HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-03-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

First Nations Voice Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Premier) (11:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Every day in this place, we take a moment in this chamber to reflect that we meet on Kaurna land, but today that recognition feels especially significant. This bill is an important step forward in fulfilling the first part of this government's promise to implement all three core elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart at a state level and to lead the nation in this vital process of practical, meaningful action on reconciliation.

That was the promise that my party took to the people of South Australia before the most recent state election and it is a promise we will keep. By enshrining a Voice to Parliament in South Australia, we give ourselves another path forward, another opportunity to deepen engagement with our First Nations people and to bring focused effort to bear on some of the most intractable challenges.

Every year, we face the Closing the Gap statement that shows our progress in addressing the rates of Aboriginal life expectancy, education, health status, involvement in the criminal justice system and more has been incremental at best. This has been a failing of governments across jurisdictions and across parties. This is not about pointing fingers and assigning blame. This is about accepting that however well-intentioned attempts to improve the lives of our First Nations people have been they have not brought about the urgent change that the circumstances demand.

We must have humility enough to say that what we have been doing has not been working well enough. If things are to improve, things also need to change. This legislation has involved extensive consultation with communities all over South Australia, aimed at ensuring that the Voice will be robust, informed and inclusive. We continue that journey here today.

In July last year, Mr Dale Agius was appointed as South Australia's inaugural Commissioner for First Nations Voice. The commissioner led two rounds of engagement with First Nations people around our state on both the concept and the design of the model. The first round of engagement occurred between August and October last year. Dozens of sessions with hundreds of Aboriginal people and organisations were held across the state, from the APY lands to Ceduna to Mount Gambier and the many points in between.

These processes and the commissioner's subsequent engagement report informed the development of the First Nations Voice Bill 2022, a draft which was released for a further round of engagement sessions and online engagement between November last year and January this year. During the rounds of community engagement, there was a strong and consistent discussion around the key principles that should inform the design of the Voice. The key principles were:

1. The Voice must be underpinned by self-determination and as such representatives must be chosen by First Nations communities themselves.

2. The Voice must come from the grassroots level and be able to speak for local issues.

3. The Voice must reflect the diversity of First Nations communities; it must reflect regional issues and must speak for men's and women's issues as well as for elders and young people.

These three principles and the key issues raised during both rounds of engagement have closely informed the final version of the bill that I introduce today. In particular, the bill provides for representation at the local level and the state level that reflects the diversity amongst First Nations people and ensures that the voices of First Nations peoples in South Australia are heard directly by the South Australian parliament and the South Australian government.

I now turn to the detail of the bill itself. Part 1 of the bill sets out important preliminary matters. In response to feedback from the engagement sessions, the definitions of 'Aboriginal person' and 'Country' have been replaced with 'First Nations person' and 'traditional owner'. The definition of First Nations persons adopts the tripartite test as stated by Justice Brennan in Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) and is commonly used by governments all around Australia. A reference to a traditional owner in relation to a particular place is now modelled on references in other legislation.

Two new clauses have also been included in part 1 of the bill, in response to concerns about the interaction of the Voice with existing bodies and agreements. Clause 7 makes it clear that the Voice does not limit or otherwise affect:

the functions of any other First Nations persons or bodies under any other act or law;

an agreement or arrangement entered into or relating to First Nations persons or bodies, such as native title agreements; or

anything that First Nations persons or bodies can do in accordance with First Nations tradition.

Clause 8 makes it clear that this bill is intended to be read in conjunction with and to complement the provisions of any other act that implements measures to progress Truth and Treaty, as contemplated in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Part 2 of the bill sets out the structure and functions of the Voice at the local level. Regions will be established within South Australia that will be represented by independent Local First Nations Voices with elected members. Pursuant to clauses 9 to 11 of the bill, the number of regions and the number of members that make up the Local First Nations Voice within each region will be prescribed by regulation.

Local First Nations Voices will engage with local communities in order to determine matters of interest to First Nations people in their region and will communicate those views to the State First Nations Voice. This process will be a collaborative process with the State First Nations Voice. Local First Nations Voices will also have a discretion to collaborate with and assist public sector agencies and other organisations in the development of policies and procedures, and to engage with local government and other organisations on matters of interest to First Nations people in their region.

Part 3 of the bill sets out the structure and functions of the Voice at the state level. The membership of the State First Nations Voice will be comprised of the joint presiding members, who must be of different genders, of each Local First Nations Voice. The State First Nations Voice will represent the diversity of First Nations people in South Australia and will formally interact with the South Australian parliament and the South Australian government.

In response to feedback, which sought greater recognition of and representation from young persons, elders, native title holders as well as members of the stolen generations, the bill requires a State Voice to establish specific committees to represent these important groups. The membership of these advisory committees is to come from the community and not from the existing membership of the State Voice and the Local First Nations Voices.

Parts 4 and 5 of the bill set out the formal requirements for the State First Nations Voice interactions with the South Australian parliament and the South Australian government. The State First Nations Voice will be notified of the introduction of each bill in the House of Assembly or the Legislative Council and will be able to address either house of parliament, but not both, through one of the joint presiding members in relation to any bill.

The State First Nations Voice must deliver an annual report and address to a joint sitting of parliament and may present a report to parliament on matters of interest to First Nations people. To ensure that the issues raised in these latter reports are appropriately considered, the minister is required to provide a response to the report, including whether any action has been taken or is proposed to be taken.

Interactions between the State First Nations Voice and the South Australian government will occur through meetings with cabinet, briefings with chief executives, and an annual engagement hearing. The ability to directly address the South Australian parliament and to engage with cabinet ministers and chief executives will give First Nations people the opportunity to influence decision-making at the highest levels and have their voices heard where it counts.

The conduct of elections is set out in schedule 1 of the bill. Elections will be run by the Electoral Commission of South Australia and will, with the exception of the first election, be held at the same time as the state election. Transitional provisions will allow the first election of members of Local First Nations Voices to be held as soon as possible after the commencement of the legislation.

