Federal Voice to Parliament Referendum

The Hon. S.L. GAME (14:56): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before directing a question to the Attorney-General on the First Nations Voice to Parliament.

Leave granted.

The Hon. S.L. GAME: Supporting a First Nations Voice to Parliament is an expensive exercise. Whenever the government spends money in one area, it is obvious it comes at an opportunity cost to another. In this instance, limited resources are taken from tangible solutions for those vulnerable in our society.

Yesterday, I asked the Attorney-General if he supported moving away from direct investment in tangible solutions for Indigenous Australians, which he responded to by saying:

To characterise having a referendum where Aboriginal people will have more of a say in the decisions that affect their lives as not caring about education I think is quite despicable.

According to ABC analysis of all major national Voice polls, 54.7 per cent of Australians don't agree with the government and don't support what many see as becoming an unbalanced, coercive 'yes' campaign. Many South Australians have seen the Australian Electoral Commission indicate that a tick on a referendum ballot paper will likely be accepted as a 'yes', but a cross is likely to be deemed informal. My questions to the Attorney-General are:

1. Does the Attorney believe that it is balanced and fair that a tick will likely be accepted as a 'yes', but that a cross will likely be deemed informal?

2. Does the Attorney-General accept that the taxpayer investment in the federal and state Voice campaigns has come at an opportunity cost, as available funding for tangible Indigenous programs diminishes?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:58): I thank the honourable member for her question. In relation to the tick and the cross, of course that's a matter for the independent federal Australian Electoral Commission. I am sure the honourable member is not casting aspersions on the independence of the Australian Electoral Commission but, if she is, that would be a remarkable feat to undertake in the South Australian parliament.

In relation to a tick and a cross, I am not going into commentary over what I understand has been practised, that has been the same practice that has occurred for many decades, and in many referenda. I saw something recently, which was the federal Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Peter Dutton's nomination form about citizenship where he indicated a 'yes' in a box by putting a cross there; Peter Dutton put a cross in a box to indicate 'yes'. Any suggestion is the absolute height of hypocrisy, the absolute height of hypocrisy that is being used.

In terms of an opportunity cost, I will tell you what the cost is. The cost is doing what we have done over a couple of centuries exactly the same way again and again. What the honourable member seems to be suggesting is that the status quo is fine and we should just keep doing exactly what we have been doing and doing it in exactly the same way.

Well, I don't, and many of my colleagues don't think that, and many people in the Liberal Party federally don't think that either. I had a great opportunity recently to spend time with people like Julian Leeser, like Andrew Gee, like Andrew Bragg—members of the Coalition who have either resigned from their party or resigned from front bench positions to support this referendum.

We know from evidence throughout the world that when people are involved in the decisions that affect their lives you end up with better decisions. The idea that we should just keep putting in the same amount of money for exactly the same programs I think is ridiculous. Any investment in the Voice I think will pay off in huge dividends. If you took a strictly rationalist economic view of it, you would do this every day of the week to make sure that taxpayer funds that are going to support Aboriginal people are as efficient and effective as possible.