Jewish, Italian, Irish or German voice to parliament, because there are longstanding mechanisms in place for every individual to have input throughout our processes on an equal footing. This is as it should be. Indeed, this is as it must be, because in my view the proposal of giving one group of people rights and privileges that others do not have will lead to disharmony and unrest, and will ultimately prove divisive, which risks declining outcomes rather than improved ones.

Again, I stress that I am not suggesting this is the intention—I know it is not, in fact—but I believe it is certainly a risk. I have always had a friendly working relationship with the Attorney-General and, although we are clearly from opposite ends of the political spectrum, I believe it is fair to say we have worked together positively and cooperatively, whether in agreement or fierce disagreement. For that reason, I respectfully take issue with some comments made during his second reading speech, where he proclaimed that:

Campaigns like these do come at a cost, and it is one that is borne most heavily by those whom bigoted and hateful people are already inclined to denigrate and vilify.

Many South Australians who object to the implementation of the Voice, or this model of the Voice, at a state or federal level will take offence at this statement. Upholding the view that one race should not wield any more instituted legislative power than another is quite literally the opposite of bigotry. It is merely espousing the ideal that each person is equally valuable and should have the same right and opportunity to express their beliefs and be heard equally.

Indeed, among the many public personalities who have been vocal in campaigning against the Voice to Parliament are numerous high profile Indigenous Australians. Surely they are not bigoted and hateful? I know they are not, because of their stance. Of course not; of course they are not. They cannot be racist against their own race; this is just silly. There is no need for such language, and I choose not to use it. For instance, in reference to the federal Labor government's moves towards introducing a national Voice to Parliament, Senator Jacinta Price has stated:

We don't just have 11 representatives in federal parliament who are voices for Aboriginal Australians but an entire parliament full! It is our responsibility, each and every democratically elected member of parliament's responsibility, to represent the voices of all of our constituents, including Aboriginal constituents…The Voice—

in her words—

is just a hand ball for those who want to have a too hard basket so as not to take responsibility.

Senator Price has also declared that:

…our now Labor Primer Minister…suggests without any evidence whatsoever that a Voice to Parliament bestowed upon us through the virtuous act of symbolic gesture by this government is what is going to empower us…and has yet to demonstrate how this proposed Voice will deliver practical outcomes and unite rather than drive a wedge further between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia.

Some people may say, 'Well, she's from the Liberal Party. That's her view,' and in fact at a state level the Liberal Party is clearly opposing this bill, so they might expect that. If they take that view, I point to a former Labor federal MP and former National President of the Labor Party, Warren Mundine AO.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Former MP?

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: He was, wasn't he? No? I beg your pardon. I may stand corrected. He was certainly a former national president, wasn't he?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Sorry, that is fair. If I am wrong about it, I stand corrected. Forgive me. Anyway, former national president, let's say, Warren Mundine, an Indigenous man obviously, has echoed Senator Price's sentiments, stating:

…an old mindset dominates Aboriginal affairs that prefers words and symbolic gestures over action…

These are his words, not mine:

The principal focus of the [Uluru] statement…seems to be a repackaging of the same old dogma that has defined (and failed) Aboriginal affairs for too many years; namely, that only Aboriginal people are qualified to speak about Aboriginal issues…

Platitudes such as 'Aboriginal people taking care of Aboriginal affairs' sound lovely but essentially amount to separatism…More will be achieved with an 'us' mentality than an 'us-them' mentality that has dominated Aboriginal affairs for far too long.

These are just two prominent Aboriginal Australians, from both sides of the political fence, who have publicly opposed a model along the lines of that in this bill. Clearly, it is nothing short of silly to suggest that these Aboriginal community leaders could somehow be racist against Aboriginal people. Clearly, they are not, and yet their opposition to the kind of model being presented here is crystal clear.

To Mr Mundine's point, I think it is pertinent to consider the views of a body that represents arguably the most persecuted ethnic group of people in history. David Adler, the President of the Australian Jewish Association, has had this to say about a model of the Voice. To be fair, he is talking about a federal model. He says:

Jews will understand from bitter experience that the political creation of ethnic or racial divisions in society is not a good thing. The creation of unique political rights or advantages for one ethnic or racial group will inevitably cause resentment and friction…The AJA executive sees the…Voice proposal and will be voting 'No'…

Again, I stress these comments were regarding the federal situation, of course, but I believe they have parallels here in our state.

I unreservedly agree with these sentiments. In this place, we as members consider myriad points of view through our deliberations and make judgements according to what we consider to be in the best interests of all South Australians. I genuinely fear that by granting a more prominent voice to one particular group—any group, whoever that is—decision-makers will feel somewhat beholden to that constituency, particularly if those in office are held to a more stringent account if they choose not to comply with their requests or demands.

Given this bill singles out a people group, we cannot be naive to think that public figures would not seek to avoid being labelled racist in their actions if it went against their better judgement if they were being pressured to do so by the particular group, in this case the Voice. Indeed, with regard to changing the way our democracy works with the proposed federal Voice referendum, along the lines of what this bill proposes, Peta Credlin aptly wrote:

Fundamentally, what is at stake in this debate is: who really runs Australia? Is it the Parliament elected by all Australian citizens; or is it the Parliament, provided the 800,000 Indigenous people represented by the Voice don't object?

I submit that the same could be said at a state level. If a South Australian Voice is instituted, who will run our state? Our parliament elected by all South Australian citizens of voting age or our parliament provided the 43,000 Indigenous people represented by the State Voice do not object? It is an unprecedented amount of leverage that will be handed to one group. I believe that should it pass, as expected, there will be many unexpected consequences.

In his second reading explanation, the Attorney-General informed us that he and the Premier decided they simply could not wait for the possibility of the federal government to enact the Uluru Statement. My question is: why the rush to establish a Voice to the South Australian parliament? Why not wait until we have the results of the referendum on a federal Voice?

I would have thought it to be far more prudent and logical to gauge community sentiment before pushing this legislation through. It would certainly be beneficial for members to have more clarity as to what Australians truly think about the concept in general before this bill comes to a vote. Or, if they prefer, why doesn't the state government seek to ask South Australians via a state referendum or plebiscite, in order to gauge public opinion?

Surely such a fundamental change to our democratic process must be endorsed by the citizens of South Australia before it and all the consequences intended and unintended are thrust upon them. After all, this bill does seek to amend the constitution of South Australia. Surely the people of South Australia have a right to approve changes to their constitution prior to the government of the day deciding what is best for them.

South Australians, in this case, deserve to be heard right across the state. It is ironic that this bill purports to create a Voice to Parliament and actually changes the South Australian constitution but is being rushed through the Legislative Council in just one week without the authority of a successful referendum to endorse it.

As political commentator Matthew Abraham has observed, this bill will effectively create another tier of government in our state, at least in one way of thinking about it, and one that is far less accountable than our elected local, state and federal governments, as they currently stand. Our parliament should proceed with caution. Indeed, in my view, it should not proceed at all without a statewide plebiscite to give it the moral authority that such a change demands.

I am proud to be a member of the Liberal Party, which has a rich history of acting in the interests of our Indigenous communities. It was the Liberal Party, after all, who dismantled the White Australia Policy and delivered the 1967 referendum to unify Australians, leading to improved rights and welfare of our Indigenous people.

It was the Hon. David Tonkin who was the first Premier to sign a land rights act with the Indigenous people and, of course, the Hon. Dean Brown moved a motion to our parliament to express its deep and sincere regret at the forced separation of some Aboriginal children from their families and homes prior to 1964 and apologised for these past actions, while reaffirming support for reconciliation between all Australians.

As I indicated earlier, I trust that we are able to continue pursuing policies that work together achieving better outcomes in the health, life expectancy, education, employment and housing situation of Indigenous people in South Australia, but I do not accept that this will be accomplished by a Voice to our parliament as it is termed in this bill.

My concern for the disruption to our democracy and my belief that all people are created equal, and should be treated as such, will ultimately dictate my vote on this bill. To conclude, I think one of Australia's greatest sportspeople, the late Lionel Rose, who just happened to be an Aboriginal man, summed it up best when he said:

I think of myself as an Australian. I don't go in for all this black and white thing. To me, we're all Australians.

I wholeheartedly agree and for the reasons outlined and a whole lot of others, I will oppose the bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:48): I rise today to speak on this historic piece of legislation. The Greens acknowledge that this is country that was invaded and sovereignty from First Nations people was never ceded. First Nations people were violently dispossessed, had their children stolen, their families separated, and their lands, waters and skies stolen and destroyed. Successive governments have perpetrated grave injustices since colonisation and we recognise its continuance today.

This is a First Nations Voice Bill for the South Australian parliament. I would also call it a South Australian parliament 'listen bill'; listen for a change and engage in dialogue, not just monologue. What is wrong we must make right. Endemic racism, oppression, misunderstanding, ignorance and the lack of knowledge and education have meant that First Nations people have generationally been subjected to policies and legislation that have impoverished many of their lives.

The Greens want First Nations people to have self-determination over their country, to prosper and to achieve the aspirations that they have for their lives and the lives of their children. We strive for First Nations people to have all they need to live their lives in health, wellbeing and peace on their lands. It is time to recognise that First Nations people's knowledge and law systems provide the foundation for true self-determination.

In 2017, some 250 First Nations delegates and leaders convened at the First Nations National Constitutional Convention, a first of its kind. They were there to address their peoples' institutionalised marginalisation. There they drafted what is called the Uluru Statement from the Heart, a call to all Australians. The Uluru Statement from the Heart reads:

We, gathered at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart:

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 aliened 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 the torment 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.

In 2017, that call went out to all Australians, and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called it a 'third chamber', a call he now admits was wrong. Tearfully, last year on television, he called for all Australians to now support the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full for Voice, Treaty and Truth. I am sure he will not be the only Liberal regretting their call in that way. Let's hope that they do so before they leave the position of elected authority in the future, rather than once they are safely ensconced away from the green or red leather benches.

The Uluru Statement offers a new path built on over 200 years of continuing cultures, activism, survival, resistance and countless failed policies and interventions. The Uluru Statement is a self-determining document that sets practical and meaningful groundwork of how to implement, protect and enforce that self-determination through the three key pillars of Voice, Treaty, Truth.

To be specific, the Uluru Statement seeks two changes. First, they hope to secure a First Nations Voice enshrined in the constitution. This constitutional recognition would provide First Nations people with entrenched protection to express their desires and needs in parliament. Second, they seek to establish a Makarrata Commission to oversee agreement making and truth-telling.