A First Nations person who is on the state electoral roll and who has completed a declaration of eligibility will be able to vote in an election of members of the Local First Nations Voice for the region in which they reside. A person who nominates as a candidate for a Local First Nations Voice is not restricted to nominating in the region within which they reside: instead, they may choose to stand either where they reside or in a region where the person is a traditional owner.

As agreed to in the other place, clause 13 of schedule 1 of the bill provides for a preferential voting system. Voting is to be conducted using a single transferable vote system in accordance with rules determined by the Electoral Commissioner after consultation with the State First Nations Voice and the minister. These rules will be modelled as much as is reasonably practicable on the Electoral Act's provisions for the Legislative Council vote.

This legislation comes before us at a pivotal moment in our national history. The eyes of Australia are upon us. We have the opportunity to once again lead the rest of the commonwealth, as we have done so many times in our history, in making the operations of our democracy even more accessible and both more representative of and more responsive to the people of our state.

The Voice is a respectful request to our state to involve Aboriginal people in the creation of the policies that affect them. All it asks of us is to listen. This is the change we have been asked to make, and it is a privilege to do my part to carry that change forward. I commend this bill and this historic moment to members, and seek leave to insert the explanation of clauses in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

3—Interpretation

This clause defines terms used in the measure.

4—Meaning of First Nations person

This clause explains when a person will be taken to be a First Nations person and when a person will be taken to be of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent for the purposes of the measure.

5—Meaning of traditional owner

This clause explains what a reference to a traditional owner in relation to a particular place means for the purposes of the measure.

6—Act does not require disclosure of certain information

This clause provides that nothing in the measure requires a Local First Nations Voice, the State First Nations Voice or any First Nations person to disclose information that should not, according to First Nations tradition, be disclosed.

7—Act does not limit functions of other First Nations persons or bodies etc

This clause provides that nothing in the measure limits or otherwise affects—

(a) the functions of any other First Nations persons or bodies under any other Act or law;

(b) an agreement or arrangement entered into or relating to First Nations persons or bodies or the ability of First Nations persons or bodies to enter into such agreements or arrangements;

(c) anything that First Nations persons or bodies can do in accordance with First Nations tradition.

8—Act to be read in conjunction with other relevant Acts

This clause provides that the provisions of the measure are intended to be read in conjunction with, and to complement, the provisions of any other Act that implements measures to progress Truth and Treaty, as identified in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Part 2—Local First Nations Voices

Division 1—State to be divided into regions

9—Constitution of regions

This clause requires that South Australia be divided into 6 regions or the number of regions prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this measure and that each region will consist of the area or areas specified by the regulations and may be known by the name assigned by the State First Nations Voice after consultation with the relevant Local First Nations Voice.

Division 2—Local First Nations Voices

10—Establishment of Local First Nations Voices

This clause provides that a Local First Nations Voice is to be established in respect of each region in the State. A Local First Nations Voice is independent of direction or control by the Crown or any Minister or officer of the Crown and is not an agency or instrumentality of the Crown.

11—Composition of Local First Nations Voice

This clause provides that a Local First Nations Voice consists of such number of members as may be prescribed by the regulations elected in accordance with the measure and reflecting the gender diversity contemplated by Schedule 1 of the measure.

12—Joint presiding members

This clause provides that each Local First Nations Voice must elect 2 of its members (of different gender) to be joint presiding members of the Local First Nations Voice and that a joint presiding member removed from the State First Nations Voice ceases to be a joint presiding member of the Local First Nations Voice and is not eligible to be re-elected.

13—Terms and conditions of office

This clause provides that a member of a Local First Nations Voice holds office until the next election of members, is eligible for re-election and is entitled to such remuneration, allowances and expenses as may be determined by the Governor.

14—Vacancies

This clause outlines how the office of a member of a Local First Nations Voice becomes vacant, and the rules that apply to the filling of a vacancy that occurs in the office of a member.

15—Functions of Local First Nations Voices

This clause outlines the functions and powers of a Local First Nations Voice.

16—Procedures of Local First Nations Voices

This clause sets out the procedures of Local First Nations Voices.

17—Delegation

This clause provides that a Local First Nations Voice may delegate a function under this measure to a member of the Local First Nations Voice and that a function delegated may be further delegated if the instrument of delegation so provides.

18—Accounts and audit

This clause requires a Local First Nations Voice to keep proper accounting records in relation to its financial affairs, and to have annual statements of account prepared in respect of each financial year.

The Auditor-General may at any time, and must once a year, audit a Local First Nations Voice's accounts.

19—Duty to act honestly

This clause requires members of Local First Nations Voices to act honestly in the performance of the functions of their office at all times.

20—Code of conduct

This clause allows the Minister to publish a code of conduct for members of Local First Nations Voices after consultation with the State First Nations Voice and requires members of Local First Nations Voices to comply with the code of conduct.

Division 3—Elections of members of Local First Nations Voices

21—Conduct of elections of members of Local First Nations Voices

This clause sets out how an election of members of a Local First Nations Voice is to be conducted.

Division 4—Annual meeting of Local First Nations Voices

22—Annual meeting of Local First Nations Voices

This clause sets out that the State First Nations Voice must convene, at least once in each year, a meeting of all Local First Nations Voices and how that annual meeting is to be conducted.

Part 3—State First Nations Voice

23—Establishment of State First Nations Voice

This clause establishes the State First Nations Voice. The State First Nations Voice is independent of direction or control by the Crown or any Minister or officer of the Crown and is not an agency or instrumentality of the Crown.

24—Composition of State First Nations Voice

This clause provides that the State First Nations Voice consists of the joint presiding members of each Local First Nations Voice.

25—Joint presiding members

This clause requires the State First Nations Voice to elect 2 members (of different gender) to be joint presiding members.

26—Terms and conditions of office

This clause provides that a member of the State First Nations Voice holds office for as long as they are a joint presiding member of the relevant Local First Nations Voice and that they are entitled to such remuneration, allowances and expenses as may be determined by the Governor.

