First Nations Voice to Parliament

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. S.L. Game:

That this council—

1. Acknowledges that the South Australian First Nations Voice was not democratically agreed to by the people of South Australia;

2. Recognises that the federal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice referendum campaign has caused deep division and uncertainty in the community.

(Continued from 27 September 2023.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (17:55): I rise today to speak on behalf of the opposition in support of this motion and to thank the honourable member for bringing this motion to a vote. While I am cautious to not anticipate debate on any other matter on the Notice Paper, I do draw the chamber's attention to the Hon. Ms Game's repeal bill, and the opposition have indicated our support for that bill and we encourage the honourable member to bring this bill to a vote in the near future.

This motion addresses a critical issue that concerns the very fabric of democracy in South Australia. The recent announcement of the South Australian State Voice elections has stirred significant opposition out in the community, particularly in the wake of the overwhelming no vote during the federal referendum.

The federal referendum on the Voice ignited profound divisions within the nation and was a referendum that Prime Minister Albanese pushed onto the Australian people. The discourse surrounding the referendum underscored the deep-seated complexities and apprehensions associated with altering the foundational document of this country.

There were legitimate concerns raised at the time about the implications of constitutional amendments and many Australians and indeed South Australians were extremely worried that formalising an Indigenous Voice could introduce legal ambiguities and compromise the principle of equality before the law. Many Australians also feared it would exacerbate racial divisions rather than promoting unity and national cohesion.

The campaign around the Voice referendum has left scars on both sides of the debate. Referendums should be about bringing people together. They should not cause division, but unfortunately the latter is what we saw with federal Labor's Voice referendum. A great portion of South Australians are rightfully disappointed with the Malinauskas state Labor government, who they feel have ignored a clear statement made by the community that they do not want a Voice to Parliament.

South Australians have very good reasons for saying no. First and foremost, they do not want another layer of bureaucracy. Instead of streamlining processes and ensuring efficient representation, the South Australian Voice will only add layers of red tape and complexity to our political landscape. The Malinauskas government is effectively implementing bureaucracy, which will only serve to overshadow the voices of the people it is meant to serve.

This extra layer of bureaucracy will delay what is already a slow-moving government and it will do so because section 7 ensures the continuance of existing Aboriginal bodies around the state. So this act will not reduce or replace an already existing layer of bureaucracy, it will only add to it and also add to the cost.

If there is one thing I have learnt since coming into this place, and I have said here on multiple occasions, it is that more bureaucracy usually equals fewer practical outcomes on the ground, because ultimately we all want to see practical outcomes for First Nations people, but this is not the way to achieve it. We should be taking the advice of Senators Jacinta Price and Kerrynne Liddle, who are calling for an audit or inquiry into the billions of dollars the South Australian and Australian governments spend on Closing the Gap each year and for more accountability on that spending.

Furthermore, the failure to acknowledge the principle of one vote one value is a fundamental breach of democratic principles. Each vote cast should hold equal weight regardless of geographical location or socio-economic status, yet the State Voice system seems to undermine this fundamental tenet of democracy, leaving many South Australians feeling disenfranchised and marginalised.

Equally concerning is the lack of widespread communication about this policy prior to the 2022 state election. It is the duty of our elected representatives to engage in transparent and inclusive dialogue with the electorate, particularly in the lead-up to an election, to ensure that citizens are well informed about significant policy changes that may impact their lives. Unfortunately, Labor's failure to adequately communicate the implications of the State Voice has left many feeling betrayed and unheard.

It is by virtue of Labor's failure to communicate clearly and comprehensively prior to the election that I move the amendment standing in my name. I move:

Add the following words at the end of paragraph 1—

by virtue of the fact that many South Australians are of the view that the Labor Party did not communicate their election commitment for Voice, Truth, Treaty widely prior to the 2022 state election.

A referendum is the purest form of democracy. Promises made during an election campaign which were not widely disseminated in any case cannot be appropriated by the winners as proof of endorsement of legislation such as the State Voice. The two-thirds vote for no in the referendum is proof positive that the majority of South Australians do not want it. It is a disregard for democracy on the part of Labor, and they need to cease all pretence that they are the proponents of democracy and are representatives of the will of the people. It is simply not true in this case.

As citizens of South Australia, the public rightfully demands accountability from our leaders, and South Australians should not stand idly by while they feel their democratic rights are being eroded and their collective voices silenced. It is incumbent upon us as members of parliament to be accountable for our actions and demand reforms that uphold the principles of transparency, equality and representation.

I also indicate that the opposition will be supporting the amendment to the motion in the name of the Hon. Frank Pangallo, as we believe it is consistent with the motion's intent. In conclusion, the opposition to the South Australian State Voice is not merely a matter of politics, it is a matter of principle. We must stand united in our commitment to preserving the integrity of our democracy and ensuring that the voices of all South Australians are heard and valued.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (18:01): I rise in support of the motion put forward by the honourable member and the amendments from the Liberal Party in this chamber. It is our first and foremost duty to do the right thing—a simple yet profound obligation. Part of that duty is to listen, truly listen, to the people we are sworn to serve, the people of South Australia.

Under the Malinauskas government it seems we are facing an unfortunate case of blatant disregard of that very principle, despite a staggering 64 per cent of South Australians giving a resounding no to the Federal Voice to Parliament. Despite that loud and clear chorus from the community shutting down the idea of a Federal Voice to Parliament, this government has ploughed ahead regardless with the State Voice.

Instead of acknowledging this decisive outcome, the government has chosen to sideline the broader public interest of South Australia. Let us not mince words about the claim that an SA Voice is different from the Federal Voice. It is a distinction without a difference; technically different perhaps, but in spirit and in substance it is the same undemocratic push.

South Australians, canny as they are, cannot be fooled. They see past the smokescreen of political correctness and identity politics, and they now understand that such a Voice will only serve to divide and cost dearly, and ultimately fail in delivering real outcomes because they know that adding more and more levels of bureaucracy is ultimately more of the same.

Then there is the argument about pre-election commitments, as if announcing a policy almost three years before an election gives you carte blanche. Memories are short, and the supposed mandate this government claims is nothing but a mirage. The referendum spoke volumes, rendering any assumed mandate obsolete. The Premier himself has turned his face away from the promotion of the State Voice elections, and his absence has been duly noted by many.