Around the country, we are watching unfold the debate for whether we should provide recognition for our First Nations people's voice on a federal level. We have now been given the opportunity here in South Australia to lead by example and ensure First Nations people of South Australia get the recognition and respect from this parliament that they not only deserve but the recognition they called for in that Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Despite what may have been said, there is strong public support for this First Nations Voice. Australians have shown that they are ready to accept the Uluru Statement's invitation to walk with First Nations people in a movement for a better future. From religious groups to peak organisation and cultural bodies, there is a strong united front. I come from a party—the Greens—where 87 per cent at least of our supporters support a Voice to Parliament and the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. I note that at least 80 per cent of First Nations Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians support a Voice to Parliament.

I note that the no campaign has called for a migrant voice to be included, something quickly countered by the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia, who in fact support a First Nations Voice to Parliament. Indeed, FECCA states that:

A fair and inclusive society must start with justice for First Nations peoples…Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the structures that govern this country is essential to self-determination within a fair and inclusive society.

There has also been strident support from leaders of at least 10 mainstream religious groups who have demanded immediate action for a First Nations Voice to Parliament. These religious groups include the Anglican Church of Australia, the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference, the Australian National Imams Council, the Australian Sangha Association, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Hindu Council of Australia, the National Council of Churches in Australia, the National Sikh Council of Australia and the Uniting Church.

In fact, a joint resolution signed by the leaders of these groups declared bipartisan support and that action was 'necessary, right and reasonable'. That resolution reads:

There have been many processes and much work completed...there can be no more delay, our country has wanted and waited too long for justice...Indigenous Australians must now be afforded their rightful place (in the Australian Constitution).

The work of Reconciliation Australia has also shown that there is consistent public support in giving recognition to a First Nations Voice. The Australian Reconciliation Barometer, which is a two-yearly survey on public attitudes to reconciliation, shows in fact that 93 per cent of Australians believe it is important for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to have a say in the matters that affect them. It also showed that 87 per cent of Australians believe it is important to have a First Nations Voice enshrined in legislation, both at a federal and state level.

This statistic, of course, is echoed by the Greens' support, with a Guardian Essential poll showing our support at the moment at 89 per cent of our intended voters. That clear public opinion should be being heard loud and clear right now by the people in this place, but it perhaps shows that we just do not want to listen. I hope that changes.

Our country unequivocally lags behind on the right to self-determination and in particular in the rules of political participation and participation in decision-making in matters affecting First Nations people. On Thursday 21 March 2013, South Australia's constitution was amended to recognise Aboriginal people as the traditional owners and occupiers of South Australian land and waters. This amendment acknowledged past injustices and recognised the continuing importance of Aboriginal heritage and culture.

The next step is giving First Nations people a voice in the policies which impact upon them. Although it will be a decade later, I hope that we will finally see an implementation of that systemic change that is long overdue. This bill will help South Australian First Nations people have a voice, a rightful place at the table. As I have often heard it said by Aboriginal elders, 'If you're not at the table, you're on the menu.' We know that First Nations people are often on the menu in this place and certainly just given the scraps far too often.

This bill will dissolve the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee and give those decisions back to people who will be impacted upon the most. Historically, there have been numerous bodies established by First Peoples, unilaterally by governments or in consultation with First Nations people. However, these bodies have not been properly valued for the potential that they have had to bring about long-lasting change. Here today, we will amend our Constitution Act and recognise this First Nations Voice be heard and make a unique and irreplaceable contribution to our South Australian parliament.

I am glad that South Australia is the state leading the charge. I hope that other states and territories watch this journey of our First Nations and our parliament very closely. South Australia, of course, has led the way in terms of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander reforms and First Nations rights since in fact before Federation. A pioneering piece of legislation that we can all be rightly proud of was passed in this place: the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act, the first ever act in Australia to recognise Aboriginal land rights, was assented to in December 1966. That was a first major recognition by any government in this nation in that way.

I am also proud that under a Liberal government the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Dean Brown, was the first—and made us in South Australia the first, following the Bringing Them Home report in May 1997—to apologise to the stolen generations. We were the first mainland state, to implement reparations for stolen generations with a reparation scheme. I acknowledge, Mr President, your role in that and, indeed, the very cross-party collegial manner in which those issues were eventually made real. We were the first in the nation to begin treaty negotiations with the then Weatherill government announcing its commitment to establishing up to 40 treaties across South Australia.

Back when South Australia was what we call a colony, but in fact it liked to call itself a province, we were at the very first session of the federal Constitutional Convention back in March 1897 arguing, under the leadership of Dr John Cockburn, that all Aboriginal people deserved the right to vote—1897 in South Australia. Unfortunately, while we convinced the rest of the country with regard to women being given the franchise, we failed in that leadership to convince the rest of the country.

But I point out that we have a proud history here of leading, and it is a history we should be embracing right now instead of somehow having convenient amnesia about it. Even under the previous Marshall Liberal government, South Australia was the first to introduce legislation that would establish a First Nations Voice to a state parliament. Indeed, such was the support for it that the legislation that was brought forward under the Marshall government was reintroduced under the Malinauskas government via the Liberal opposition. Liberal voters must be scratching their heads today, wondering what on earth has happened in the last 24 hours.

From the feedback that the Greens heard there were concerns about the impact this bill might have on existing agreements the state government has with First Nations people and groups. Part 1, clause 7 provides protection for native title groups and other bodies who have these agreements in place, confirming that nothing in the bill will limit or otherwise affect the functions of any other First Nations persons or bodies. This bill also confirms that we as a parliament recognise that not all people identify as either male or female, and when they nominate for a position on a First Nations Local Voice group they will not be limited by their gender identity.

This First Nations Voice is, of course, only a first step in ensuring that First Nations people in this country and in this state reach self-determination. The Greens have always recognised and supported the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. In fact, we were the first party to do so. That includes not only Voice but also entering into Treaty and ongoing truth-telling through that establishment of a Makarrata Commission. We follow Victoria in this instance, whose Yoorrook Justice Commission is Australia's first formal truth-telling process into the injustices experienced by First Nations people.

This legislation will be our first steps to ensuring institutionalised change continues in the form of a treaty, and truth-telling will continue to recognise the historic and ongoing contemporary wrongs and address ongoing injustices for South Australian Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people.

I want to thank in particular and provide some reflections from a man called Eddie Synot, a proud Wamba Wamba First Nations lawyer and researcher. He helped the South Australian Greens in our deliberations and understanding of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and he is a spokesperson for the Uluru Dialogue. I think he put it best when he said:

Voice is the key. It matters for changing the culture and power of decision-making... Despite all of the effort and resource and everything that goes into closing the gap and the various different policies, things on the ground aren't markedly improving for Indigenous peoples... It's only right and fair that [we] have a direct say in those decisions that are made about us.

The Greens have worked with the Voice commissioner, the Malinauskas government and our communities to make sure that this legislation has the best outcomes for First Nations people in this state. Following consultation with our members and with other First Nations representatives, we did have a few concerns relating to matters including voting mechanisms, a review clause, recognition of the Uluru Statement in full, adequate funding and boundary maps.

Our concerns were considered, and I note that we wrote to the Attorney-General about those concerns, and an exchange of correspondence was undertaken and dialogue occurred. I note that, having been considered, some of our concerns are now reflected in the bill itself, and some are coming forward in amendments to specifically address these concerns.

I also note that I am a member of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee, which I welcome being disbanded by this piece of legislation. It is an oddity, although a product of its time from a well-meaning former minister, to have a cross-party committee of members of parliament charged with addressing issues of Aboriginal affairs. Surely having people at the table will be more effective than where we sit with that right now.

I also note I am a member of that committee and called for a briefing to that committee from the First Nations Voice commissioner, Mr Dale Agius, and that was delayed and deferred by other members of the opposition on that committee to the point where, having had a Liberal opposition member then resign from the parliament and effectively from the committee, by the time that committee was able and willing to hear from the First Nations Voice commissioner, we were not able to because the bill had been brought forward. I note there were six months when we could have had that briefing and that discussion as a committee with that commissioner.

I do hope that the Liberal opposition did avail themselves, outside of that committee opportunity, to take the same briefings, to have the same discussions, that I know the Greens had, that I know One Nation had, that I know SA-Best had. I do hope that those conversations were, in fact undertaken.

I also want to take a little moment to thank some of the important people who have made this legislation possible. I express my deepest thanks to the original Greens of the South Australian Greens that is part of the Australian Greens First Nations Network, the leadership of Uncle Moogy and, indeed, our South Australian Greens co-convenor Brenz Saunders, supported ably by our other co-convenor Peta-Anne Louth, for their wisdom and guidance and their effort to engage.

To the inaugural Commissioner for First Nations Voice, Mr Dale Agius, your enthusiasm and dedication to your work has not gone unnoticed and we do thank you for leading the extensive community consultations. I thank Greens members in South Australia, and constituents and organisations who I have met with to share their stories, concerns and other feedback. I thank the Attorney-General and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Hon. Kyam Maher, as leader in this place for his willingness to maintain an open dialogue, and the multiple briefings that he provided to myself and to the Greens more broadly.

We have known that this debate was coming to this parliament since 2021. In fact, we have had legislation in this parliament for a First Nations Voice to this parliament since 2021. We are here in 2023 hearing concerns that it has all been too rushed. It is quite an extraordinary proposition to claim that.

I wish to conclude by saying this, of course, always was and always will be Aboriginal land, so let's now allow First Nations South Australians to have an effective means of participation within this democracy—it is their democracy—and give them that Voice they so rightly deserve. It is a Voice that will give them the respect they deserve, it is a Voice that they have asked for, it is a Voice that I would hope the parliament will listen to regardless of how we vote on this piece of legislation. In the words of Pat Anderson, Alyawarre woman and co-chair of Uluru Dialogue:

Silence never made history and History is Calling. It is up to all Australians to answer. We call upon the nation to continue walking with us on this [final] stretch to a better future.

In this walk, it struck me that something that has often been reflected upon in this debate is that in 1967, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were, some 70 years after South Australia argued in the federation formation, finally counted, finally seen but still not heard, still silenced. John Howard dismantled ATSIC almost at the stroke of a pen. John Howard as Prime Minister refused to listen, and with the Bringing Them Home report, refused to apologise.