27—Vacancies

This clause outlines how the office of a member of the State First Nations Voice may become vacant.

28—Functions of State First Nations Voice

This clause sets out the functions and powers of the State First Nations Voice. The State First Nations Voice must, in carrying out its functions, endeavour to represent the views of all Aboriginal persons in the State.

It also provides that the State First Nations Voice cannot delegate a function under the measure.

29—Procedures of State First Nations Voice

This clause establishes the procedures of the State First Nations Voice.

30—First Nations Elders Advisory Committee

This clause requires the State First Nations Voice to establish a First Nations Elders Advisory Committee. It sets out the composition of, eligibility of persons for membership to, and procedures of, the committee.

It also provides that a member of the committee is entitled to such remuneration, allowances and expenses (if any) as may be determined by the Minister after consultation with the State First Nations Voice).

31—First Nations Youth Advisory Committee

This clause requires the State First Nations Voice to establish a First Nations Youth Advisory Committee. It sets out the composition of, eligibility of persons for membership to, and procedures of, the committee.

It also provides that a member of the committee is entitled to such remuneration, allowances and expenses (if any) as may be determined by the Minister after consultation with the State First Nations Voice).

32—Stolen Generations Advisory Committee

This clause requires the State First Nations Voice to establish a Stolen Generations Advisory Committee. It sets out the composition of, eligibility of persons for membership to, and procedures of, the committee.

It also provides that a member of the committee is entitled to such remuneration, allowances and expenses (if any) as may be determined by the Minister after consultation with the State First Nations Voice).

33—Native Title Bodies Advisory Committee

This clause requires the State First Nations Voice to establish a Native Title Bodies Advisory Committee. It sets out the composition of, eligibility of persons for membership to, and procedures of, the committee.

It also provides that a member of the committee is entitled to such remuneration, allowances and expenses (if any) as may be determined by the Minister after consultation with the State First Nations Voice).

34—Other advisory committees

This clause enables the State First Nations Voice to establish other committees to advise the State First Nations Voice as the State First Nations Voice considers appropriate. It sets out the composition of, eligibility of persons for membership to, and procedures of, such committees.

It also provides that a member of a committee is entitled to such remuneration, allowances and expenses (if any) as may be determined by the Minister after consultation with the State First Nations Voice).

35—Accounts and audit

This clause requires the State First Nations Voice to keep proper accounting records in relation to its financial affairs, and to have annual statements of account prepared in respect of each financial year.

The Auditor-General may at any time, and must once a year, audit the State First Nations Voice's accounts.

36—Duty to act honestly

This clause requires members of the State First Nations Voice to act honestly in the performance of the functions of their office at all times.

37—Code of conduct

This clause allows the Minister to publish a code of conduct for members of the State First Nations Voice and requires members to comply with the code of conduct.

Part 4—Addresses to Parliament

38—State First Nations Voice to deliver annual report and address to Parliament

This clause requires the State First Nations Voice to present written reports setting out a summary of the operations of the State First Nations Voice and each Local First Nations Voice to a joint sitting of Parliament, and to address the joint sitting through 1 of the joint presiding members of the State First Nations Voice, once in each year.

39—State First Nations Voice to be notified of introduction of Bills

This clause obliges the clerk of the Legislative Council or House of Assembly to notify the State First Nations Voice of the introduction of each Bill in the Council or Assembly. However, failure to provide such notice does not affect the validity of the Bill or proceedings of Parliament.

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

This clause entitles the State First Nations Voice to address either House of Parliament in relation to a Bill that has been introduced in the relevant House through 1 of the joint presiding members. It also sets out notice requirements in respect of an address.

41—State First Nations Voice may present report to Parliament

This clause provides that the State First Nations Voice may provide a report on any matter that is, in its opinion, a matter of interest to First Nations people and sets out the procedures for providing, and following provision of, the report.

42—State First Nations Voice may be requested to provide report to Parliament etc

This clause provides that the President of the Legislative Council or the Speaker of the House of Assembly may, by written notice, request a report from, or an address by, the State First Nations Voice in relation to a specified Bill.

Part 5—Interaction with South Australian Government

Division 1—Meeting with Cabinet

43—State First Nations Voice to meet with Cabinet

This clause requires that the State First Nations Voice meet with Cabinet at least twice in each year (subject to specified circumstances).

44—Protection of communications etc with Cabinet

This clause provides that information and documents prepared for, or provided to, the Cabinet by the State First Nations Voice will be taken to have been specifically prepared for submission to Cabinet for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 1991 and any other Act or law.

Division 2—Briefings with Chief Executives of administrative units

45—Briefings with Chief Executives of administrative units

This clause requires the Premier to cause a Chief Executive's briefing to be held at least twice each year between the State First Nations Voice and the Chief Executives of each administrative unit of the Public Service specified by the State First Nations Voice. The briefings will allow the State First Nations Voice to be briefed by, and ask questions of, the Chief Executives in relation to matters of interest.

Division 3—Annual engagement hearing with administrative units etc

46—Annual engagement hearing with administrative units etc

This clause requires the Premier to cause an engagement hearing to be held in each year between the joint presiding members of the State First Nations Voice and each Minister and Chief Executive of an administrative unit of the Public Service specified by the State First Nations Voice. The hearing will allow the State First Nations Voice to ask questions relating to the operations, expenditure, budget and priorities of administrative units as they affect certain matters.

Part 6—Administration and resourcing

47—Secretariat

This clause establishes the secretariat for the Local First Nations Voices and the State First Nations Voice, which will consist of whichever Public Service employees are assigned to the secretariat.

48—Resources

This clause requires the Minister to determine the resourcing that, in the Minister's opinion, the Local First Nations Voices and the State First Nations Voice reasonably need to carry out their functions under the measure and sets out consultation requirements.

49—Use of staff etc of Public Service

This clause allows a Local First Nations Voice and the State First Nations Voice, by agreement with the Minister responsible for an administrative unit of the Public Service, to make use of the staff, equipment or facilities of that administrative unit.