We must, at times, have the courage to make unpopular decisions when they are in the best interests of the state; however, this is not one of those times. A democratic process has already provided representative voices in this parliament without bias or special provisions for any minority or race. Our constitution clearly states that parliamentary representation is determined by the people of the electoral districts, not a government fiat that flies in the face of democracy and the rule of law.

If the Malinauskas government truly wishes to serve the Indigenous community it would engage with them directly, understand the on-the-ground realities and act decisively on those challenges, not retreat to another layer of needless bureaucracy. The appearance of action is no substitute for actual results. We all recognise the genuine need for support for Indigenous Australians; however, pandering and paternalism will not deliver the results that are so desperately needed.

Where is the accountability in this legislation? When will the government declare that their objectives have been met, or is this Voice to be an eternal reminder of division and disadvantage? The federal referendum's results have already sown division, distrust and disquiet among the people. The State Voice, now understood and known by more South Australians, has done the same. My office has been inundated with concerns from constituents feeling unheard, and even some who were censored on the Premier's social media for expressing their honest and deeply held dissent. The government's refusal to listen is not just arrogant but is profoundly undemocratic.

So it is with a sense of urgency and resolve that I commend this motion to the chamber. It is high time that we return to the core of what our roles are in this place that is representative of all the people, stand up for the values that make South Australia great and ensure that our actions in this house reflect the true voice of the South Australians whom we are here to serve.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (18:05): I rise to speak against this motion. In so doing, I want to call out the One Nation party for engaging in cynical and divisive politics and to call out the opposition in this place for debasing themselves by aligning with One Nation in this way—rolling in the mud with the One Nation party in this way. I actually think it is outrageous. I think it is shameful. What is particularly galling about this is that the previous speakers have talked about division and wanting to bring the community together, yet they are lining up with the mother of all divisive political parties, One Nation. They are lining up with those who seek to fan the flames of division and disquiet in our community and are seeking to wreck this Voice to Parliament. It is deeply disappointing.

I had hoped, when we saw members of this chamber speak against the Voice to State Parliament, that when they did not get their own way they would hope that this project, this ambitious plan, would succeed. But no. Instead, they have embarked on a very different mission; that is, to try to wreck and undermine this project, and I think that is deeply, deeply disappointing.

I want to speak to some of the elements of this motion, the first being in relation to the point that the South Australian First Nations Voice was not democratically agreed to by the people of South Australia. That is complete nonsense. I refer to an article in The Guardian on 6 July 2019:

Indigenous leaders welcome SA Labor's vow to take Uluru statement to polls...Peter Malinauskas says party will establish a voice to parliament if it wins next election.

I seek leave to table the document.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: That article makes it very clear what the Labor Party's commitment was. They made it very clear, heading into the last election, that they were seeking to establish a State Voice to Parliament if they won the election. The Greens party made it very clear that that was something that we would support if we were in a position of balance of power in this place.

We had an election—the greatest test of our democracy that we have in our state in terms of reaching democratic agreement. There was an election and the Labor Party formed government, and the Greens found ourselves in a key position in this place. So, together, the Labor Party, the Greens—and I acknowledge also the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the Hon. Connie Bonaros—supported a Voice to Parliament. End of story. That is democracy in action. This nonsense of 'Well, the outcome that we got is not what some people in this place wanted and therefore it's undemocratic and needs to be undermined and wrecked,' I think is utterly ridiculous.

I think also that the approach that is being taken by the Hon. Ms Game of One Nation, which is being supported by the opposition, is really disappointing because it is also a slap in the face to the First Nations people who have engaged in this process in good faith. I think it is important to track the history of this reform here in this place.

Indeed, the South Australian government committed to a state-based implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and as a first step in July 2022 the government appointed the inaugural Commissioner for First Nations Voice, Dale Agius, who led a series of community engagements and provided advice to the government on these engagements.

The commissioner held two rounds of engagements, I understand, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across South Australia between August 2022 and January 2023. The first round focused on input from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities on the underpinning design principles for the Voice.

This engagement found that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were seeking a direct Voice to the South Australian parliament; a Voice that is elected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to represent local communities; a Voice to represent the diversity of South Australian and Torres Strait Islander communities, including nation group diversity, gender, youth and elders; and direct access to government decision-makers, i.e. ministers and chief executives.

Following this, the South Australian government developed a draft bill and a model based on these findings. The draft bill and two boundary options were released for feedback. In November 2022, the commissioner commenced a second round of community engagement to seek feedback on the draft, the bill, the model and the boundary options.

This included face-to-face statewide engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait communities, as well as written submissions from the broader community. Feedback was received and that process informed the final design of the model and the legislation. In March 2023, the South Australian parliament passed the First Nations Voice Act—March of last year.

How is that not a democratic process? The government embarked on a truly representative consultative process that engaged with First Nations communities. We are now in the middle of an election. I am not sure, Mr President, whether you have had the opportunity to look at the nominees. Some really impressive people have put themselves forward to represent their communities, and I think that is a really great thing.

I find it really saddening that rather than get behind that and say, 'Great, let's hope this succeeds,' you have the One Nation party, with the support of some of the members opposite, trying to wreck this and undermine it, peddling Trumpian policies where they talk about people not following democracy, making a series of half-truths and whatever.

Really, I think the people of South Australia have had a gutful of this kind of misrepresentation and divisive politics. Surely the least that this parliament can do, after generations of dispossession of Aboriginal people, the stealing of land and the stealing of children, is to actually give First Nations people a Voice in this place? I find the arguments against it, quite frankly, insulting.

I also want to remind the members opposite, who are in the middle of a tight by-election campaign, that electors in the seat of Dunstan, a seat that they currently hold by a wafer-thin margin, voted 55.3 per cent in favour of a Voice. I look forward to going out, continuing to campaign in that seat and reminding people in that seat of the views of the Liberal Party in this place, because I think many people in the seat of Dunstan will be, quite frankly, horrified that the party that is seeking to represent them in this chamber is peddling this sort of nonsense.