To me as an MP, that is what the call of the Voice is: to listen and to learn, to reflect and to consider, to be better leaders because we have had more than just our own experience presented to us, to be better than we have been before, and that is that better future that Pat Anderson points to—to walk together on this path that the Uluru Statement from the Heart has shown us. That path is clearly going to be one that we are going to need to carve out and perhaps it will not run as smoothly as we would have hoped, due to having a lack of bipartisan support, and sadly, in this debate, not one walked on by all in this place. But when it is done, I hope all of us as leaders, when we have a Voice, will listen. With that, I commend the bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:13): I rise to speak in support of this historic reform. For far too long, First Nations people have been marginalised and excluded from decision-making in our state and, indeed, in our nation. The impact of colonisation on First Nations people has caused intergenerational harm and trauma. From the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their families to the stealing of land, the destruction of cultural practices, Aboriginal people have suffered and continue to suffer injustice and discrimination.

It is time for First Nations people to have a voice in decision-making in this parliament. For most of Australia's colonised history, policies have been inflicted upon First Nations people, not developed with them, not developed by them. Truth-telling is something the Greens recognise as being vital for our journey towards reconciliation. We know that there has been genocide committed against First Nations people and, as I mentioned, children stolen from their families, land stolen and cultural practices destroyed.

We see today, sadly, ongoing systemic racism against First Nations people. We see First Nations children locked up in disproportionate numbers in our jails. We continue to see poorer health outcomes for First Nations people. None of this is acceptable and all of this is a result of systemic racism and the failure of successive governments to provide what Aboriginal people want and need.

Non-Aboriginal people making policies has led to worse outcomes for First Nations people's lives. We need to hear from First Nations people about the issues they face. Now is an opportunity for us to stop and to listen to their voices and to incorporate their perspectives into our decision-making as a parliament. Now is the time for listening and the time for action.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart, delivered in 2017, calls for the establishment of a First Nations Voice to Parliament. The Uluru Statement calls for us to walk together in a spirit of reconciliation. It has asked us to step up and to build a future that is based on respect and understanding.

This statement, as outlined by my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks, has three vital elements: the first being a First Nations Voice so that we can hear and understand the perspectives of all the nations within our country's borders; the second being truth-telling so that we have a relationship built on trust and respect that does not shy away from those uncomfortable truths; and the third being an agreement, a Treaty, so that we can work side by side to build a better future for our country.

The South Australian Greens are committed to all three elements of this statement: Voice, Truth and Treaty. The Greens support the Voice to Parliament at both a state and federal level. At a state level, this legislation is a crucial step in bringing First Nations voices into our parliament and into our deliberative processes.

When he introduced this bill into this chamber, the Hon. Kyam Maher, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, reflected on the historic nature of this reform, and I echo those statements. As our nation prepares for a referendum on a First Nations Voice later this year, South Australia has an opportunity, which has been presented by the Malinauskas government, to lead. It is only right that we do so as we have a proud history of social reform.

We have a proud history of confronting prejudice and hatred, tackling those issues that divide us: sexism, racism, homophobia. Ours was the first state in the country to legalise trade unions in 1876, the first state in the country to give women the right to vote in 1894, the first place in the world to give women the right to stand for parliament in 1896, the first state in the country to decriminalise homosexual acts in 1975, the first state in the country to make age-based discrimination unlawful in 1991—the list goes on. History is calling us once again, and once again South Australians will heed the call.

The battle for First Nations' justice, of which the Voice is an important component, is part of a broader fight against racism and inequality in our state. The same ideology of hate that is used to deny Aboriginal South Australians their rightful place in our civic and political life is the same ugly ideology that has been used to deny women their basic rights. It is the same ideology that has been used to deny the rights of LGBTI people. As the late, great Reverend Martin Luther King once observed, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'

While we have so much work left to do in our state, South Australians have led the way in confronting these injustices, and we will do so yet again. Supporting a Voice to Parliament is a continuation of that great story of progress. Creating a Voice will enable First Nations people to move towards self-determination by finally being heard in making laws, policies and programs.

Too often in our democracy the voices of some drown out the voices of others, but by having a direct link to parliament through direct addresses, reports and hearings, the First Nations Voice to Parliament will be a foundation of our decision making. As a democratically-elected body, the Voice will be built on the principles of equality and fairness. I am hopeful that this model will lead to better outcomes for First Nations people in our state.

We recognise that the challenges in South Australia are immense. Over 50 per cent of our incarcerated youth are First Nations people, and Indigenous people are 15 times more likely to experience homelessness than other Australians. It is clear that we need to take urgent action to address these issues, and the Greens will continue to fight for these issues to be addressed in the parliament.

The Greens will continue to amplify the voices of First Nations people and groups such as Change the Record that have been telling us to address issues such as: raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14; investing in community-led, evidence-based programs to reduce criminal offending; building more culturally appropriate, affordable and public housing; and providing long-term investment in First Nations community-controlled housing sectors and specialist homelessness services.

This is an opportunity for the parliament to take a collective step in the right direction. I am very proud to vote for this bill, just as I will be very proud to vote yes in the referendum that will be held later this year. It is my hope that what we are doing in the parliament this week will move us closer to achieving a future where First Nations people's voices are finally heard, and where we have a parliament that is truly representative of all South Australians, not just the few.

In summing-up, I want to reflect on some of the arguments that have been made against this reform. I do think it is disappointing that there is not a multipartisan approach being taken to this reform, that the Liberal Party has chosen to join One Nation in opposing this legislation—I think that is regrettable for our state. Some of the claims that have been made in this parliament are, quite frankly, false. The suggestion that this is a third chamber is not true. No-one has proposed that a third chamber of parliament be created, and that is certainly not what this is.

Some members have asked: what message does a Voice to Parliament send to children of the future? I submit that the message is very clear: the message is that this parliament and the South Australian community recognises the sovereignty of First Nations people, recognises the unique role they should play in our democracy and wants to give them a voice in this parliament. That is a very powerful and important message to send to our children.

I have heard it suggested that, somehow, by creating a Voice to Parliament we are stoking the fires of division or even racism. I find that a nonsensical argument. Sadly, racism and systemic racism against Aboriginal people has been a persistent force in our state. We cannot overcome that if we do not give Aboriginal people a genuine voice in this parliament. A Voice to Parliament is not about furthering race-based division or furthering inequality; rather, it is about creating the conditions where we can finally overcome it.

I have also heard it said in this place that this is giving unfair treatment to one particular group over another. Rather, what this parliament is doing is recognising the unique role that First Nations people should play in this parliament as the traditional owners of this land, the land on which this parliament sits, and that is one small way of moving us on the path of reconciliation.

In concluding, I want to join with my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks in thanking the members of the South Australian Greens for their leadership internally on this, in particular our First Nations Greens group, the Original Greens. I want to thank my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks for her leadership in the work that she has done with the government on this important reform but also in engaging with First Nations groups over many years. I know that this has been a long-term project.

I want to recognise the leadership of the Attorney-General and thank him for the collegial way in which he has engaged with our party on this important reform. I feel genuinely excited about the potential that lies ahead. It is not often in political life that we have an opportunity to vote for something that can make a genuine difference and has the opportunity to genuinely change things for the better. I see this as being one such opportunity and I urge all members of parliament to get behind it, and let's make the most of what comes next.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:25): I am humbled to be standing here today to speak on the First Nations Voice Bill 2023 on behalf of SA-Best. As we do at the commencement of every parliamentary session, I would like to take this opportunity also to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the Kaurna land on which we meet and extend my respects to elders past, present and emerging. I also acknowledge that this place, and indeed this parliament, has contributed to the overwhelming and disproportionate disadvantage of our First Nations people.

This is an historic day for First Nations people across the state and hopefully in the months to come across the nation. It takes a bold move, and indeed bold leadership, to put forward a model that we know deals with uncomfortable truths which we have all collectively allowed to go on unheard or unaddressed or both. For many years, this place has failed to truly listen to the views, needs and wants of our First Nations people. Despite any best intentions or endeavours, your voices have not been truly heard in our lawmaking, our policies or our legislation, and you have borne the consequences and outcomes of these processes without voice, without truth-telling and without treaty.

I have not walked in your shoes, which is why I do not intend to stand here today and speak for you. I know when we make speeches in this place we all look for advice, we look for mentorship, we look for guidance, for people who have lived experience. We search for words that inspire us to do a bill or an issue justice. For my advice and guidance and inspiration, I knew exactly who to turn to. When it comes to issues like this at the heart of this bill or our First Nations people and the issues they confront, I often turn to someone who is known to many of us in this place fondly as Aunty Pat.

I acknowledge also the presence here today of another well-respected elder, known to many of us as Uncle Moogy. It is hard to sit with Aunty Pat and not be moved by her words, her knowledge, her lived experience, her voice and indeed her anguish. Like many First Nations people, and our elders in particular, Aunty Pat is much better placed to explain the importance of this legislation than I could ever be. For that reason, I will use this privilege opportunity to read a statement prepared by her, in her own words, about what this means to her and so many First Nations people.

Of course, as we know only too well, Aunty Pat's is not the only voice, but her words undoubtedly resonate with First Nations people across the nation and I hope they resonate with all my colleagues today, especially those opposite, respectfully. In the well-considered, lived and very wise words of Patricia Waria-Read, a proud and universally respected Ngadjuri woman, a volunteer for Nunga Babies Watch and Salt and Pepper, and a respected elder on the Nunga Court Adelaide, I quote:

Before settlement Aboriginal people had a voice, an ancient voice. Our voice has travelled through time, from the beginning.

Our Elders guide us with their wisdom and stories.

Our voice makes a difference!

But today our voice is not heard, we are not listened to, we are silenced.

The Voice in Government can stop on-going trauma, judgemental and racist behaviour towards our Aboriginal families and communities.

Our voice can stop our families and communities from being punished, keep our children from the juvenile justice system, the Department for Child Protection, out of prison and stop our unborn babies from being 'red flagged' and then taken.

Our voice can ensure our children remain with family, community and stay connected to culture. Keeping our children linked to their culture gives us hope for our future. Our children lie at the heart of who we are.

Our voice is our community. Our voice strengthens, heals and builds resilience in support of our health, safety and wellbeing.

The Voice in Government will be the voice of our communities, [our] families and [our] children.

The Voice will ensure the voices of our Aboriginal nations in SA are heard.

Our voice will be heard not silenced.

With respect, the sentiment that Auntie Pat provides in that statement is all the convincing I need in terms of supporting this important piece of legislation. It is my sincere hope I can do her wise, considered and, above all, lived words and experiences justice by voting in favour of this bill.

As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Attorney-General has said, this legislation will not take away from the work we are doing here in parliament. It will not stymie or hinder or impede our parliamentary processes. I sincerely hope it does much more than that and I know the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Attorney-General does too. I hope it makes us collectively accountable for our decision-making and the outcomes for our First Nations people. I hope it makes us a better vehicle for truly positive change because, Lord only knows, what we have done to date simply has not worked.