Part 7—Review of Act

50—Review of Act

This clause requires the Minister to cause a review of the operation of the measure to be undertaken, and a report on the review to be prepared and submitted to the Minister. It outlines the requirements of the review.

The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 6 sitting days after receiving the report.

Part 8—Miscellaneous

51—Confidentiality

This clause requires persons who obtained personal information in the course of the administration of the measure not to divulge any such information except in certain circumstances. The proposed maximum penalty is $10,000.

Any information disclosed under this clause must not be used for any other purpose by the person to whom it is disclosed, or by any other person who gains access to the information as a result of the disclosure. The proposed maximum penalty is $10,000.

52—Obstruction etc

This clause requires that a person must not, without reasonable excuse, obstruct, hinder, resist or improperly influence, or attempt to obstruct, hinder, resist or improperly influence, a Local First Nations Voice or the State First Nations Voice, or a member of those bodies, in the performance or exercise of a function under the measure. The proposed maximum penalty is $10,000.

53—Protections, privileges and immunities

This clause confers protections from liability on a Local First Nations Voice, the State First Nations Voice, a member of those bodies or any other person or body for any act or omission in good faith in the exercise or purported exercise of functions or powers under the measure or any other Act. It also provides that nothing in the measure affects the privileges, immunities or powers of the Legislative Council or House of Assembly or their committees or members or any rule or principle of law relating to the matters specified in the clause.

54—Regulations and fee notices

This clause provides power to make regulations and to prescribe fees by fee notice.

Schedule 1—Rules of election for Local First Nations Voices

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Interpretation

This clause defines terms used in the Schedule.

2—Voters roll

This clause provides that the State electoral role will be taken to be the electoral role for the purposes of an election under the measure.

3—Declaration of eligibility

This clause sets out what a declaration of eligibility is in respect of voting in an election and nominating for an office of member of a Local First Nations Voice.

4—Gender representation

This clause sets out the required gender representation of members of a Local First Nations Voice.

Part 2—Returning officer

5—Returning officer

This clause establishes that the Electoral Commissioner will be the returning officer for elections under the measure, and that they may appoint 1 or more electoral officials to assist them in conducting the election.

6—Distribution of information and election publicity

This clause establishes that the returning officer is responsible for publicity of an election in each region and outlines what that requires.

Part 3—Eligibility to vote

7—Eligibility to vote in elections

This clause establishes who is eligible to vote in an election in relation to a region.

Part 4—Eligibility and nomination for election to Local First Nations Voice

8—Nominations for office of member of Local First Nations Voice

This clause establishes the process for a person to nominate for an office of member of a Local First Nations Voice, as well as who is eligible to nominate.

Part 5—General rules relating to election

9—Election timetable

This clause sets out that polling for an election will occur in the course of each State election at State election polling places at the same time as polling for the State election.

10—Uncontested elections

This clause establishes that where only 1 nomination for a given office is received, the returning officer will declare the candidate duly elected.

11—Voting

This clause establishes the process to be followed if there are 2 or more nominations for a given office.

12—Postal voting may be used

This clause establishes that postal voting may be used in an election under the measure in accordance with the rules and procedures established by the returning officer.

13—System of voting and determination of certain rules etc

This clause establishes the system of voting to be used in an election.

It provides that voting is to be conducted in accordance with rules determined by the Electoral Commissioner, sets out the consultation requirements in respect of those rules, lists matters in respect of which rules must be made and requires the rules to be, as far as reasonably practicable, consistent with the provisions of the Electoral Act 1985 relating to the election of members of the Legislative Council.

It further provides that a ballot paper is not informal only by reason of the failure of the voter to mark a particular number of preferences on the ballot paper.

Part 6—Declaration of results

14—Provisional declarations

This clause establishes that when the result of the election has become apparent, the returning officer must make a provisional declaration of the result.

15—Recounts

This clause outlines the circumstances in which a recount of the votes may be requested and the procedure to be followed in performing a recount.

16—Declaration of results and certificate

This clause establishes the procedure to be followed if either a recount has been made, or the period in which a recount can be requested has expired.

Part 7—Supplementary elections on failure of election

17—Supplementary elections on failure of election etc

This clause sets out that a supplementary election may be required to be held, after consultation with the State First Nations Voice, the returning officer and any other person or body the Minister thinks fit, if an election fails for certain reasons.

Part 8—Disputed Returns

18—Constitution of Court

This clause requires that there be a Court of Disputed Returns for the purposes of the measure that is constituted of a District Court Judge.

19—Clerk of Court

This clause requires that there be a clerk of the Court appointed by the Chief Judge of the District Court.

20—Jurisdiction of Court

This clause sets out the jurisdiction of the Court.

21—Procedure upon petition

This clause sets out the requirements for a petition to the Court.

22—Powers of Court

This clause sets out the powers of the Court.

23—Effect of decision

This clause outlines the effect of a decision of the Court.

24—Right of appearance

This clause provides that a party to proceedings before the Court may appear personally or be represented by counsel.

25—Case stated

This clause allows the Court to state a question of law for the opinion of the Court of Appeal.

26—Costs

This clause allows the Court to make orders for costs, sets out circumstances in which any costs must be awarded against the Crown and provides that an order for costs may be enforced as an order of the District Court.

27—Rules of Court

This clause sets out the rules that the Chief Judge of the District Court may make in respect of the Court.

Part 9—Miscellaneous

28—False or misleading statements

This clause prohibits a person from making a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular in information provided for the purposes of an election under the measure. The proposed maximum penalty is imprisonment for 4 years.

Schedule 2—Repeals, related amendments and transitional etc provisions

Part 1—Repeal of Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee Act 2003

1—Repeal of Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee Act 2003

This clause repeals the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee Act 2003.