Shame on the Liberal Party for debasing themselves and rolling in the mud with One Nation. Surely, we have had enough of this. I say to the Hon. Ms Game: I hope this motion is knocked on the head tonight and then let that be the end of the matter. Stop trying to undermine the South Australian Voice to Parliament. Stop trying to wreck it. Get behind it, hope that it succeeds and actually listen to the views of First Nations people. That is what we should be doing, not seeking to silence them, not peddling the sort of nonsense that we have heard in the chamber just now.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (18:13): I rise to speak in support of the motion of the Hon. Sarah Game regarding the South Australian Voice to Parliament. I will flag that I do have amendments to the honourable member's motion, which I shall outline and move shortly. The member's motion seeks to address two points: (1) that the First Nations Voice was not democratically agreed to by South Australians, and (2) that the federal government's Voice referendum caused division and uncertainty in the community. I supported the South Australian Voice to Parliament legislation, which the honourable member also seeks to repeal.

As we know, there was an overwhelming result for the no case in the referendum held in October last year. A resounding 62 per cent of South Australians voted no. I was one of them, but I will not stand for claims that were made by Aboriginal activists like Professor Marcia Langton, who was on the government's Voice advisory group, that people who supported the no vote were propagating 'stupid and racist claims'. This was based on a video of a meeting she had at Edith Cowan University and later published in the Bunbury Herald during the campaign.

Ms Langton, an avowed socialist intellectual, then took offence when her comments were interpreted by many as meaning 'no' voters were stupid and racist. Propagation means the spreading of something or generating something. She might draw a different distinction at what she said about the no case rather than its voters, yet that is how it came across to many. Here is what she also said, and I quote:

Every time the no cases raises one of their arguments, if you start pulling it apart you get down to base racism. I'm sorry to say it but that's where it lands, or just sheer stupidity.

The no case were 'no' voters. No matter the spin she put on it, her comments, no matter which way you view them, were perhaps the most damaging to the yes campaign.

Last December, in the annual Hawke lecture at the University of South Australia, Professor Langton doubled down on her attacks on the supporters of the no campaign, particularly opposition leader Peter Dutton, shadow Indigenous Australians minister Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Warren Mundine, accusing them of cementing race hate into the fibre of Australia and further entrenching structural racism in our lives and then gloating about it. 'They did so with disgusting glee and arrogance,' she said. It was more divisive talk. Yes campaigners like her refused to accept the verdict of the Australian public and then lashed out at them in a show of sour grapes.

Professor Langton declared that reconciliation was dead. Really? Why would she continue to drive a hate-filled wedge between Australians? I did not see any evidence of no campaigners wildly celebrating the result, which Professor Langton describes, but resentment from the yes campaign was pronounced and inflammatory. I have never witnessed a political campaign, mostly led by elites from the left, that was so ugly, nasty, hateful and divisive—derogatory insults like: 'no' voters are uneducated.

I do not believe most Australians bear ill will or are racist towards Aborigines. There are lessons we can all learn and have learned from the past, but the Australia of today is much different and inclusive than it was more than 200 or 100 years ago. It is a great place to be when you see what is happening elsewhere in the world, yet we have people today who hate Australia so much and want to bring down its values.

The Prime Minister must also shoulder much of the blame for the referendum's failure, because he failed to articulate what a Voice would do to our federal parliament and to our country. Australians failed to understand what was going to happen and it instilled fear and concern at the direction the country was taking. This is why I voted no.

Professor Langton now wants the federal government to set up legislated regional Voices, calling for Treaty and truth-telling through a Makarrata Commission. She just will not accept the outcome, nor the democratic will of the majority. Instead of further fanning fires of hate and division based on race, Professor Langton should be looking at taking a more conciliatory approach.

As I said earlier, I voted for our Voice based on the assurances that were given by our Attorney-General and chief architect of the Voice legislation that it was more about giving a say to Indigenous people in the state, giving them access to cabinet ministers and bureaucrats about decisions or legislation that concern them. It is about being heard without compelling the government of the day to act on any demands or advice. It will be a connected, direct and independent line of communications to the parliament and government.

The bill went through quickly because the government had the numbers and the details were never really fleshed out. On reflection, and following the referendum, I wish I had more time to consider what it could do once it is in place. While I will still stand by my vote, I am beginning to have some reservations. Until the Voice is up and running, we will not know the extent of its powers and influence.

The Malinauskas government can say that establishing a Voice was part of its 2022 election commitments, following on from a gesture by the former Marshall government that was never followed through. However, neither the Premier nor the Attorney-General ever spelled out to the people of South Australia during the election campaign what this Voice was all about, how it would be funded, how it would work—it was there, buried in its long list of election promises. Voters here never had an opportunity to analyse it, unlike the federal proposal. I hope this does not turn into another bloated Aboriginal bureaucracy draining taxpayers.

I note that there is the Voice and then there are Voice committees, which Voice members cannot be on, and that they can have as many committees as they like—so not just 47 Voice members but over 100 on the payroll. They will meet in facilities hired at a tentative cost of $750 and be supported by a secretariat with up to six staff, including a director on a salary cap of up to $250,000, who is Mr Dale Agius. While South Australians comprehensively rejected the Federal Voice, the state government is ploughing on with its own legislated version, with a $10.3 million budget over four years and more than 100 participants and no cap on the number of committees it can establish.

The government has provided $6.1 million to establish and support the ongoing operations of the First Nations Voice to Parliament. A further $4.2 million is allocated to conduct the first two elections for members of the First Nations Voice to Parliament. These local Voice members will be paid an annual stipend of $3,000 while the two presiding members of the six Local Voices will be for the 12-member State Voice. Their total stipend will be $10,500, while the two presiding officers of the state will receive a total stipend of $18,000 as well as travel, accommodation and meal allowances. In addition, there will be 55 members on four committees, separate from the elected members.

According to the handbook for candidates of the Voice, an elected member of the Voice will receive an annual base payment for service, an annual fee, meeting attendance fees and sitting fees. Reasonable travel and accommodation costs may also be covered for members to attend meetings. The annual fee is in recognition of the work that will likely occur outside of the official local Voice scheduled meetings. As a member of the State Voice, they will receive additional annual and sitting fees.