This is a defining moment for our First Nations people and their future generations. It is a defining moment for our First Nations elders. It is a defining moment in the history of this state. It is a defining moment for our communities. It is a defining moment for the well-respected inaugural Commissioner for First Nations Voice, Mr Dale Agius, and, of course, it is a defining moment for our Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Attorney-General, Kyam Maher, who together, I believe, have put their hearts and souls into this issue for many years. For that, we thank you.

This is but one step in what will inevitably be a long journey and a difficult one at that. It is my very firm view that we need a treaty and I certainly look forward to reaching that milestone sooner rather than later. I, for one, am very humbled and privileged to be standing here today voting on what will ultimately become a defining part of our state's history and rich cultural tapestry.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:33): I rise to speak in support of the First Nations Voice Bill, although I do so with some trepidation because, as we know too well in this place, no legislation is ever perfect and this one before us today perhaps is not. If there are any problems in its interpretation and the actual rollout and operation of the Voice, it will be up to this parliament to fix it and fix it promptly. This step is something entirely new in our system of government. My colleague the Hon. Connie Bonaros and I welcome it, endorse it and acknowledge its significance in the context of the history of this state and this country.

In simplistic terms, the Voice to Parliament is a reasonable recognition of the sovereignty of First Nations people in our state and rightly gives them a say on matters that have a direct or perhaps even indirect bearing on their lives, a recognition that was shamefully and regrettably overlooked by the white colonial authors of Australia's constitution. There has been much debate in public forums, mostly from the far right and redneck elements in our community, that a Voice is racist, that it gives some privilege to Aborigines, representing some 3 per cent of our population, over the other 97 per cent. I do not hold that view; clearly the majority in this place do not hold that view.

This is about acknowledging the sovereignty of ancient and spiritual owners of this country in a much more formal and respectful way to bridge the gap of exclusion and prejudice that was created by the British colonial rulers and continued after the formation of the federation. Before colonisation, historians argue, there were sovereign states that existed, with Indigenous tribes that had their own rules of law. They fought over territory, they traded with each other, they coexisted. This was their country, and it was taken from them without any formal treaties, unlike what we saw in New Zealand, for instance. Decisions were made that affected them, without them having a voice in that process.

It has taken more than 230 years, but now Australians of all walks have come to accept that meaningful representation that reflects the diversity of First Nations people and empowers them to be an integral part of nationhood must be a priority for us to move forward in harmonious reconciliation. Our short history has been blotted with chapters that would shame us on the treatment of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and our indifferent attitudes towards them. Some of that continues to this very day in places like Alice Springs.

I was recently reminded of a court case in 2010, involving five white men who, after a night of heavy drinking at the Alice Springs Casino, decided it would be fun to go out in their vehicle and terrorise Aboriginal people camped on the Todd riverbed and fire blanks from a gun. As you could imagine, the campers ran in all directions in fear of their lives. One, Kwementyaye Ryder, threw a bottle at the rampaging vehicle. The four occupants chased down Mr Ryder, who then lost his footing and fell. Defenceless and unable to pose any threat, they repeatedly bashed and kicked him in the head, killing him. The white fellows fled like the cowards they were, without giving assistance to a motionless Mr Ryder, and then for a week lied to the police over the events of that night, until one of them decided to confess.

Of course, this was a reprehensible crime, reminiscent of Ku Klux Klan race hate killings in the southern United States, yet it was the sentencing remarks by Justice Brian Martin KC that disturbed and alarmed a journalist, Michael Brull. It also shocked me. Justice Martin concluded that the crime—remember, a wanton beating of a black man—was toward the lower end of the scale of seriousness for crimes of manslaughter, that not enough violence was inflicted and that the defendants supposedly could not have foreseen a serious risk of death from their violent attack. Poor Mr Ryder. I wonder what might have been had his skin been a different colour. I will quote from Mr Brull's article that was published on 14 May 2010 in Overland:

…Justice Martin then considered the possible value of inflicting a heavier sentence for…deterrence [value]. He dismissed this too. His grounds for this are particularly striking: the violence 'arose out of an angry and aggressive reaction to a perceived insult'. Plainly, there could be no value in deterrence with a mere crime of violence perpetrated by intoxicated youths responding to a perceived insult.

What did not feature in the judge's discussion of deterrence was what he acknowledged repeatedly to be the 'atmosphere of antagonism towards Aboriginal persons' manifested by the defendants. Nor was this mentioned as an aggravating feature. Which goes much of the way towards explaining his lenient sentencing.

Mr Brull goes on:

Doody, who did not physically strike Ryder, was sentenced to four years' imprisonment, to be suspended after 12 months. Hird, Kloeden and Spears were sentenced to six years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years. Swain had half a year taken off both measures, on account of his confession.

Yet there is one other factor which played a crucial role in Martin CJ's sentencing, arguably the most appalling part of his decision. Chief Justice Martin went out of his way to provide character references for every single defendant. Doody is 'a person of positive good character'. Hird is a 'solid hard-working young man of good character'. Kloeden has an 'underlying good character'. Spears is a 'person of very good character'. Swain, like Kloeden, was a 'person of underlying good character'. These men of good character repeatedly terrorised Aboriginal people for being Aboriginal, before using a gun to terrorise them further, ending the night by beating a man to death, and then casually driving away without checking if their victim was okay.

Chief Justice Martin's grounds for these conclusions are astonishing. He notes character references in their favour, proving that many of them have friends and employers who think nice things about them…Yet Justice Martin was able to claim that this was 'totally out of character' for all of them, and also that they were 'genuinely sorry'.

Presumably he was able to judge their tremendous remorse from how they casually left behind the motionless man, who soon died…[from] the beating. This too was in their character. Or perhaps their remorse was manifested in the lies they [worked on together to tell the cops]. Or perhaps he judged their remorse from the fact that four out of the five did not cooperate with the police at all. The only one who…did so when it was already apparent that they would be caught.

What was missing from Martin CJ's sentencing remarks, and sentence, was a sense of revulsion at what [happened]. The five young men engaged in recreational activities that would not be out of place in a gathering of Klansmen.

This disgusting crime was not just an attack on…Ryder. It was an attack on Aboriginal people in Australia. It—and Martin CJ's judgement—was an attack on our decency as a people. I am appalled as a human being to live in a country where such a terrible crime can take place, where the media and public intellectuals (with the honourable exception of Chris Graham, editor of the National Indigenous Times, who gave me the judgement) [on Friday] have reacted with complete indifference.

I am horrified as a Jewish person to live in a country where a member of a small, vulnerable minority can be victimised in such a shocking manner, and the perpetrators can still be described as basically good people.

And I am ashamed as an Australian that this is the country I live in.

That ends the quotes from the report by Mr Brull. So where was a voice for Mr Ryder in that instance? The law continues to treat Indigenous people more harshly than most whites, as evidenced by the disproportionate number in our jails and before our courts.

Right now, there is an Aboriginal man, Derek Bromley, who has spent almost 40 years behind bars for a murder he maintains he did not commit and will not be released on the parole that was due 14 years ago because he steadfastly refuses to admit to the crime in his Parole Board hearings. You have a DPP—a former judge, Martin Hinton KC—who, in a submission to the High Court set to hear an appeal in the matter, has failed to mention that the Crown relied on a discredited and unqualified key witness to gain Mr Bromley's conviction. This glaring omission has alarmed some prominent criminal barristers.

It is cases of rough justice involving Aboriginals, such as those I have mentioned here, that we must address if, as a nation, we are truly serious and sorry. The ABS June quarter statistics of 2022 show that Aboriginal children are 20 times more likely to be incarcerated in Australia compared to the rest of the population—and it gets worse: 29 per cent of Australia's adult prison population is represented by Indigenous people, who only make up 3 per cent of our population, with 17 of those dying in custody in 2022.

Of some 13,039 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prisoners, 61 per cent were sentenced. We already know the life expectancy statistics are harrowing for our Indigenous population, with 42 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people being at the highest risk for cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases. Further to this, 18 per cent of adults are dealing with diabetes compared to 5 per cent for others.

Australia has long been criticised for its treatment of our First Nations people. Following the visit to Australia in early 2017, the inaugural Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous People, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, reported:

While the government has adopted numerous policies to address the socio-economic disadvantage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, those policies do not duly respect the rights to self-determination and to full and effective participation.

The compounded effect of the policies contributes to the failure to deliver on the targets in the areas of health, education and employment in the 'Closing the Gap' strategy, and fuels the escalating and critical incarceration and child removal rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

Comprehensive revision of the policies needs to be a national priority, and the consequences and prevalence of intergenerational trauma and racism must be acknowledged and addressed.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders require better recognition and active participation in Australian society.

As we all know in this place, none of these statistics are new. Somebody with some authority must speak for them and about them before our lawmakers. However, for all the bad that was perpetrated we must not overlook or disregard the good that has also emerged in creating the modern Australia we all enjoy and which embraces all cultures and celebrates them.

There are many First Nations people who have come from difficult backgrounds and adversity to become leaders in our communities, in the fields of education, science, industry, medicine, politics and sport. I do want to pay special tribute to our own Attorney-General and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Hon. Kyam Maher, for his courage, dedication, determination and sacrifices to get this bill before parliament today.

He has taken a lot of personal hits, including the utterly outrageous questioning in some sections of the media of his own Aboriginality and that of his beloved deceased mother. Just to look at him, to talk to him and hear of his passionate commitment and experiences in furthering the rights of First Nations people is convincing enough evidence for me. Kyam Maher will be highly regarded as one of the most progressive and pioneering legislators we have had in this state's great history.

I also acknowledge the tremendous input by the Commissioner for First Nations Voice, Dale Agius. He is here today in the gallery, along with another respected leader, Uncle Moogy Sumner OAM, who is internationally renowned as one of our Indigenous cultural ambassadors. Contrary to the criticism, there has been an enormous amount of time spent on consulting and engaging with Aboriginal communities around the state, with input from leaders and elders in other jurisdictions to come up with the model that we now have before us.

Sadly, it is something the Attorney's federal leader, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, has failed to do to date. We still do not know what a national Voice will look like or how it is proposed to work with the federal parliament. I cannot vote yes for something I do not have any detail on in terms of the mechanism or the process. Mr Albanese and federal Labor must immediately rethink their 'All will be right' strategy to avoid an embarrassment at the referendum, which in turn will reflect poorly on Mr Albanese's own standing

But we do have the important details—the model—in this bill, and I thank the Attorney-General for his forthright answers and the assurances he has provided to me about issues I had raised regarding identity and eligibility criteria, and accountability and oversight, including the integrity of candidates nominating and those then elected to the Voice.