Part 2—Amendment of Constitution Act 1934

2—Insertion of section 3

This clause inserts a new section 3 into the principal Act as follows:

3—Recognition of importance of First Nations voices

This section provides that the South Australian Parliament recognises the importance of listening to the voices of First Nations people, acknowledges that those voices have not always been heard in Parliament, and intends that those voices will be heard, and will make a unique and irreplaceable contribution to South Australia that benefits all South Australians.

Part 3—Transitional etc provisions

3—First election of members of Local First Nations Voices

This clause outlines provisions that apply to the first election of members of Local First Nations Voices.

4—Consultation with State First Nations Voice

This clause provides that the Minister, the Electoral Commissioner or any other person or body need not comply with a requirement under the measure requiring consultation with the State First Nations Voice until the State First Nations Voice is capable of performing its functions.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:17): At the outset, I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition. I also indicate that the opposition opposes this bill. The opposition opposes the bill in circumstances where the model that is the subject of the bill is a defective model that will not achieve the outcomes so richly deserved by those in need, who are calling—and indeed who have called for a long time—for a meaningful and effective engagement towards improvement. I will say a little more about context and history in that regard.

I also indicate that in my remarks just now, in a contribution to the second reading of this bill, I will be brief. I wish to emphasise some matters of context and principle and foreshadow a process at the committee stage of this bill similarly oriented towards clarity in terms of the way the bill will operate.

To the extent that I introduce amendments, I will indicate to the house that there will be no surprise in that regard, in that we are in the not so terribly unusual circumstance where not only is there a parallel bill on the Notice Paper, there was a bill before the last parliament, there is a report the subject of the previous Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement's work and the amendments that I will address in due course will be wholly within the bounds of what is therefore already for a long time on the public record, indeed on the Notice Paper of this House.

I want to pick up on an observation that the Premier made just a moment ago because in some ways it might be thought that the eyes of Australia are on us. It has been surprising to me in the course of this debate that is going along in parallel with a referendum debate at the federal level that there has not been more overt reference to legislation that has been before this parliament for some time, as well as the legislative process that has been in preparation in the course of this parliament. It has not, particularly, at least not yet, but I too am conscious that it may well in due course fall to the scrutiny of other jurisdictions. Indeed, it may find a place of relevance in the national debate, so it is fair for the Premier to indicate that the eyes of Australia might be on us.

Let's approach the matter with the humility and the diligence that the subject matter requires because there should not be any hint of grandiosity in what we are debating here. It is true to say, and I do not think that there is anything controversial in an observation, that the difficulties, the challenges, the opportunities that Aboriginal people in this state have experienced over the course of our South Australian history since 1836, have remained challenging and complex problems for public policy for parliaments, for governments and for those who would work alongside Aboriginal people.

Let's be clear: the history of institutional engagement with Aboriginal people in this state has threads in common with other jurisdictions around the country. It has been fraught with injustice. It has not led to outcomes that have achieved the very best for Aboriginal people. Those challenges and difficulties have been of long standing. That is not to say that there have not been positive steps along the way. I say that to underscore the need for humility and diligence when we step down a path towards legislating for new structures of engagement and new means by which it might be held out to Aboriginal people that there is now to be some bright new pathway towards somewhere that is entirely new.

Aboriginal people, as well as the rest of non-Indigenous South Australia, will be right to cast a sceptical eye over measures that are presented as the means to significant improvement, so I say humility and diligence are important. The other element that is critical to progress in this regard, at least so far as public policy is concerned, is the presence of bipartisanship and cooperation in the process of reform.

Let's recall in the history of our state just two, perhaps, significant steps that have been taken. Preoccupied as they were in the last century by issues of land rights, we know, and it has been referred to by others in the course of this debate and previous debates, that in 1966 as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the then minister Don Dunstan established the Aboriginal Lands Trust. That was followed in 1981 by the Tonkin government's land rights legislation for the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara, the APY lands.

These important structural steps in relation to land rights in the course of the last century are steps that are taken with diligence, with humility and with bipartisanship, and so I say again, any hint of partisanship is a recipe for failure, and we have seen it already playing out on the national stage. I hope that there may be an opportunity for reflection and I hope that, as we step forward through this process, there is an opportunity for reflection on all sides about what is so important. Just like all of us, Aboriginal people of South Australia should have confidence that public policy and the action of parliament is applied in their best interests and not in that of the bearer, and particularly not that of a partisan bearer of such proposed reform.

So I say to the government that any step that is taken in this regard in a partisan way, in a self-congratulatory way, will be a display of immaturity and recklessness, and I call on the Premier and the government to endeavour to bring us together in the course of this process rather than to seek a pathway characterised by partisanship. If we are going to progress, then we need to progress by consensus and merit, and what we are here doing, after all, is debating the merits of a bill, a bill that would provide for a machinery of engagement, including to this parliament, to the executive, to the public sector, and it would provide for the means by which a body for that purpose would be elected, constituted and carry out work.

That is our task, and it is not good enough for us to deal in concepts or slogans, particularly when it comes to the process of legislating. Let me emphasise, as might be made abundantly clear each day by all of us, we are focused on practical actions, actions that can be demonstrated as auguring towards improved outcomes for our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. So we support greater engagement with Aboriginal communities to achieve those practical outcomes, and it is trite to say so.

The debate occurs in circumstances where, from the very get-go of the last government, the Premier not only took a lead in this space, he took the portfolio. As Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, he went about working side by side with the newly appointed Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, Dr Roger Thomas (now Professor Thomas). So when I hear the Premier say that we have seen in recent months the appointment of an inaugural commissioner, it is a reinvention, it is a rehearsal and it is a remaking in an image that risks a partisan approach to the topic.

The fact is that work in this regard was sustained from the very beginning of the last government—years of work that led to the thoughtful report of Dr Thomas, notwithstanding work done through the course of the COVID pandemic, his address on the floor of this parliament at the end of 2020 and a bill that was introduced in the house by the Premier in 2021. I will come back to that in a moment because not only does that go to demonstrate a sustained body of work, but it also goes to characterise the nature of which that work needs to be undertaken.