All members elected to a Local Voice body will receive an annual base payment of $3,000—that is a total of $3,000. State Voice members, two from each Local Voice body, and the 12 State Voice members—that is, the two joint presiding members from each of the Local Voice—will receive an additional payment on top of the base payment. So you have $3,000 and $7,500, making a total of $10,500. The two joint presiding members of the State Voice will receive an additional payment on top of the base payment and State Voice payment.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Yes, I remember this from the debate, but we hadn't voted on this.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Well, $3,000, $7,500, $7,500: a total of $18,000. Please note that the SA First Nations Voice annual payment summary does not include sitting fees, which will be paid at a standard rate per meeting. Reasonable travel and accommodation costs will be paid on a case-by-case basis, and further information on sitting fees and travel costs will be provided to the members of the Voice once elected. Here is the extraordinary legislation. It is extraordinary in that we did not democratically elect them but they can address parliament as if they were elected members. Let's have a look at entitlements in the act that was passed, beginning with section 40:

40—State First Nations Voice entitled to address Parliament in relation to Bills

(1) The State First Nations Voice is, by force of this section, entitled to address, through 1 of the joint presiding members of the State First Nations Voice, either House of Parliament (but not both) in relation to any Bill that has been introduced into the relevant House.

(2) The State First Nations Voice must give to the presiding officer of the relevant House at least 7 days' written notice of the intention of the State First Nations Voice to address the House.

(3) However, the State First Nations Voice need not give notice in accordance with subsection (2) if, in the case where a Bill is to be debated or otherwise progressed urgently through the relevant House, it is not reasonably practicable to do so.

(4) For the purposes of this section, 1 of the joint presiding members of the State First Nations Voice may—

(a) be admitted to the floor of the relevant House; and

(b) address the relevant House on behalf of the State First Nations Voice in relation to the relevant Bill.

(5) To avoid doubt, only 1 address may be made, and only 1 House addressed, under subsection (4) in relation to each Bill.

(6) Nothing in this section prevents the State First Nations Voice or the joint presiding members of the State First Nations Voice from doing any other thing with the permission of the relevant House.

(7) Nothing in this section prevents the relevant House from conducting its business (including, to avoid doubt, the consideration or passing of Bills about which the State First Nations Voice wishes to address the House) prior to being addressed by the State First Nations Voice under this section.

41—State First Nations Voice may present report to Parliament

(1) Without limiting any other provision of this Act, the State First Nations Voice may provide to the Parliament a report on any matter that is, in the opinion of the State First Nations Voice, a matter of interest to First Nations people…

(4) The Minister must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after receiving the report (but in any event not later than 6 months after receiving the report)—

Sitting extended beyond 18:30 on motion of Hon. K.J. Maher.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will resume where I was—quoting section 41:

(a) provide a copy of the report to each Minister responsible for an area identified in the report as requiring action; and

(b) prepare a report setting out—

(i) each Minister's response to any part of the report that falls within that Minister's responsibility; and

(ii) if any action has been taken, or is proposed to be taken, (whether by a Minister, a public sector agency or any other person or body) in response to the report or a part of the report—details of that action or proposed action; and

(iii) if no action is to be taken (whether by a Minister, a public sector agency or any other person or body) in response to the report or a part of the report—the reasons for not taking action; and

(iv) any other information required by the regulations.

(5) The Minister must, within 6 sitting days after preparing a report under subsection (4), cause a copy of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

Part 6 covers administration and resources, and section 47 covers the secretariat:

There will be a secretariat for the Local First Nations Voices and the State First Nations Voice, consisting of such Public Service employees as may be assigned to the secretariat.

Section 48—Resources:

Before determining the resources to be provided to Local First Nations Voices and the State First Nations Voice for the purposes of this Act, the Minister must consult with each such body and then, having regard to any submissions made during that consultation, determine the resourcing that, in the Minister's opinion, each body reasonably needs to carry out its functions under this Act.

That is in addition to the $10.3 million. Section 49—Use of Staff etc of Public Service:

A Local First Nations Voice and the State First Nations Voice may, by agreement with the Minister responsible for an administrative unit of the Public Service, make use of the services of the staff, equipment or facilities of that administrative unit.

It is not just the department of Aboriginal affairs. In theory, they could use every single department. So they allocated $10.5 million over four years, but a whole lot of administration and support is from the Public Service, which does not seem to be costed in that.

There is now all this talk of state-based treaties being drawn up. There is one in the works here. What consultation will the Malinauskas government have with the wider South Australian community before it moves to adopt it? What will be in it? How will it affect us? How will it affect native title rights? All these questions should have been put to South Australians during the last election.

I do have some amendments to the honourable member's motion. Allow me to move them and explain them here. I move:

After paragraph 2 insert new paragraphs as follows:

3. Notes that the federal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Voice referendum held on 14 October 2023 resulted in an overwhelming no vote against establishing a Federal Voice, and that in response the federal government has announced it will not establish a Voice;

4. Acknowledges that the people of South Australia have never been informed of or democratically agreed the cost of establishing and resourcing a South Australian Voice;

5. Notes that the federal government is not providing South Australia with any funding or resourcing to administer the SA Voice;

6. Notes that the South Australian government will have to meet the new and additional cost of the State Voice, estimated to be $10.3 million over four years (excluding stipends, travel allowances and sitting fees);

7. Notes that the South Australian government does not have funding for a state truth-telling commission or a state Treaty group.

In relation to new paragraph 3, the fact is that 60.06 per cent of Australian voters voted no and 39.94 per cent voted yes. All states, including South Australia, voted no, as did the Northern Territory. In relation to new paragraph 4, as I have explained, there is $10.3 million in the budget, but $2 million of this is for the actual election, and all the extras are not costed in this. In relation to new paragraph 5, I cannot find anywhere where the federal government are funding this, so it appears to be great cost shifting.

In relation to new paragraph 6, I have already outlined allowances and also where they can use the whole Public Service; plus, there is also a full-time Voice commissioner already appointed. In relation to new paragraph 7, the government and the minister have tried to keep a lid on these two topics at the federal and state level, but we now know, through comments made by the Prime Minister, that they will come next and are not funded but will be in future budgets.

The act that was passed here amends the Constitution Act 1934 to recognise the importance of the Voice of the First Nations people and the intention for those voices to be heard through the Constitution Act. The South Australian Constitution Act is an act of parliament and unlike the commonwealth, does not, subject to several exceptions, require a referendum to be amended. Did South Australians know this? I doubt it.

In closing, there was much ado about the workings and costings of our Voice that was not explained—just take the word of the government that it is all going to be hunky-dory. But as the Premier himself succinctly put it on his recent whistlestop self-promotional tour for his state prosperity projects, nine out of ten times the words that spill from the mouths of politicians are, and if I can quote him accurately in this place, 'bull' expletive.