I did have concerns the Voice has the potential to be weaponised or manipulated by self-serving groups within the Indigenous community which may have some perverse interest in particular bills or that bills could face legal challenges, throwing a spanner in the works and thereby paralysing the parliamentary process itself. I am satisfied with the assurances the Attorney-General has provided me and my colleague, and he will explain them in the committee stage of proceedings.

I commend this bill to the Legislative Council, and I look forward to a monumental chapter in history being made later this week and am proud to be part of it.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:51): I rise to oppose the First Nations Voice Bill 2023. I have made clear publicly and will reiterate here in this chamber that no amount of detail will make race-based legislation a positive step for Australian society. To segregate us by race is an enormous backward step for Australia.

The Attorney-General and I have nothing in common when it comes to our opinion on this First Nations Voice Bill, but in fact on the topic of lifting up those most disadvantaged we have much in common, and I find the suggestion that opposing this bill and the no campaign is akin to bigotry and hatefulness, as stated in the Attorney's second reading explanation, deeply offensive.

I have made clear publicly and will reiterate in this chamber that for me and the constituents I represent the way forward to assist those of us who are most vulnerable and disadvantaged, which is a fundamental passion of mine, is to focus on need regardless of race. This approach would obviously include support and lift up the unacceptable fact that a disproportionate number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people live in despairing conditions, whilst not ignoring the fact that almost three-quarters of those living in poverty, and who are either homeless or at imminent risk of being homeless, are in fact not Indigenous.

This proposition of a First Nations Voice Bill in no way acknowledges the fact that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are doing as well as non-Indigenous Australians. They get educated, work and contribute positively. I believe in respecting people's culture and people's right to maintain a culture, where it is cohesive and not in conflict with the values of Australian society. That is different to supporting race-based legislation that divides us.

I reiterate how insulting I find the suggestion that concerns or opposition to this government's approach to enhancing the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is in conflict with wanting to enhance the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This could not be further from the truth, and I stand with those in the community who want to see funds spent on real, tangible benefits for the Aboriginal community, not bureaucracy, and those who feel strongly that we should all be seen as fundamentally equal under the law.

I know that many faith groups and people living in both rural and city communities oppose this piece of legislation. South Australians deserve from their elected South Australian Labor government a balanced and rational approach, and I must express my disappointment that the Attorney failed to mention the many myriad strategies taken to try to enhance the lives of Aboriginal people by progressive governments in his recent address to parliament.

The Attorney did not mention the over $30 billion a year on trying to bridge the gap or that, at a minimum, twice as much money is spent by the government on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, or in fact the many thousands of Aboriginal groups that have been established and supported by the government. But with many measures actually getting worse, such as suicide rates, adult incarceration rates, number of children school-ready, and number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children living in out-of-home care, many ask: where is all the money going and why is it not working?

Speaking to people in the Aboriginal community recently, they assure me they do not see it and I believe them. An investigation into all this spending with no outcome and increased transparency is urgently needed—not another web of complicated bureaucracy as proposed here by the South Australian Labor government masked by the name the Voice.

The Attorney's second reading speech seemed only designed to shame and guilt non-Indigenous Australians. I might add that one in four Australians are immigrants or refugees who have since established themselves in this fabulous country after colonisation—contributing, thriving—many of whom came from their own impoverished conditions in their home country with their own stories of disadvantage and hardship. We in this chamber must remember what a fabulous country Australia is, and that many are given the opportunity to thrive and succeed despite an unfair start. Let me make clear, however, that more can and should be done for those who are impoverished in this state but on a needs, not a race, basis.

As I stated, I am against the concept of the bill but I will point out some specific concerns. Part 1, clause 4(1)—Meaning of First Nations person, states that:

…a person will be taken to be a First Nations person if the person—

(a) is of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent; and

(b) regards themselves as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander…; and

(c) is accepted as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person by the relevant Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community.

How will it be determined, as stated in clause 4(1)(a) that an individual is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander? Clause 4(2) states:

(2) For the purposes of this Act, 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 or the Torres Strait Islands…before European settlement.

How will this be determined and is all this scrutiny on someone's race a positive thing? For me, it is such a backward step, and a focus on need rather than race would avoid such inappropriate speculation. It is explicitly stated in the Commissioner for First Nations Voice South Australian parliament Second Engagement Report that under the current model there is no requirement for voters to submit proof of Aboriginality documentation as part of their declaration.

The government is aware of the potential pitfall of proving Aboriginality, suggesting within the Second Engagement Report that an Aboriginal commissioner may indeed be established in future to verify connection to country. How much is this all going to cost going forward? Is this a positive step? I would say no, along with many in our community. As stated earlier, for me and the constituents I represent, the way forward is needs-based not race-based support, and it is felt that we must not question how much the Voice will cost, and we must not oppose a bill that is based on race or we will face being called bigoted and hateful.

Ironically many Aboriginals are questioning the Voice bill and whether it will actually result in change for them, whether they will in fact have their voices bypassed as a result of the establishment of the Voice, and ask why money, time and energy being directed toward the debate and enactment of the Voice cannot just be directly applied to tangible outcomes on the myriad issues already expressed and ignored by the government. More concerning is the lack of detail in some fairly significant areas such as the actual number of regions, the number of elected members in the Local First Nations Voice and the number of members comprising the State First Nations Voice. Despite numbers being publicly stated, no actual numbers are stipulated in the bill.

Most concerning is clause 34—Other advisory committees. The State First Nations Voice may essentially establish any number of 'such other committees' with the Attorney-General's approval, and members of those committees will be legislatively entitled to such remuneration, allowances, and expenses as determined by the minister. This reads as a potential blank cheque paid for by every South Australian taxpayer.

I wonder: where is the Child and Young Person Visitor's guaranteed resourcing? I submitted legislation last year that would have secured adequate resourcing to the team that looks after the wellbeing of children and young people living in state residential care. We know there is an over-representation of Aboriginal children in our child protection system, but you, the government, voted no. This is another example of the Malinauskas government funding bureaucracy and not real, tangible solutions.

I would like to speak to the amendment of the First Nations Voice Bill I intend to move regarding clause 34—Other advisory committees. This amendment is designed to ensure that the establishment of further committees is only undertaken where it can be shown that expertise cannot be sourced by the already First Nations Voice. I make clear that I oppose the bill entirely, but considering it is clear there are the numbers for it to pass, I want to ensure I give parliament the opportunity to ensure appropriate restraint on the establishment of further committees.

Clause 41 of the First Nations Voice Bill notes clearly that the State First Nations Voice may provide a report to parliament, but legislatively they do not have to provide a report or attend. Where is the accountability? Clause 42 repeats this: it may be requested to present to parliament, but they have a get-out clause in clause 42(3); however, nothing in this clause requires the State First Nations Voice or a member of the State First Nations Voice to provide a report or attend parliament.

Parliamentary committees must report as due diligence and best practice to show accountability to the South Australian taxpayer. Race-based legislation has no place in our society and does nothing to promote cohesion and unity. Assistance in addressing those who are living in disparaging circumstances should be delivered on need, not any divisive mechanism like this legislation sets out to enshrine in our laws. I will be voting no and I will be representing many South Australians whom the Malinauskas government has chosen to ignore in the pursuit of rushing this legislation through, frankly, to stroke their own ego ahead of a federal referendum.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS (17:01): I rise today to speak in proud support of the First Nations Voice Bill. This bill is the first of its kind, and marks a significant moment in the history of our state, and a momentous start to the year ahead. Through this bill, this parliament can commit to serious engagement with Aboriginal people of South Australia about the issues, policies and laws that affect them.

The call for a Voice to Parliament comes from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, an invitation from First Nations people to Australians to walk together towards a better future. The Uluru Statement calls for three changes in particular: the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the constitution, a Treaty process, and truth-telling about our shared history.

Since colonisation, the indignities visited upon the First Nations people of this land have been countless. They have been carried out at the hands of and with the blessings of previous governments, both Labor and Liberal, state and federal, Australian and British. I will not revisit those indignities, as I would hope that everyone in this place is aware of them. I will only say that despite attempts at genocide, one of the oldest living cultures on the planet is proudly still here. There is a direct and uninterrupted link between the inhumane cruelties of settlement and disadvantages faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people today.

Across the country, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people still face lower life expectancies by up to eight years, on average. The infant mortality rate is twice the rate of non-First Nations children. Aboriginal women are 32 times as likely to be hospitalised as a result of family violence as non-Aboriginal women, and they are over-represented in every single domestic and family violence statistic. Aboriginal children are still over-represented in youth detention and incarceration statistics. To cap it off, the rate of over-representation of Aboriginal adults in incarceration in South Australia actually increased in 2021.

Nationally, we are on track to meet very few targets set forth in the Closing the Gap initiative for 2031. That is shameful. It is clear that whatever existing frameworks or policies being used to address the disadvantages faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are not working. In this place we are sometimes very far from the people and communities that we legislate on behalf of. That distance can be physical or it can be cultural.

The Voice creates the opportunity for First Nations people to have a hand in the creation of policies that are meant to help support them. The Voice does not only create an opportunity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to have a greater say in decisions that implicate them, it also creates the obligation to listen to what they have to say. We have to be receptive and open-minded and respect the wisdom that comes from the lived experiences of those with different lives from us, who come from cultures that are different from ours. We must recognise that they know things that we do not, can help us see what we may be blind to, and are the best authority on their own communities.

In elevating the voices of communities facing disadvantage, we have the opportunity not only to meaningfully improve their lives but also to improve the lives of all. In lifting others up, we lift ourselves up. While we remain ignorant and perpetuate cycles of disadvantage, pain and suffering, we are all worse for it. No-one is free until we are all free. This is the essence of solidarity.

The Voice is a first step, and I look forward to standing in solidarity with First Nations communities as we continue down the path they have generously invited us to walk. I would just like to make one comment. I will not give further oxygen to the arguments opposed to the bill from the opposite side, but what I will say is: shame! Shame on you!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (17:06): I thank all honourable members who have contributed to the second reading stage of this bill and a lot to the development of this bill. As outlined in letters I have sent earlier this month, it is our intention to conclude the second reading stage today, and given where we have got to, I intend to go into clause 1 in committee, and that will give members an opportunity to put questions on the record. We can come back on Thursday to answer some of those general questions members put on the record at clause 1, which is something we have done in practice not infrequently.

Obviously there will be a chance during the committee stage to ask more precise questions about individual clauses, but I think I can answer many of the questions that have been raised and anticipate some of the questions people will have in committee, particularly from the extensive briefings that have occurred with members of various parties in this chamber.