Of course, the former Liberal government, led by the member for Dunstan, has a proud record when it comes to matters of engagement with Aboriginal people. In addition to appointing and working alongside the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, Dr Roger Thomas, the former government established the Aboriginal Affairs Action Plan. The former government established the role of Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People, April Lawrie, and I will come back to the fruits of that work in a moment; Reconciliation Action Plans; the Custody Notification Service; cultural awareness training; and of course the Lot Fourteen Aboriginal Art and Cultures Centre, Tarrkarri, just to name some particular initiatives.

Against that background, we have now seen, in the not quite full year of this new Labor government, a commitment to reinventing, restarting and reshaping the work that has led us to this place. I go back to the estimates hearings in June of last year where, on 21 June, as scheduling had it, the member for Dunstan—the former minister—was engaged in the estimates process with the minister.

In the course of a sustained line of questioning in relation to progress on engagement, the question was put very directly to the minister. The member for Dunstan put it to the minister: 'Well, you have the benefit of all of this work that has been done since 2018.' It was put to him: 'Were you aware that there was legislation that was introduced in the course of the last parliament?' and 'You are aware of the work that has been done over the course of that time?'

The question was put very directly to the minister: 'Is it the government's position that it wouldn't support that and it would wait for further consultation?' The minister said, 'No, we are going to do our own work on this.' That was not quite at the end of June last year and what ensued was exactly that.

Notwithstanding what were widespread plaudits and praise for the work of Dr Roger Thomas in the course of the debate in October and November 2021, Dr Roger Thomas's tenure as Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement came to an end a few days later, at the end of June. He was then effectively sidelined from this process so that the inaugural commissioner for this task that the new government has embarked upon could be appointed.

I take a moment to acknowledge the work of Dale Agius, the Commissioner for First Nations Voice to the South Australian parliament, as the role has now been termed, who has indeed undertaken engagement: first in the period August to October 2022, which was the period commencing a couple of short weeks after this key moment in the estimates hearing; and another one, a second engagement, in November 2022 until January 2023 which led to what has been described as the second engagement note by the commissioner.

While it is no particular reflection on the nature and the quality of the work that has been undertaken in that role by Dale Agius, it should be clearly understood at the outset that this has taken place, this has transpired, in circumstances where we have a new government that has come along and in the first months post its election has made it very clear that its intent is to reset—if necessary, to reinvent—and to undertake work in its own image. 'No, we will do our own work on this' said the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs back in June last year.

Of course, not only does that have a deleterious effect on the relative bipartisanship of the process but, as the member for Dunstan pointed out immediately in response, the consequence of taking that approach was an inevitable, lengthy delay before progress was then displayed. Again, I will come back to that in a moment, the course of that debate, because it has been made clear since at that stage that what we are going to see at every step will be a process of characterising progress and reform in this space in the image of the current government.

I will just say one thing more about the course of the estimates hearing and, again, all on the record. The member for Dunstan went on to say, 'Well, if you are going to go to that extent to remake and reinvent this work, are you, for example, going to keep the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council?' The minister said, 'Well, that depends,' and he then went on to say that he had no present plan to amend the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council.

Let us be clear: the Aboriginal Advisory Council is the government of South Australia's peak advisory body on matters of Aboriginal affairs programs and policy, and is a council that is of long standing and comprises up to 10 Aboriginal people, who are appointed by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The question having been asked—and the member for Dunstan further underscored, as part of the function of the Aboriginal Advisory Council—will it continue to meet with cabinet on a twice-yearly basis? The minister said:

That is something we will look at and make a decision on. I know my colleagues have spoken of how we are now in a fortunate position where we do not just have a group that comes to cabinet a couple of times a year but, as an Aboriginal person and as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Attorney-General, we have an Aboriginal person around the cabinet table every time a cabinet decision is made.

We see the response not only to Dr Roger Thomas' work but also in respect of the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council in terms of a willingness to remake and to reshape engagement in a partisan way very much in the government's image.

I say there has been engagement of that nature by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs because it has emerged in really quite plain terms that the Premier, meanwhile, appears to have paid very little attention to the course of this work at all. That was made plain on 7 February this year on ABC radio. The Premier, in addressing the bill that was to come, made the incorrect observation that we did not see a bill in the course of the former parliament.

Incorrect: a display of inattention, obviously not mindful of the course of debate in October and November of 2021, a debate that was engaged in on all sides and one that reflected the course of that work. The Premier came on the radio on 7 February and said, 'Well, we didn't even see a bill.' I do not know where the Premier was in the course of the last parliament, but he clearly was not paying attention to the work that had been done over that sustained period in the lead-up to 2021. It would be interesting to hear some form of explanation from the Premier about that observation.

It is odd then, I suppose, in that context that one might reflect on contributions in October and November of last year where the now Deputy Premier made observations about the engagement process. Like many, she praised the work over a long period of time of Dr Roger Thomas and, to the extent that the bill in the course of that debate was critiqued, it was critiqued in terms of what was described as a lack of consultation—somewhat ironic—and it was otherwise characterised, insofar as the Voice or engagement with parliament was concerned, by a criticism that that engagement to parliament was more an engagement to a committee—a virtue that I will come back to in a moment in addressing the details of the bill that is now presented to the parliament.

The member for Giles, in the course of his thoughtful contribution to that debate, counselled patience and, in many respects, I would share and endeavour to amplify those sentiments in the course of that debate—that counselling of patience, humility and bipartisanship in the course of getting whatever we do in this place right by doing the diligent work.

The member for Hurtle Vale, the member for Narungga and the member for Kaurna made contributions to that debate in October and November of last year and all—some with greater or lesser degrees of direct involvement with Dr Thomas—applauded Dr Thomas's work. So there, if you will, is some context of a process of years, a debate leading up to the presentation of a bill and the debate in the second reading of that bill in the course of the last parliament.

If the Premier was still suffering from a short attention span on the topic, he had an opportunity for a reset because just a few short months later the bill was once again being addressed and by me in the context of its history in the former parliament and the work that had been done by many, including by Dr Roger Thomas, so I remain somewhat perplexed by the Premier's remark that we did not see a bill when he came to introduce this one on the ABC on 7 February.