In finalising my comments, I am not going to be here and throw mud at other members in this place who are entitled to make their views known without being subjected to comments that are derogatory to those members. If you have a view, you are entitled to express it without being hit with insults and offences.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (18:36): I rise very briefly to indicate that I will not be supporting this motion. I do not intend to recanvass the debate we already had in this parliament. Suffice to say, it culminated in a proud and historic day in this place that I and others were humbled and proud to be a part of. I stand by that position, a position democratically arrived at with overwhelming support of members of this parliament.

In so doing, I applaud and commend our Attorney-General and, indeed, Mr Agius for their work on this issue, and also the Attorney for his tenacity to withstand criticisms levelled at him in this place throughout the course of these debates.

I spoke earlier today on the committee on committees inquiry and it was remiss of me not to mention at the time, and I will do so now, that in response to some of today's commentary one of the single criticisms that was levelled at South Australia throughout the course of that inquiry was indeed the lack of a First Nations Voice in our lawmaking processes, not just by First Nations people but by experts and academics alike. That should not be lost amongst any of us, as it is at the heart of the bill that I and others in this place supported.

For the record, I note that I will be supporting amendments to this motion to be proposed by the Hon. Tammy Franks and thank her and the Greens for proposing those amendments and putting them forward. I will not be supporting any other amendments. In closing, I say only Voice, Treaty, Truth-telling. They are the three pillars of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, all canvassed during the original debate, all pillars I stand by wholeheartedly and resolutely.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (18:38): I rise to speak to this motion. The Greens will not be supporting the motion without amendment and so, therefore, I move to amend the motion as follows:

Paragraph 1.

Leave out all words after 'Voice' and insert 'was one of the first election commitments made by the now government, and was legislated by this parliament on 26 March 2023; and'

Paragraph 2.

Leave out all words after 'Recognises that the' and insert 'South Australian First Nations Voice is designed to give First Nations people the ability to have a say on the matters that affect their lives.'

The Uluru Statement from the Heart is what brings us here and has been debated many a time, and is debated again today. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a short, incredibly powerful piece of prose. It 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?...

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.

Makkarrata 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.

That is the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I am proud that the Greens were the first party to accept the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full and I commend the work of then Senator Rachel Siewert in her leadership on that matter. Indeed, she is not the only leader in a parliament to have embraced the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and I note the fine words that I shall share with the council right now:

The national discussion about the needs for a First Nations' voice speaking to government and parliament has been gaining momentum, especially since the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017. There is a clear call for government at all levels to better engage with Australia's First Nations peoples and to find ways to formally include their voice at the highest levels of decision-making.

They are not my words. They are fine words and I agree with them. They are the words of then Premier Steven Marshall when he introduced the Liberal Party government bill for a Voice to Parliament in October 2021. I share some more words from that particular bill:

The bill establishes formal legal requirements for the exchange of information and communication of advice between the [Aboriginal Representative Body] and both the parliament and the government. The aim is to ensure that policy developments and initiatives that may affect Aboriginal South Australians have regard for their concerns and perspectives.

It was not a new idea when the Malinauskas government then in 2019 announced that they, from opposition, were committed as a government to having a Voice to Parliament: Voice, Treaty, Truth. Indeed, this parliament has previously had a Treaty commissioner in a previous government. It has had Treaty conversations before, but part of the conversation about Voice, Treaty, Truth is what comes first.

There are disputes about what comes first out of Voice, Treaty, Truth, but in the model that this state has embraced as a legislature through our parliament, which has primacy over our laws—we do not have any impact on the federal laws and the federal parliament has limited impact on our laws—we have here in this parliament an act, the First Nations Voice to Parliament, which implements part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Not only does it establish the parameters and premises for a Voice, which this council and the other place have already voted on, debated in full and accepted, it also makes mention of both truth-telling and Treaty, and recognises that a voice, a structured voice of Aboriginal people, of First Nations People, is a very good start if you want to start some truth-telling and some treaty-making. It only makes common sense.

But there is a lacking of common sense in this debate because here we are debating a motion about a federal referendum yet again, when we have an act of parliament that is seeing elections currently underway for a First Nations Voice to our parliament, our South Australian parliament—not to the commonwealth parliament, not to the Tasmanian parliament, not to the Victorian parliament or the ACT parliament, but to the South Australian parliament—that the South Australian parliament has debated, has consulted on and has voted on. I recognise that not everyone in this parliament voted in support of a First Nations Voice and not everyone in this parliament necessarily does support a First Nations Voice, but we have had a vote on it and the numbers have not changed.

I note that in the third reading contribution of the Hon. Dennis Hood, while his party and he had voted against a First Nations Voice, he actually committed to listen to the First Nations Voice, but I do not see a lot of listening going on here as we literally have an election of First Nations people to elect their very first First Nations Voice to Parliament in this state, and we are having a debate from a One Nation motion, that the Liberal Party is wholeheartedly the cheer squad for, to revisit old ground.

While I will not go to the content of a piece of legislation that is before this place to be debated, I note that that piece of legislation sits there on the Notice Paper with the mover having full knowledge that it does not have the numbers to pass this place or the other place. It will not become law. The First Nations Voice will not be repealed in this parliament unless you have a few more by-elections and you change the numbers of this parliament substantially.

What I will note, though, is that the voters of Dunstan, when they went to the polls in 2022, had a choice of Steven Marshall, the then premier, who supported a First Nations Voice to Parliament. They had a choice of a Labor candidate with a Labor leader, now Premier Malinauskas, then opposition leader, who supported a First Nations Voice to Parliament. They had a choice of a Greens candidate, who supported a First Nations Voice to Parliament. Indeed, a First Nations Voice to Parliament was not even a contentious issue during the last state election.

One Nation opposed a First Nations Voice to Parliament at the last state election, but we did not even know who the candidate was, and it took some weeks to establish that. Their policies were not given proper scrutiny, they were not part of the debate, and all of the main players, certainly those vying for the government of this state, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, both had a bipartisan approach that they both supported the Uluru Statement from the Heart and a First Nations Voice to Parliament.

So much so that even though the Marshall government was not returned, and the Malinauskas government—and I note on election night their very first statement, the very first statement of the newly elected Premier, Peter Malinauskas, was to talk about the fact that he was going to implement a First Nations Voice to Parliament.