I will first go through some of the comments made during the second reading stage. The Hon. Michelle Lensink, on behalf of the opposition, had a concern about the consultation that was engaged in the development of this bill. The Commissioner for First Nations Voice commenced engagement with First Nations people, leaders and communities in August 2022. Seven sessions were held in Adelaide and the outer metropolitan region, and 17 were held in regional and remote areas, including the South-East, Mid-North, Yorke Peninsula, Riverland, Eyre Peninsula, APY and Far West Coast.

The sessions went for a six-week period and concluded on 11 October 2022. A second round of community engagements occurred on 17 November 2022. This was undertaken in two parts: face-to-face engagements until 22 December 2022, and community-wide online engagement facilitated through the YourSAy website, which closed on 6 January 2023.

I am informed that more than 200 people attended the face-to-face engagement sessions, 26 surveys were completed, and 42 written submissions were received, with 11 from organisations and the remainder from individuals. We have engaged constructively with all parties, particularly with the Liberal opposition on this issue. On 8 September last year I first met with the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, the member for Heysen, on the subject of a Voice to Parliament once consultation had started.

On 9 November, when we first released the draft bill, I ensured my office provided a copy of that draft bill to the shadow minister's office. On 24 January this year, I met again with the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, the member for Heysen, to further discuss the Voice and developments that occurred during the second round of consultation.

On 7 February, when we released this final bill, we provided the shadow minister's office with copies of the final bill itself, Commissioner Dale Agius' second engagement note, the government's response to that engagement note, the government's response to how our bill answers the 15 questions that the leader of the federal opposition, Peter Dutton, had set out on the Voice, and copies of every single written submission that we received. In fact, we provided that to all parties in this chamber.

I do not remember once in my time in opposition receiving copies of every single submission that was received on a particular piece of legislation that was going through the chamber. I think it is fair to say that the engagement that has occurred with Aboriginal South Australia on this bill has been the most comprehensive engagement any government has ever undertaken with Aboriginal South Australia on any proposed legislation or policy. I think there has been an outstanding level of engagement.

I thank Commissioner Dale Agius for the work that he and his team, ably assisted, have done on this bill and the level of engagement that has occurred. As I have said, there has been very significant engagement. I gave as the example the Liberal opposition, because that was a concern raised by the Liberal opposition, but we have engaged constructively, and I thank all other members of other parties for their engagement in this process as well.

The Hon. Michelle Lensink raised an issue of links to native title groups. It is our very strong view that the proposed Voice to Parliament can coexist, and will coexist, with existing bodies and organisations. The Voice represents an opportunity for all First Nations people, including but not limited to those represented by First Nations prescribed body corporates, to be able to use their Voice for the benefit of communities and First Nations people in South Australia.

In particular, those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who have not originally called South Australia home and are not members of the South Australian prescribed body corporate or members of the stolen generations, who through the deliberate acts of past governments have not found their way home yet, can be represented and their voices heard in this bill.

The bill has been amended to make it clear that the Local Voice and the State Voice will operate in conjunction with, and not usurp the functions of, any other First Nations persons or bodies or any agreement or arrangements that have been entered into. It is something that in particular the Hon. Tammy Franks talked to us about in consultations. We have included a specific provision in the final bill.

Further to that, in recognition of First Nations prescribed body corporates and their important role, the bill has also been amended to require the establishment of a native title bodies advisory committee. The membership of the body will comprise a person nominated by each of the bodies prescribed in regulations that will represent each of the native title groups in South Australia.

As the Hon. Michelle Lensink noted in her contribution today, the criticisms that they, that is groups like native title services, have of this model would potentially also apply to the Liberal model of legislation, and that is entirely true. The Aboriginal Representative Body Bill, which is still live and in the other chamber as the Liberal Party's preferred model, would suffer from exactly the same criticism that is sought to be levelled.

I thank the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, the Leader of the Opposition in this place, for her contribution. The honourable member was concerned that the other elements of the Uluru Statement, Truth and Treaty, are not defined. This bill does not seek to determine what will constitute Truth or Treaty for the purposes of the implementation of the remaining parts of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

What clause 8 of this bill does is seek to make it clear that the First Nations Voice Act will be read in conjunction with any future legislation that implements the other two measures of Truth or Treaty. It does not require it but it certainly recognises that it is our intention, and it is our stated intention, to implement in full all the elements of the Uluru Statement—that this is read in conjunction.

We are committed as a government, as we made clear way back in NAIDOC Week in 2019, to implement in full a state-based version of the Uluru Statement. The Hon. Nicola Centofanti raised concerns that this is—I think this was the term used—'a fourth arm of government or a third chamber of parliament'.

As the Hon. Tammy Franks has pointed out, even those who were opposed to the original Uluru Statement many years ago and coined the concern of the third chamber have now come out in regret at doing so. This bill establishes the First Nations Voice as an advisory body—an advisory body. It is very, very clear. We have had the benefit of very, very senior legal advice, the best legal advice that governments can have available, and this is an advisory body. It is not a fourth arm of government; it is not a third chamber.

In the Hon. Laura Henderson's contribution she raised concerns that South Australians were likely unaware that this was an election commitment. I think it might have even been the very first election commitment that the then Labor opposition made from opposition. It was made on 4 July 2019, a long time before the 2022 election.

It subsequently became the core of our Aboriginal affairs policy that we took to the election. It was raised time and time and time again by the then Leader of the Opposition. At the main debate between the Labor and Liberal leaders prior to the election, it was the very first thing that the then Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, said.

In fact, having been at quite a few of the events in the lead-up to the election, it was pretty much the first thing that the then Leader of the Opposition said every time he spoke at events. I sat through many times when the then Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, would acknowledge that we were on Kaurna land in whatever event we were at and we pay respect to elders past and present, but it is not in our words, it is in our deeds and then he went on to talk about our commitment to implementing a Voice to Parliament. It was front and centre of nearly everything that the Leader of the Opposition did in the lead-up to the election.

It was not just in the lead-up to the election. All of us who are political tragics will remember on election night on the ABC Antony Green calling the election and crossing about half an hour later to the new premier-elect, Peter Malinauskas, and again it was the first thing he said on that night. I completely repudiate the idea that this was something that we were hiding and that people could not have been aware of this.

Another point that the Hon. Laura Henderson raised was that this legislation has not provided an outline of the resources to be provided. The bill provides that Local Voice members and State Voice members will receive appropriate remuneration allowances and expenses in undertaking their functions. It also clearly states that the Voices will be supported by a secretariat that will be provided with resourcing to carry out their functions.

The detail of those resources is an administrative matter and not something that is generally set out in legislation establishing statutory authorities, but in a little while I will have more to say about that because, of course, in coming up with the figure of approximately $10 million over the forward estimates we have had to consider what they might be and I am happy to talk about some of the workings that have informed those figures to the chamber. I will do that in a little bit.

There was a concern raised that there is no cap on committees or their remuneration. The State Voice can establish advisory committees and remuneration could be paid, but there is a very significant safeguard in relation to this. The idea that it will completely grow out of control and that the State Voice will appoint a plethora of committees, pay a huge amount of money and drain the resources of the state is not founded.

Committees under the bill are entitled to such remuneration, if any, as may be determined by the minister after consultation with the State Voice. This is something within the providence of the government of the day to determine what remuneration will be paid. The idea that this will become a huge black hole and suck the state's resources does not bear any resemblance to what is actually in the legislation. It will be up to the minister and the government of the day to determine that.

There was concern raised about the provision for filling vacancies. The ability to appoint the person who received the next highest number of votes to the vacant office is very similar, in fact, to the position that is adopted in the opposition's Aboriginal Representative Body Bill, which is alive in the other chamber as their stated policy. It is very similar to those provisions. It is strange indeed to criticise a provision that is your own stated policy in your bill that is alive in another chamber that does a very similar thing.

There was a criticism in the contribution that the bill changes the very way in which parliament will function. It will not; everything is contained in the bill about how the bill will operate in relation to parliament. To avoid any doubt, any doubt whatsoever, there are provisions in the bill that make it abundantly clear that nothing in this bill about the Voice will prevent, in any way, the parliament from conducting its business, including, to avoid doubt, the consideration or the passing of bills. It is plain on the face of the legislation.

I thank the Hon. Heidi Girolamo for her contribution. The honourable member had concerns about a lack of detail about costs, operations and changes to the constitution. The bill contains a significant amount of detail about how the model will operate. In fact, it has been a criticism by the opposition over the past few weeks that it is too detailed and too comprehensive, and now the criticism is the opposite way—that it does not provide the details. Once again, it is difficult to accept some of these criticisms, which although well-meaning are contradictory in nature, from different members of the opposition on this bill.

The changes to the Constitution Act are complementary to the establishment of the First Nations Voice under this bill. However, I want to make it clear that the Constitution Act does not need to be amended to establish the Voice, but we think it is worthy of the document and the legislation, which is almost a birth certificate of a state or a nation, that this is reflected in it. We think it is of significant-enough gravity that it ought to be mentioned in some way in our Constitution Act.

There was a question raised by the honourable member about sufficient time to consider bills, when the State Voice meets only four to six times a year. Of course, the minister may approve additional meetings; however, like many advisory boards of committees, work can also be conducted out of session. For example, the State Voice may meet to determine what priorities it would like to focus on in the coming year and to allocate particular members to consider particular bills, or decide on particular areas or pieces of legislation that they would like to focus on. There will be, as I will go through in a moment, an intention for an annual stipend in addition to sitting fees to ensure that members are remunerated for work outside regular meetings, which is not an uncommon thing for such committees.

The honourable member asked how meetings will align with sitting calendars. The timing of meetings will be a matter for the State Voice to determine. We are not going to determine and tell the State Voice when they are going to meet—I think that is how that would be answered. There was a question about whether bills would be delayed by the Voice. The answer is no. Clause 39(2) and clause 40(7) make that abundantly clear.

There was a question about what the personal liability is for the Voices. The bill does not anticipate and does not provide for Voices to administer funds. That is a matter for the secretariat, which will be made up of people who come under the public sector regime.

I thank the Hon. Dennis Hood for his contribution and some of the views he brought forward. I know the Hon. Dennis Hood and I, over the 10 years we have served in this chamber together, on some matters have not seen eye to eye at all, but I have always appreciated the exceptionally respectful way he has put forward his views and the dignity with which he does it. On this occasion we are diametrically opposed, as we are on some other things, on the fundamental view about how we go about implementing the changes we both think are needed to benefit Aboriginal people.

