Legislative Council Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time State Voice to Parliament State Voice to Parliament The Hon. F. PANGALLO Legislative Council State Voice to Parliament The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:11): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs a question about the State Voice to Parliament. Leave granted. The Hon. F. PANGALLO Legislative Council The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Highly respected Adnyamathanha elder Charles 'Charlie' Jackson OAM was last week announced as South Australia's Senior South Australian of the Year, a deserving recognition for a distinguished South Australian who has spent most of his life speaking out about injustices for his people. As he told me this morning, and I quote, 'I was put on this earth to speak for the rights of individuals who can't speak for themselves.' That was exactly what he was doing this week in a media interview opposing increased police powers in Port Augusta, believing they were disproportionately impacting First Nations people. Charlie is a trusted and well respected First Nations person the media go to when they are seeking comment on issues impacting his people in the region. He gave the interview as an Aboriginal elder, not as a member of the Voice. You can imagine Charlie's anger when he received a phone message from the Voice Secretariat Director Andrea Mason following that story being published attempting to gag him from speaking to the media. He is so angered he is considering resigning from the Voice. He also strongly opposes government employees being members of the Voice because of clear conflicts of interest, which I believe the majority of members are. My questions to the minister are: 1.	Why are members of the State Voice being gagged from speaking to the media about matters that impact their people? 2.	How can members of the Voice be truly independent if they are being gagged? 3.	How can the Voice be truly independent of government when a large percentage of members are full-time public servants? 4.	Do you believe these government-paid public servants on the Voice have a conflict of interest on the advice they give to parliament? 5.	Why haven't you, this week in this place, publicly acknowledged the outstanding award Charlie won last week by way of a Dorothy Dixer like you have done with so many other deserving First Nations people who are recognised with awards instead of the fatuous bullying your colleagues have served up this week against the Hon. Ben Hood and the Hon. Jing Lee? Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! Attorney, you will ignore the last part of the question. I call the Attorney-General. The Hon. K.J. MAHER Legislative Council Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Attorney-General Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:14): I will ignore the last part of the question because if we are talking about bullying behaviour I think the honourable member's comments are probably directed at some of those that he might have been referring to, not on this side of the chamber. I thank the honourable member for his question in relation to a number of issues: the South Australian First Nations Voice and Uncle Charlie Jackson. I congratulate Uncle Charlie Jackson. Certainly there are many achievements of many Aboriginal South Australians that I am very proud of and I think many of us in this chamber are very proud of and many in South Australia are very proud of. I do my best to recognise as many Aboriginal achievements as possible. I think it was SA Senior Australian of the Year that Uncle Charlie was nominated for and received, and I absolutely and wholeheartedly congratulate him on the award that was bestowed upon him. I spend quite a deal of time with Uncle Charlie, whether it be over the last few months at Wami Kata Old Folks Home near the Davenport Aboriginal community or Gladstone park in Port Augusta, where I have sat at length at tables with Uncle Charlie to talk about issues affecting Aboriginal people. I recognise Uncle Charlie's status in the community's election in regard to that particular regional First Nations Voice. I absolutely appreciate the advocacy that Uncle Charlie has done for his Aboriginal community over many years, and I think it is a reflection of the standing that Uncle Charlie has that he was elected to the Voice. But, and I think this is part of how the Voice will operate, it doesn't mean that we will agree on everything all the time. As I said, I very much respect the views that Uncle Charlie puts forward in relation to the declared public precinct in Port Augusta, I understand and appreciate the views he has put forward, but I disagree with him on aspects of what he said in relation to that declared public precinct. This is designed as a circuit breaker in relation to social issues that are occurring in Port Augusta and it will apply equally to everyone within that declared public precinct, which I think is bound by Flinders Terrace, the Augusta Highway and the waterfront area in Port Augusta, for a six-month period. I am not aware of anyone trying to silence Uncle Charlie Jackson. Having known Uncle Charlie for many years, I don't think any attempts of that sort would be at all successful. I think Uncle Charlie has been, and will continue to be, a staunch advocate for his people. I think it might have been last week in a media report that I heard about Uncle Charlie putting forward his views. It referred to Uncle Charlie as an elected member of the Voice from that area, and I think that is a welcomed elevation of an Aboriginal elder's input and voice, that because of their standing in the community they have been elected to the Voice. As I say, I respect and appreciate the role Uncle Charlie has played over many decades. We will continue to liaise, but it doesn't mean that we will agree on every issue every single time.