I remember that, along with acknowledging Ryan, the candidate for Unley, in my watching of the television coverage of that night. It was the very first thing that was said on election night. It was promised by the Labor opposition back in 2019. It was not front page news, because it had bipartisan and cross-party support and it was not seen as contentious. I still fail to see what is contentious about listening to First Nations people about the issues that impact them, particularly things like child protection, incarceration and inequality.

Given we had a referendum before that was needed to recognise First Nations people as human beings of value and worth back in 1967, I think some people have very short memories indeed about why we find ourselves in the position we currently are. If people were serious about addressing racism in this state and in this parliament, they would be campaigning right now to remove the race power from our constitution in section 51. I have not heard a peep from those who talked about this being a divisive debate about removing the race power from section 51. I look forward to that campaign and people putting their efforts into that campaign instead of pointless motions coming before this council.

We are here debating yet again a piece of legislation that has already passed this parliament. I have to scratch my head and wonder why members of this parliament do not know how to parliament, because parliament is about having votes. You have an election, you take it to the people of South Australia, you get voted in or you do not. Then you come here and the numbers line up, as they do.

Those who have the most numbers and can get the confidence of a leader to take to the Governor across the road in the lower house get to have the government of the day and the Premier. That is how this works, that is democracy, that is parliament. If you do not democracy and you do not parliament, I do not know what you are doing here. You are wasting our time, you are dog whistling and you are preparing for your next appearance on Sky News would be my guess, but I have become very cynical in this place.

I look forward to the election of the First Nations Voice to the South Australian parliament. I look forward to this parliament hopefully listening to those voices, hearing their concerns and listening to their solutions and finally having First Nations people treated not as the problem but as the solution to the problems.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON (18:52): It will come as no surprise to members of this place that I rise today to support this motion. My opposition to a Voice to Parliament, whether it be constitutionally enshrined or whether it be legislated, has been consistent. It remains my view that a Voice to Parliament seeks to create an unfortunate divide in our state, based on race. It remains my view that an important pillar of our democracy is that we are all equal: one person, one vote.

It remains my view that the establishment of a Voice to Parliament undermines the very premise of equal representation, giving greater weight to a vote of one group over another and creating barriers to representation based on race. Generations before us have fought hard and continue to fight for the harmonious ideal that all are equal before the law and that all votes are treated equally. It remains my view that creating an expensive administrative third chamber of parliament for Aboriginal South Australians sends the wrong message. It remains my view that this wrongly tells South Australians that the parliament is not for all South Australians. Arguably, this wrongly tells Aboriginal South Australians that this parliament in its current form is not for them.

It remains my view that Aboriginal South Australians already have a voice. It is in our local government, it is in our state parliament and it is in our federal parliament. The question really is: why does the government feel that it needs what is essentially an expensive administrative third chamber of parliament to tell them what they should already know? Why not just get on with tackling the issues Indigenous communities are facing, while hearing the input they already receive from the numerous advisory bodies established in this state, which the Voice regrettably seems to ignore? It remains my view that the way in which our parliament legislates and provides funding must be needs based and not race based.

When the First Nations Voice Bill was before this parliament, I stated, and I will state it again, that I cannot stand here in this place, particularly in this chamber which represents and reviews the laws of the land for over 1.7 million South Australians equally, and support any bill that aims to legislate for the creation of a third chamber based on race at our highest level, the South Australian parliament.

It remains my view that we are a nation that must strive to be a fair and tolerant society and that the parliament must be a place for all South Australians, whether from Indigenous communities or otherwise. At the time the parliament debated the First Nations Voice Bill, I highlighted that it would have been beneficial for members of this place to see the results from the federal referendum into a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament where the views and opinions of the public, in particular the South Australian electorate, were respectfully engaged before legislation was brought to this place on such an important topic.

Notwithstanding there was a federal referendum on foot, the Malinauskas Labor government arrogantly pushed ahead with this legislation for a Voice to Parliament, disregarding the then upcoming referendum and the views of South Australians. When the resounding results from the referendum came back showing that over 64 per cent of South Australians voted no, the Malinauskas government should have acknowledged that they got it wrong. Instead, we see a government that is pushing ahead with the First Nations Voice elections this month and a government that will not rule out the payment of reparations and compensation to Indigenous communities. The question really is: how much will this cost South Australian taxpayers?

It is my view that the attitude to push ahead with the State Voice to Parliament despite such a resounding result at the federal level, particularly here in South Australia, is disrespectful to the will of the South Australian people. The Attorney-General said that the referendum and the State Voice are two very separate issues and that the referendum was about constitutional change. Respectfully, I think that is just semantics.

When the Labor government sought to pass their First Nations Voice Bill, in doing so they made an amendment to our state constitution. Yes, our state constitution is an act of parliament and does not require a referendum to make changes comprised in the State Voice, but the principle behind it in changing what is essentially our state's rule book, in which our democracy and system of government rest, is the same principle. Our state constitution has been changed.

The government will say that they had a mandate to introduce a Voice to Parliament as this formed one of their long list of election commitments at the 2022 state election. I believe the Attorney-General said it was the very first policy the then Labor opposition announced at NAIDOC Week in 2019. But I put it to the chamber that most South Australians were likely unaware of this commitment when they went to the ballot box in March 2022. I query where the sea of corflutes for a Voice to Parliament were in amongst the corflutes about the ramping crisis—and by the way, in case you missed the memo: ramping is now worse than when you formed government.

I think many South Australians were probably more focused on the chalked ambulances and the scare campaign that was run by the Labor Party and the Ambulance Employees Association about ramping. The slogan 'Vote Labor like your life depends on it because it just might' tends to have that effect. I put it to this chamber that the results of the 2023 referendum would be a clearer indication of the level of support for a Voice to Parliament, with around 64 per cent of South Australians voting with a resounding no, than the 2022 state election was on this issue.

I commend the Hon. Sarah Game for bringing this motion to the chamber, which I indicate I will be supporting today. I also indicate that I will be supporting the amendments in the names of the Hon. Mr Pangallo and the Hon. Ms Centofanti. I indicate as well, on behalf of the opposition, as we received late amendments from the Hon. Ms Franks, that we will not be supporting her amendments as they substantially change the intent of the motion. I also indicate that, ultimately, should her amendments succeed, the opposition will not be supporting the amended motion.