That kind of hubris in the course of this work and presentation continued and I cite just a couple of further examples. We heard from the Premier in the course of the last sitting week in response to questions from government members about the process of engagement in the lead-up to the introduction of this bill. The Premier addressed questions on 21 and 22 of February in which he, first on 21 February, talked about a process of engagement towards the introduction of the bill and I think made remarks about the response from this side in the course of that process. It was really quite ironic in circumstances where not only has the government got the benefit of a bill in the last parliament but has one sitting on the Notice Paper in the course of this one.

Further, on 22 February, the Premier had the gall to suggest that somehow the opposition's opposition to this bill was somehow a change of position and I reject that entirely and wholeheartedly. In fact, I was criticised by the Premier for attending an event to recognise the introduction of the bill and to acknowledge the work of Dale Agius. I will say it very clearly: the work that we do every day in this place in recognising work that is done towards improvement with Aboriginal people needs to be characterised by much more than celebrating and clapping and, dare I say, much more than giving ourselves a pat on the back.

If you want to improve outcomes for Aboriginal people, then you had better have more than that. If you want to legislate for Aboriginal people to engage, then they had better amount to a lot more than symbols and rhetoric and self-congratulation. As I said, I recall presiding with great pride on the occasion of Dr Thomas' address to this parliament at the end of 2020. He concluded his address by saying, and I quote:

I strongly believe that for us to progress what has been started today, as it is often stated, Aboriginal affairs should be bipartisan…

What was Dr Thomas' error, I ask? Why, against the background of that work and the debate that had been engaged in, was he sidelined by this process? I think what is plain is what we have now seen transpire.

We think about concrete steps, and I have referred to the initiatives taken by the last government, including among them the establishment of the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People. That has been a step that has borne fruit. It is a process that has been characterised by humility, diligence and bipartisanship, as we have seen demonstrated in the ongoing work of April Lawrie in that role.

Indeed, as recently as 4 March—and I congratulated the minister on this just a moment ago—in response to the work of Commissioner Lawrie, we see the government announcing provision of funds for a new independent Aboriginal-controlled body to be established to improve care and protection outcomes for Aboriginal children and young people.

On the face of that initiative, there is much to applaud, there is much to celebrate. The minister indicates that there is nearly $17 million that has been set aside in order to ensure that special family group conferencing work, under the auspices of that new body, can be applied to address what the minister has recognised as the unacceptable over-representation of Aboriginal children in care and the commitment of all of us to do better in this space.

This is an initiative that results from establishing a structure that has the prospects of delivering real and improved outcome. We know that there are many Aboriginal representative bodies spread throughout the state. The key test, according to which each of them will be tested, will be the outcomes that they deliver. That is not just us here in South Australia saying that; the question of audit and accountability for the results of the work of such bodies is one that has been noted in the course of the national debate.

Let's none of us be too quick to pat ourselves on the back; rather, let's continue to do the day-to-day work that needs to be done towards improvement. Again, we will come to the committee debate in due course. The addition in clause 7 of this bill of a provision that provides for the avoidance of doubt, this body operating entirely separately from all of those other bodies, not affecting their work and not being engaged with what they do—I wonder whether that is a positive or a negative step. Apparently, it arose in the course of the second round of engagement. I do not know if that expresses confidence in this new model by those Aboriginal groups. Again, I emphasise the importance of engagement towards improved outcomes.

The bill and its structure: I have described the model that has been presented to the parliament as a defective model. It stands in direct contrast with the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill that is on the Notice Paper and was the subject of debate in the previous parliament.

Rather than providing for a means by which an elected body, a representative body, can engage in the day-to-day work of policy improvement and of inquiry and of analysis—the work that a committee of the parliament is perfectly suited to do—rather than take that course this bill provides for a model according to which, and I have to say, in an inevitably haphazard way, the representatives, the presiding members of that body, might engage somehow in the course of debate on the floor of this parliament in a way that might happen before, during or after the debate that actually occurs in this place, and in a way that would, on the face of it, provide for a form of direct engagement, but in practical ways offers no prospect of the kind of deep and thoroughgoing engagement with work towards improvement that a committee of engagement model provides.

Additionally, of course, the body is described in this bill at clause 29 as meeting only rarely, unlike in the alternative model where you have a body that is established with a very high degree of autonomy about the way it goes about its work, when and how it meets and those particular subject matters, including committees and so forth, that it might deem necessary to constitute. This is a body that is statutorily meeting rarely—four times a year, no more than six without the minister's approval.

I was quizzical about that provision, and it has been described to me as holding out the prospect of a task that is not too onerous. The minister, in describing it that way to me, I think wanted to characterise things in such a way that people might be willing to put their hand up to be on this body but perhaps would not do so if they felt that the workload involved was more onerous.

As an occasional board, or as a group with some sort of oversight, it might be necessary, it might be possible to conceive of a group that might meet rarely in that way, but a body that is expected to come along here armed with a copy of the day-to-day Notice Paper and to make some kind of engagement to the debate, off the back of that kind of meeting schedule and level of engagement, just does not make any practical sense.

This has all, of course, been pointed out. One of the other criticisms of this side from the Premier was that somehow there was not a response to engagement process. From a Premier who did not seem to be aware of the existence of a bill, let alone the years of work that led up to it, I just say it is there on the face of that bill and it is there for good reason. There will be more to say in committee about these matters.

I highlight one thing more, which I think will be the concern of all members of this place and of the participants in the election and those who find themselves on a local or the state body, and that is review. Review is tremendously important. Review of a novel body and structure will be all the more critical. We see a review mechanism, the subject of part 7 of the bill, that I think is going to need some real scrutiny to ensure that, whatever may be achieved in the course of a first round, post election, and work done by this Voice, they also have the benefit of a thoroughgoing and independent process of review so that we can all see where the outcomes of the body are leading us.