The Hon. Dennis Hood raised concerns about amendments to the Constitution Act without referendum. It is the case that the vast majority of provisions in the constitution can be amended by an act of the South Australian parliament without referendum. For example, a recent reform to the constitution, passed by the parliament without a referendum, clarified, upon the death of Queen Elizabeth II, the functions of power transferred to her successor. That did not require a referendum, and I do not think it should have required a referendum. Having gone to the election with such an open policy to implement this, I think it is reasonable that the government of the day implements this and can make the changes that we think are needed, also without a referendum.

I wish to turn my attention to the two government amendments that have been filed in this place. The amendments are in response to feedback from some members, particularly the Hon. Tammy Franks. I thank her for bringing these forward to us in relation to the electoral system that is used to elect members to the Local First Nations Voices.

As I said, we received a significant amount of feedback, including from the Hon. Tammy Franks, that the method of electing people to First Nations Voices that is used in APY elections is a first-past-the-post system or a proportional representation system, and that is what we have done in relation to the two amendments that are filed. The amendments create a voting method of a single transferable vote, which all of us would be familiar with because that is what is used to elect us to this place when we face elections. In particular, they require the Electoral Commissioner to make rules that apply, as far as is reasonably practical, to the Electoral Act provisions for the counting of votes in the Legislative Council.

In practice, it will mean marking numbers of preferences on a ballot paper and not just filling out a '1', which you would do in a first-past-the-post system. The Electoral Commissioner has advised that this is likely to require voters filling out at least as many preferences as numbers of positions to be elected. For example, a seven-member Voice would require voters to indicate at least seven preferences. The Electoral Commissioner noted that this may lead to an increase in the rate of informal voting. To avoid this, we have included a savings provision to provide that the failure to mark the certain number of boxes will not in itself render the vote informal.

I thank all those who have made contributions on these matters. Over the past weeks and months, officials from my department, the commissioner and his team and I have taken part in many briefings with members about this bill and a number of questions have been raised during those briefings. To expediate the committee stage, I think it is worth going through in some detail the questions that were raised and provide as much detail as I possibly can about how this will operate and how we will intend it to operate even if some of the administrative details are not finally settled. I think it is worth giving an idea of how we see it going forward.

The member for Heysen, on behalf of the opposition, had questions about what form of remuneration Voice members will receive, what the secretariat of the Voice will be and how the budget allocation for the Voice will be broken down. The implementation and operation of the First Nations Voice over the next four years has been given a budget of $10.3 million and this cost is split into two components: the cost to undertake local elections for the Local Voices and the operational administrative costs of both the Local and the State First Nations Voice.

After discussions with the Electoral Commissioner, election costs are being budgeted against two elections over the next four years. An initial election—hopefully, parliament willing, sometime later this year—with a hybrid of postal and partial remote polling and with election stations set up throughout South Australia is looking to be held at a cost of approximately $2.94 million. The cost of a second election in the forward estimates, which is to be conducted in line with the state election, is budgeted at $1.25 million. This cost considers the efficiencies of holding the Local First Nations Voice elections at the same time as the state election. The bill proposes, after the first initial standalone election, that it will be running in conjunction with state elections.

Operational and administrative costs for the Local First Nations Voice have been costed to ensure the Voice is able to operate effectively and function as intended by the act. The operational and administrative functions have been approximated at about $1.5 million per year. That is broken down into payments for members of First Nations Voices, as well as the administrative cost to the secretariat that will support the First Nations Voice.

These are indicative costs. Of course, it will be subject to it passing parliament and final consideration, but a working model has been that elected members of First Nations Voices would be entitled to not a significant but a small annual fee in recognition that people will be doing work outside meetings. If an Aboriginal person who comes from Coober Pedy or Ceduna is elected to the Voice, there is absolutely no doubt that when they are walking down the street doing their shopping people will feel free, as I am sure we all experience, to give views about what should be happening. So, there is a recognition of an annual fee, as well as sitting fees that are in line with other such committees.

A working model is of an annual stipend, depending on the respective positions on Local First Nations Voice. What is currently being proposed is that each local member would be remunerated with an annual stipend of $3,000 a year, with state members, that is the two presiding members of each Local Voice who go on to form the State Voice, being provided $7,500 a year. The elected joint presiding members of the State Voice, the two positions, will be remunerated at $15,000 a year.

Just for clarity, if these are what are finally adopted as the figures, they will be cumulative for members on the State Voice. That is, a local member would receive $3,000, the presiding members of that Local Voice who then go on to the State Voice would receive $3,000 plus $7,500 for a total of $10,500. The presiding officers of the State Voice would receive the $3,000 plus $15,000 for a total of $18,000.

To avoid doubt, the most any member can be paid—and they are the two members who are the presiding members of the State Voice—is an annual stipend of $18,000 a year. It is not a huge sum, but it is a recognition that people will be spending time outside meetings doing this. I am very confident there will be a lot of people who will be putting their hands up for this even though it is not a massive amount of money.

Sitting fees are proposed to be the same for local and state members and are currently budgeted at $206 per meeting or $258 per the chair of the meeting. These amounts are commensurate with fees paid to members on other government advisory bodies such as the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Committee that currently exists, but as this bill passes it is proposed not to exist. To be clear, it is proposed that members will receive a small annual stipend in recognition of the work that they will do all through the year and not just at meetings of the Voice, plus a sitting fee. Members will recall that for each of the Local and the State Voices it is, unless authorised by the minister, four to six meetings a year where the sitting fee of $206 or $258 will apply.

We have also anticipated costs, if necessary—and it will be necessary in some instances but not all instances—being able to have expenses for travel, accommodation and meals, as is provided for members of the committee and, indeed, members of the Public Service when they are needed to travel for the work that they do. In addition, the budget anticipates a provision of $1,000 per member for the lease of a laptop to assist them in their duties.

For the sake of completeness in terms of budgeting, there is a provision also for the cost of hiring facilities when meetings occur—those four to six meetings a year. For each of the Local and State Voices there is a tentative budget provision of $750 per meeting to hire the facilities to have the meeting. That equates to almost half of the provision of the resourcing of the secretariat that I talked about, being $1.5 million.

Also included in that $1.5 million is $700,000 that is budgeted and allocated against resourcing the secretariat. It is anticipated that the secretariat will have five to six FTEs. They will be public sector employees likely within an agency in government who will provide secretarial support for the Local and the State Voice. I should also point out that the bill provides for the possibility of other public sector employees also providing administrative support to the Voice. I am sure if there are questions about specific policy areas in government, those different departments will be happy to do that.

These are not legislated anywhere. It is unusual that we would provide details of what our thinking is in relation to this but reasonable questions have been asked about levels of remuneration, so I thought it was worth placing on the record what our initial thoughts are and what makes up the budgeting component of that just over $10 million over four years. It is not, I think, in anyone's estimation an excessive sum for the work that people do but a proper recognition that these will be roles that people will no doubt spend a lot of their time and effort on.

There was a question also asked in that briefing about the tripartite test: is it legislated elsewhere? The three-part test adopted in the bill is widely referred to both administratively and judicially and has been adopted federally for the purpose of determining eligibility for some services and benefits.

In South Australia the definition can vary; however, the tripartite test is used in both the Sentencing Act 2017 and the Correctional Services Act 1982. Pursuant to part 4 of the Correctional Services Act, an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person for the purposes of the act means a person who is descended from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and regards themselves as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander by an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community. For the purposes of section 22 of the Sentencing Act, it is a very similar definition. As I have said, this tripartite test is used extensively, both federally and in the state.

There were a number of questions over the briefings from SA-Best representatives, the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the Hon. Connie Bonaros, both of whom I thank for their extraordinarily heartfelt contributions today. One of the questions raised was: in the committee structure that is set up—the four required committees—is there a definition of 'youth' and could it include children? I place on the record that the bill very intentionally does not define youth for the purposes of a First Nations advisory committee. This was a deliberate decision.

The committees, both a youth committee and an elders committee, are required under the act and each of the Local First Nations Voices will appoint two persons of different genders for a youth committee and an elders committee. It was decided that it would be up to each First Nations Voice to use their own definition and understanding as it applies to them. There is not a universal definition of what an Aboriginal elder is, and we think it most appropriate that each body decides for themselves what constitutes the elders they appoint and similarly with the youth or young people they appoint.

So, yes, it could include anyone of any age; it is deliberately not defined. Certainly, that is something that Commissioner Agius reiterated had come through again and again during the consultations—that the voices of elders and youth need to be a central component of a Voice, which the changes in the final bill establishing those specific committees do.

There were also questions during the SA-Best briefings about what governance and integrity measures are in place for the Voice. I am pleased to be able to say there are a wide range of mechanisms in place to ensure that the voices are responsible and accountable. At its highest level, as an elected body, members of the Voice will be responsible and will be held accountable by the people who elect them. If they are not undertaking their functions appropriately, then it is unlikely they are going to be returned at the next election, just like we all face in terms of how we conduct ourselves.

The bill provides a large number of governance provisions. These include the ability to remove a member for misconduct or noncompliance with a condition of office, or for failure to comply with the duty to act honestly, or noncompliance with a code of conduct; a requirement that all Local Voices and State Voices keep proper accounting records and prepare annual statements of account; a requirement that all Local Voices and State Voices keep accurate minutes of their meetings; a statutory duty to act honestly in the performance of their functions; a statutory code of conduct; annual reporting obligations; and confidentiality requirements.

The code of conduct that will be drafted will ensure that members act for proper purposes connected with their work as members of the Local Voice or State Voice. It will be able to deal with a wide range of matters, which are likely to include conflicts of interest, bullying, sexual harassment, requirements to exercise due diligence and act in good faith, how information should be handled and the values that are to be followed by members.

I also note, as I have outlined, that the entire secretariat will consist of Public Service staff, who will be subject to the usual Public Sector Code of Ethics and accountability measures in the usual ways. The Voices will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act and will be subject, in performing public administration, to all of the oversight that integrity bodies have when others are performing acts of public administration.

There was a question raised by SA-Best in briefings about donation disclosure requirements and other Electoral Act obligations. Pursuant to clause 21 of the bill, an election of members of a Local Voice must be conducted by the Electoral Commissioner in accordance with the rules set out in schedule 1.

Schedule 1 of the bill sets out the basic requirements for the conducting of the election; however, clause 21(2)(b)(ii) acknowledges that there will be a number of matters that are not dealt with in schedule 1 and allows the Electoral Commissioner, after consultation with the State Voice and the minister, to make further rules to ensure the proper conduct of these elections. These additional rules will be modelled on existing obligations and provisions within the Electoral Act where appropriate. Exactly how specific rules will be made in relation to private donation disclosures for the purposes of the election to Local Voice will be considered in the lead-up to the first election by the commissioner.