While I am cautious not to anticipate debate on another matter on the Notice Paper, I draw to the chamber's attention the Hon. Ms Game's bill to repeal the First Nations Voice, a bill that has sat on the Notice Paper for months that would rectify the issue this motion seeks to address, a bill that has been well ventilated in the media by the honourable member but remains idle on the Notice Paper for action to be taken.

I would have thought that it would have perhaps been more timely for this bill to be taken to a vote before the nominations for the First Nations Voice election opened, and it is now just weeks away until the elections. However, I look forward to when the Hon. Ms Game does bring this bill to a vote. As has already been indicated, the Liberal Party will be supporting the bill.

The result from the federal referendum was clear, it was decisive. The government should have waited for that result before pushing ahead with a state-based Voice to Parliament. Following these resounding results the government should have acknowledged that they got it wrong, that the State Voice, or any Voice, seeks to divide us rather than unite us. Instead, the government has doubled down and will not rule out the payment of reparations or compensation in the future.

To conclude, I will share with the chamber some of the comments I have received following my second reading contribution to the First Nations Voice. One individual says:

The Voice is supposed to be decided by all Australians. In a referendum. What happened to the referendum in South Australia? You are railroading the voice idea government. Stop it. We all have a say.

Another person said, 'Not happy, Jan.'

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: I find it quite interesting that the Attorney-General finds that quite comical, that South Australians are not happy. Another person says:

Doing this act by passing such a bill many people believe will cause a division within the nation, especially when you don't ask people in your state what they believe of this bill, has been passed by government is a slap in the face to each person they are supposed to be representing.

Another person said:

This has to be the people's vote and not just a government decision. They were never given a mandate to make this decision on behalf of all SA residents.

Another person said:

This voice is normalising and embracing systemic racism throughout our country.

Another person says, 'Vote no. We are all Australians.' Another says:

The most important principle is equality before the law and to appreciate this one must consider the opposite alternative. How wrong would it be to exclude a group from voting in general elections. You do not increase inclusion and participation through exclusion and deception. The lack of community knowledge and communication on model and impacts is incredibly deceptive and shows the hubris of this Labor government.

Another person says, 'Why weren't we asked? Isn't the government meant to be serving all Australians?' Another said:

Funny how the ambulance union has gone very quiet. Malinauskas likes to control lots of aspects of politics but things are starting to blow up in his face somewhat.

Another person said, 'Are SA government entitled to dictate without asking the people first?'. Another person has said, 'Labor arrogance.' Another person:

This Voice will be an endless money pit with no accountability, transparency or results-based integrity. The people of South Australia should have the right to vote on this state-based decision. It is our money being used on yet another race-based organisation.

Another person says, 'This country does not need racism at its core. This voice is designed as a racist entity.' Another person says, 'Don't vote for racism. It's pretty simple.'

In concluding, I will just draw from my second reading contribution when I say that, like I think all South Australians, my firm belief is that Indigenous communities in South Australia deserve a seat around the table to talk about the issues impacting their communities, often disproportionately in matters that are of great significance.

Where I differ in my belief is that the table should not be pushed off the side and relegated to some third chamber funded on a discretionary basis by the executive government of the day and burdened by bureaucracy and symbolism. The Voice for these communities is and should be here in this parliament as representative of all South Australians and their communities at large, within the existing framework of our great democracy that treats every vote equally no matter who you are or what your race is. I commend the motion to the council.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (19:03): I will not speak to the substance of this motion particularly but I will speak briefly in pointing out some of the inaccuracies that are perpetrated both by what is in the motion and what is in the amendments.

Regarding the substance of it, I have spoken at length numerous times in this chamber about why I think there is a very firm need to have Aboriginal people have more of a say in the decisions that affect their lives. One statistic, that a man born on the APY lands has an average life expectancy of 48 years today, shows that we are getting it wrong and that we need to do something different in terms of how we provide services to Aboriginal people.

It is almost seven years since the Uluru Statement was handed down, and I know that there are many Aboriginal people, activists and leaders for whom the statement is a daily part of who they are, and I include myself as one of those. I will not go into the need for this. I think it is self-evident and I think many people also think that.

The motion and some of the amendments make very odd claims about what the nature of democracy is or is not and how it works, and seem to insinuate or propose that this is a policy idea that was hidden from the people of South Australia. Nothing could be further from the truth. As even the opposition has admitted, this was the very first policy that Labor released, way back in 2019. It was written about in local and national media. The policy documents were published, they were printed, they were handed out and they were found on the internet.

I have to say, if you want to hide something, here is the classic way not to do it: do not talk about it in the major policy debate that happens before an election. If you want to hide something you would not want to do that. In the SA Press Club debate between the then opposition leader Peter Malinauskas and Steven Marshall, the very first thing that the then opposition leader Peter Malinauskas said—and I will read it exactly—was:

Well, thank you very much, Stacey. Thank you, Premier to Mike and the Press Club, ladies and gentlemen. I, too, would like to acknowledge that we get together today on the lands of the Kaurna people and pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging. Of course, the best way we can pay our respects is through our deeds rather than our words. And that's why I'm very determined that a Labor government I lead does act on the Uluru Statement from the Heart and delivers an Aboriginal voice to Parliament in our first four years.

That is the first thing that was said at the Press Club debate on 10 March 2022—hiding in plain sight, hiding where everyone could hear it, and hiding where anyone who was interested in policy debates would hear it as the very first thing that was said. Do you know what, just to hide it even further, to hide it even further to make sure no-one knew about it, the then Premier Steven Marshall was asked during the Press Club debate, in a question, what he liked about Labor's policies.

Do you know what the then Premier of the Liberal Party said at the Press Club debate, the major policy forum to inform South Australians of what the policies of the respective parties are? What Steven Marshall, the former Premier, said was that he supported Labor's platform of introducing an Aboriginal Voice to State Parliament within four years, as reported by the ABC.

I have to say, if this was trying to be hidden from the people of South Australia, it did a bloody poor job in doing so—having it as the lead thing in the Press Club debate on 10 March, less than two weeks before the state election. It is just a ridiculous, demeaning and unintelligent proposition to suggest that this was in any way hidden from the people of South Australia when in the Press Club debate you lead with that as the first thing you say.