Importantly, and this is something that I suspect we would have found in this bill by way of amendment by the Greens or SA-Best if we did not put it in there, clause 50 in the final bill requires a review of the act, and that review of the act will consider additional requirements that could be needed around electoral rules if that was one of the items that came up in the rules. Additionally, the government anticipates the Electoral Commission will conduct a review of the First Nations Voice election as he does for general elections and by-elections, as well as periodic local government elections.

There was a question raised in the SA-Best briefing about why remuneration for members of the Voice is determined by the Governor and not by the Remuneration Tribunal. The draft bill that was released for public comment provided that remuneration allowance and expenses for Local and State Voice members would be as determined by the Governor. This is consistent with a number of other statutory bodies where remuneration is also determined by the Governor. The guiding principle is that this is an advisory body and not a decision-making body. It is the case where there are significant decision-making bodies or decision-making individuals that remuneration is set down by a remuneration tribunal, rather than by the Governor.

As I said, the tribunal generally sets remuneration for bodies with significant decision-making powers, such as members of parliament, members of the judiciary, members of the Parole Board, the Governor of South Australia, elected members of local government councils and CEOs of local councils. The government is of the view that the ability of the Governor to make the determination, coupled with provisions in part 6 around administration and resourcing, ensures that members of the Local Voice will receive adequate remuneration, recognising—and I think this is an important point because I think it occasionally gets mischaracterised, particularly in the federal debate—that this is not a decision-making body. This is an advisory body and certainly how the remuneration is determined is in line with other advisory bodies.

Finally, there were a number of questions that were put forward by the Greens in briefings that were held, and I am sure there will be further points or questions raised from all members during the committee stage. However, I would like to particularly thank the Hon. Tammy Franks for her engagement in the very early stages. A number of the changes that have been made in the bill reflect ideas put forward, including how the provisions for gender balance on the First Nations Voice work, the inclusion of a provision for the review after three years of the bill being in operation and, of course, the new way that the election is to be counted. These are sensible provisions that I think will make this bill better.

I am sure we will have further questions during the committee stage, but I am hopeful that, by being as open as we can and by providing detailed answers as best we can now in the second reading speech, we will have answered many of the questions that we might have at the committee stage.

I will foreshadow that the intention at the conclusion of this and the vote on the second reading, should that be successful, will be to move into clause 1, primarily for the purpose of allowing members to get as many questions as possible on the record at clause 1 so we can give them as comprehensive answers as possible before we come back on Thursday to conclude the committee stage of the debate.

Before I conclude, I would like to take this opportunity, which I did not do in my initial first reading speech, to thank so many people who have contributed so much to this bill. First and foremost, there are the hundreds and hundreds of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in South Australia who have given up so much time, and not just in our recent efforts but as we went through the contributions of the Aboriginal representative body of the former government, particularly those of Dr Roger Thomas on whose shoulders we stand when we put this bill forward.

In particular, I would like to thank some of those who have given up hundreds and hundreds of hours of their time over and above the normal call of duty to get to where we are with this bill: government officials, Roland, Patrick, Nerida, Kelly and Mark, and a number of significant Aboriginal people from around Australia who have thought long and hard about this and who have been a source of great advice and great help in developing this bill.

In particular, I want to single out Tom Calma, Amy Rust, Megan Davis, Pat Anderson and Peter Buckskin. But, as I said, most of all, thank you to so many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who have helped us to get where we are today over many years. I commend the bill to the chamber and look forward to the committee stage.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 11

Noes 6

Majority 5

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Second reading thus carried; bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My first question is: what are the rights for common law holders in relation to this bill?

The CHAIR: Attorney, is it your intention to answer these questions now, or are you looking for everyone to put their questions on the record?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy for people to put them and I can go through if we have time to answer them all, but maybe get everyone's questions on the record.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am happy to put my questions on the record for a response in the way that the Attorney has foreshadowed. What are the rights for common law holders in relation to this bill? Can Voice members talk about what they raise with cabinet during what is clause 43 or cabinet meeting? My final question for the moment is: when Dr Roger Thomas addressed this parliament on the floor of the House of Assembly, in the same way that the previous Treasurer, Rob Lucas, was able to address the House of Assembly from the floor of that assembly, what provisions were made to ensure that parliament was protected from our particular sovereignty?

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I thank the Attorney for giving further detail in his second reading summing-up. Obviously, those of us on this side have concerns about the bill, hence our voting, but it is reassuring to have some of that information up-front. He has answered a number of my questions, he will be pleased to know, so the committee stage might be slightly shorter on Thursday. I think most of my questions are better asked at the various clauses when we get there, but I have a few I can put on the record now to give him time to consider.

The first deals with clause 23, on the issue of the bodies being sued. I am interested in defamation. Would they be subject to defamation proceedings potentially? It says they can be sued as a body corporate, so would that apply to defamation as well and, if not, under what circumstances could they be sued? Also, what are the public liability implications under that heading as well? That is the first one.

The next one would be more relevant under clause 40. Will there be time limits for speaking, for example, when the representatives speak on the floor, or is it envisaged that, if they were speaking in the House of Assembly, they would be subject to the normal provisions of the House of Assembly? Here we do not normally have time limits: how would that differ between the houses, if there is any difference at all?

Some practical issues about where they would be positioned, etc.—this is not a big place. What does the government have in mind as to how that would work? We will deal with that in more detail when we get to clause 40, but they are a couple of things that the Attorney might want to consider.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: I flag that I will have questions more suited to committee stage but some that you may need to go away and take advice on. The first is that the minister has made commentary about this being an advisory body and these decisions not being binding. Will the minister confirm that there is no reasonable expectation for administrative decision-makers to take the view of the Voice into account? That is the first question.

Secondly, can the minister advise whether he has sought legal advice on whether there is case law that would be persuasive in instances of judicial activism in establishing a reasonable expectation that recommendations by the Voice could be made binding? Thirdly, is there a risk that decisions could be challenged by the First Nations Voice, given that it can sue in its own name?

I have further queries that I will address in committee. As the Hon. Dennis Hood has highlighted as well, I think quite rightly it will impact the way in which we all function. I do have some queries as to whether the minister anticipates that the First Nations Voice will address the parliament during government time or private members' time or whether there will be additional allocation on a different day, and what that might practically look like.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: I have a series of questions in regard to the consultation that occurred, and ask whether we can get some further details about the YourSAy survey, the responses received and how it was incorporated within the development of the bill. Also, how confident are you that this model will be effective, and what are the potential impacts on outcomes for First Nations people? I guess that is probably the starting point.

I have a series of questions around the boundaries as well. What will happen if a representative for a particular region cannot be found? How have regions been determined? What will happen when a population changes or moves, and how will this impact on the regions and boundaries? What happens if a First Nations person moves, perhaps from interstate, into a particular region? Are they entitled to run for a role within the Voice?

Similar to the Hon. Mr Hood, I also have questions about financial risk. You have covered some of it, but it would be good to get some further information on the structure. Why was a body corporate structure selected? Are there other entities where that structure has been in place? It is a relatively new structure, from my understanding, so why was that selected over a statutory authority or something like that?

I also have questions about individual risk. Some of that has been explained, but I would like to explore that further, as well as vacancies. How will any breaches or legal issues be disclosed and communicated? How will the region or location of members be taken into consideration for vacancies? I believe that in the legislation it states it will be determined by the Governor, so what support will be provided there?

Then there is the conduct of the actual election process. Will the Electoral Commissioner receive additional funds or support in order to run these elections? What would happen in the event of a by-election, including the costs associated with that?

Similar to that—I think it has been touched on already—is the logistics of how it will work in the house as well. Probably, clause 40 is the relevant one. I have a series of questions there, and it would be good to be able to flesh that out further on Thursday. In the event that there are emergency bills or significant pieces of legislation, how is that going to be communicated? If there were amendments to bills, would the First Nations Voice be invited back to speak or would it be one time and that is it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: So one time? Thank you; that is now already answered. I appreciate that we touched on resources and the payment of fees, so I have taken those questions out. However, from a staffing perspective, how many staff will be allocated across the board, including research officers, public servants and assistants as well?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I would like to thank the Attorney and his staff for making themselves so amenable to all of us, and for the lengths they have gone to to answer the many questions we have put to them.

I chewed off the Attorney's ear about children in this bill, and the importance they have. I just want the Attorney to confirm again that, notwithstanding that the youth committee will be broad enough to have whatever definition of 'youth' it is that ultimately is decided upon, there will still be the ability to establish other committees that are issue specific, issues that we have canvassed in those meetings. They may very well include issues that relate to youth and/or children and other specific issues.

In terms of the address to parliament, one of the things that we have canvassed at length is the ability for us to effectively take into account the reports that are provided or the addresses that are provided when we are working through those debates and the consideration given to that.

In terms of the funding, I appreciate the response in relation to why we have not gone down the path of a remuneration tribunal, though one of the issues that we did talk about was that that is a protection mechanism in ensuring that future successive governments do not axe funding to those important allocations. What sort of considerations could be given to ensuring that within the department there is some sort of quarantining of funds to make sure that, in successive governments or in future years or when our budget is not looking that great, this is not where we look to cut funding?

I have questions along those lines when we get to the relevant clauses as well but nothing that I think the minister needs to take on notice now that he will not be able to answer at that point.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank honourable members for their contributions at clause 1 and effectively putting questions on notice. I think this will lead to a very conducive committee stage on Thursday. It has given an opportunity to go away and come back with answers. If there are any further questions that people have or think of tonight, please do not hesitate to send them through to me during the course of tomorrow because, once we get to Thursday, if we do not have it immediately we will have to take it on notice and reply back to you, if it passes on Thursday, between the houses.

I would much prefer to be able to come back and give answers as we are considering it tomorrow. So please do not hesitate, if you have a couple more questions, to get in contact. I would ask, for the sake of the sanity of the people who are answering all these questions, that maybe it be by the middle of the day tomorrow if you have further questions so that they can reasonably be answered.

My second reading sum-up looked at the total costs. I think it was approximately $700,000 with approximately six FTEs as the secretariat. The provision for the cost of the election, the first standalone election should this bill pass later this year, has been budgeted at $2.94 million and then elections that occur simultaneous to state elections at approximately $1.25 million. I think the Hon. Ms Girolamo had those specific questions, but I will make sure I get full answers to the questions that people have put on notice.

I look forward to the committee stage. As I have indicated a number of times, it is the government's intention to conclude before we leave this place on Thursday.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.