There has been discussion about what the cost of the Voice to Parliament might be. I think the Hon. Frank Pangallo has an amendment that talks about the cost being $10.3 million over four years, excluding stipends, travel allowances and sitting fees. That is just wrong. It is either made up or it is falsely misleading this parliament. I have said during the committee stage of the debate, I have said in answers to questions and I have said in the media that the cost of this includes these things. It is $10.3 million, including the administration, including any resources that are needed to provide for the Voice, including the election that happened, and including stipends, travel allowances and sitting fees. It is just not correct, the words that are written on the paper, in what has been budgeted for.

I cannot support something that is so fundamentally at odds with what I believe is good and needed for Aboriginal people. Even further, I cannot support something that is so riddled with mistakes and inaccuracies in what is put forward that it makes no sense.

As a couple of people have spoken about, I am really pleased that this is being brought to a vote right now. We are only a couple of weeks away from a by-election in the seat of Dunstan, a seat where, on referendum day, every single polling booth returned a yes vote. I have done a bit of doorknocking in Dunstan, and I am amazed: I do not think you can go four or five houses without a yes sticker and without a yes poster.

I want to thank the opposition, and I particularly want to thank the speakers from the opposition, because I am now extraordinarily motivated to get out on this long weekend, and to get everyone I can out, and particularly go to those houses with those stickers on them and let them know what the opposition has said about the Voice to Parliament.

I will let them know, because there will be Labor supporters who will have it reinforced and there will be Greens supporters who will have it reinforced, but there will be Liberal supporters who I think will vote on the basis of the strident opposition that the opposition has put to this. I cannot wait to get out and tell people, after the by-election, in seats like Heysen. You cannot walk around Stirling or Aldgate without bumping into houses that still proudly display a yes poster.

I want to thank the opposition. I know they think in year 9 style debating points. It is all very clever to talk about what mandates are because they heard it once in the year 8 politics class that they took in high school. 'You don't have a mandate,' notwithstanding that is exactly what happens when you are voted in in an election. I cannot wait to be able to use the words that the people have chosen to put on the record in the Dunstan campaign and in campaigns in the lead-up to the next state election.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (19:10): I rise briefly. I firstly want to point out something that I think is fairly confusing, and I think deliberately so. We are talking about the Voice legislation. This is not about debating whether Aboriginal people should have a voice. Everybody in this parliament wants the Aboriginal people to have a voice. Everyone in this parliament wants better outcomes for Aboriginal people. This has been instigated by misleading, confusing naming of a piece of legislation called 'the Voice', not about debating whether we want a voice for Aboriginal people.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: the member is misleading the parliament. There is no legislation called 'the Voice'.

The PRESIDENT: Can you just continue so we can conclude the debate.

The Hon. S.L. GAME: Thank you, Mr President. When we are talking about South Australians supporting the Voice, or the notion of the Voice, as we have just heard from the Attorney-General, it is my belief that what they are saying is we want better outcomes for Aboriginal people and we want Aboriginal people to have a voice. It does not mean that they have understood this piece of legislation and thrown their support behind it.

I want to thank the honourable members for their contributions, particularly the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, the Hon. Ben Hood and the Hon. Laura Henderson for their support both for the legislation that I have on the table, the motion that we are currently debating and the amendment that they put forward. Also, thank you to the Hon. Frank Pangallo for his support and the amendments that he has put forward. He outlined clearly the structure of the Voice as proposed by the legislation, so I will not dwell too much on that, other than to reiterate that it is $10.3 million to establish, with over 100 members and the potential for more members by extrapolating the number of committees. That is $10.3 million that could be put towards people, regardless of race or heritage, who are currently in a cost-of-living crisis.

In regard to the contributions from the Hon. Robert Simms and the Hon. Tammy Franks, I just want to make clear and put on the record that what I am supporting is support based on need, not race or ancestry. That obviously includes supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are in fact in need. It is really hard to understand how that is twisted to be a racist statement or how, in fact, anyone can argue against supporting people based on their need rather than their race or ancestry.

It has also been asked why we would bring this motion forward. We bring this motion forward now because we are paid by the taxpayer to represent the community, and it has been very clearly expressed to me by the community that they do not want the Voice that is being established in this state. They do not want it, for the same reasons they did not want the Federal Voice. It would be beneficial for the government to properly delve—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. S.L. GAME: —into why the community did not want the Federal Voice, because they are the same reasons they do not want the State Voice, and that has to do with more bureaucracy, wastage of money and division within the community.

I just want to state also that I have been specifically contacted by Aboriginal groups and members of the Aboriginal community, and I am really proud of the growing relationship I have with different members of the Aboriginal community. We have had Kerry White, a Narungga elder, actually run as a One Nation candidate in the past. As a result of my position on the State Voice, I have had other Aboriginal members contact me, asking about and expressing interest in the One Nation party, because they feel so strongly against what is happening in this state for their community. In particular, they are deeply upset about other members speaking for different groups. It is my understanding that that has been deeply upsetting.

In closing, I just want to make it clear that my position is I support a true voice for South Australians in this state, and that includes Aboriginal people. What I do not support is the establishment of more bureaucracy and wastage of money. Actually, I have been contacted by Aboriginal people who had supported this Voice, who actually now just wish this government would get on with the cost-of-living crisis that everybody is facing, rather than establishing this bureaucracy.

The PRESIDENT: There are a number of amendments, so you are going to have to work with me as we work through this. The first question I am going to put is that the words in paragraph 1 proposed to be struck out by the Hon. T.A. Franks stand as part of the motion. If you are supporting the Hon. Ms Game and the Liberal opposition you will vote aye, and if you are supporting the Hon. Ms Franks you will vote no.

The council divided on the question:

Ayes 8

Noes 11

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Question thus resolved in the negative.

The PRESIDENT: The next question I am going to put is that the words proposed to be inserted in paragraph 1 by the Hon. T.A. Franks be so inserted. If you are supporting the Hon. Ms Franks you will say aye.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The next question is going to be that the amendment moved by the Hon. T.A. Franks to paragraph 2 be agreed to, so if you are supporting the Hon. Ms Franks you are going to vote aye.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The next question that new paragraphs 3 to 7 as proposed to be inserted by the Hon. Mr Pangallo be so inserted, so if you are supporting the Hon. Mr Pangallo you are going to vote aye, and if you are not you are going to vote no.

The council divided on the question:

Ayes 8

Noes 11

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Question thus resolved in the negative.

The council divided on the motion as amended:

Ayes 11

Noes 8

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Motion as amended thus carried.