I will say more in the course of the committee about the merits of the Voice to a committee. It is a term that I embrace, and I think it is a good, short-form way of describing a means and a mode of engagement with the parliament that has the real prospect of achieving success. Not only do we have no form of engagement with a parliamentary committee process but, for good measure, we see the abolition of the existing Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee.

As a present member of that committee, I can just indicate to the house that for quite some time it has been observed—again, I share the views of the member for Giles in this respect—that the committee has been in need of reform. It is a form of engagement that can be and should be improved. It dates back to those times when land, heritage and governance were key oversight aspects of the parliament's engagement. Now is such an opportunity to reform that committee process and that committee's work so that it and, in turn, this parliament can be more effective in our engagement with Aboriginal people. I still hope that that might somehow find its way into the future. It is certainly not something that is prevented by any of the structure that we see before us in this bill.

With limited reflection on the federal debate, as the eyes of the nation might be on us—to pick up on the Premier's observations a moment ago—we see in fact more reflection on the merits of, effectively, a form of committee engagement, to characterise the nature of a body that might be constituted federally. It is a form of engagement that I once again wholeheartedly endorse. I do not do that in some sort of novel way but, again, in the particular circumstances in which there has been such a long and maintained body of work that led to the presentation of that model in 2021.

With those remarks, I again indicate the opposition's disappointment with the bill that has been presented before us. We are opposed to the bill. We are committed to engagement towards better outcomes. It would be a dereliction of our duty to get caught up in what might be described as the headline or the single word descriptors. Those things all go so far. We are in the business of legislating, and we must ensure that if we are to legislate in this place that we legislate towards practical outcomes, improved outcomes, for Aboriginal people. This bill will not do that. With those remarks, I look forward to the committee process, with a view to analysing those particular provisions in more detail.

The Hon. N.F. COOK (Hurtle Vale—Minister for Human Services) (12:06): Naa marni. Ngai nari Nat Kartanya Cook. Marni ngadlu tampinthi, ngadlu Kaurna yartankga tikanthi. It is one of the biggest privileges to be able to speak some Kaurna language, and it is always an opportunity for me to reflect on how far our community has come where the use of traditional language is not just accepted, it is welcomed. It is a starting point for a journey on which we still have so far to go.

When I look back at my parliamentary career, this will be one of the most important debates I will ever have had the privilege of participating in. Privilege has many meanings in this context. All MPs occupy a privileged place in our community. We work hard, but we are very well taken care of. We do not have to panic when a bill arrives in the mail, and we have staff to help us serve our communities. We have a voice and a vote on decisions that can affect our community for generations to come. That is just the privilege attached to our jobs, before we even consider how gender, education, race, wealth and other factors affect our lives. Privilege and opportunity come with even greater responsibility, and I trust that all members will bear that in mind as we debate this bill.

The South Australian parliament that debated whether women should vote or be able to run for parliament in the 1890s was all men. Now, almost 130 years later, we debate a bill about First Nations in a chamber that does not have a single First Nations member. As we did so many years ago, this chamber must make a decision to help those who are not in the room to speak on their own behalf. It is an honour to use my voice in support of First Nations people, but I will be more honoured when their own voice is spoken in here.

A sense of duty and history weighs on us as we debate this bill and encourage all members to think of future generations reading the Hansard or watching the debate. Our great-grandchildren probably will not care much about what we said about the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill in 2023, but they will care deeply about what we say and how we vote on the First Nations Voice Bill 2023.

We debate this bill on the lands of the Kaurna people—land that was stolen and never ceded, just like the lands of so many other First Nations people around Australia. I offer my deepest respect to our Aboriginal community and acknowledge their unique place in this land dating back 2,000 generations. I am not talking about the 2,000 years that many European cultures consider to be their origin but 2,000 generations, or 60,000 years. This place is home to the oldest living culture on the planet, and we should never forget how important and how valuable that is.

I am proud to be a member of the Labor Party and even more proud to be a minister in a Labor government. One of the many reasons for my sense of pride is our commitment to a state-based version of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. In fact, it was one of our earliest election commitments when in opposition. In July 2019, First Nations leaders welcomed South Australia Labor's commitment to deliver on Voice, Truth and Treaty. The Guardian newspaper reported at the time, and I quote:

The South Australian Labor Party has pledged to introduce a state-based version of the Uluru statement, including establishing a representative body to act as a voice to parliament, if it wins the next election.

It went on to talk about this being welcomed by leaders, affirming South Australia Labor’s position, and how this process was halted by the Marshall Liberal government when elected just over a year later. It stated:

Enacting a state-based version of the Uluru Statement from the Heart is an opportunity for Aboriginal South Australians to finally have their aspirations realised.

That is a quote from now Premier Peter Malinauskas.

Federal Labor also went to the 2019 election with a promise to deliver on the Uluru Statement, an important year for the Uluru Statement. Fast-forwarding a few years to 2022, we had two Labor leaders then winning elections from opposition. This is a rare achievement for any time in history but, rarer still, were their words they spoke as they accepted victory. Both leaders, Peter Malinauskas and Anthony Albanese, began their victory speeches with an acknowledgement of our First Nations people, and a commitment to deliver on the Uluru Statement. Now we see both leaders delivering on their promise.

Passing this bill will not fix all the problems that have been passed down through generations since 1788, but it will take us a huge step forward toward a better future for all South Australians. I truly hope the passing of this bill will provide momentum for a national Voice to be enshrined in our constitution through referendum. By passing this bill, South Australia can once again lead the nation.

In 2018, we signed the first agreement under a Treaty process in Australia, the Buthera Agreement. Sadly, the Treaty process was stopped by the former Liberal government under a Premier who previously described Treaty as a hoax. I can assure those opposite, and the wider community, delivering on the Uluru Statement is not a hoax or a mirage or anything like that. It is a promise. It is a duty. It is a critical foundation for our future as a community.

Beyond signing the Buthera Agreement, both the Labor Party and South Australia have taken important positions of leadership over decades. Don Dunstan introduced the first Aboriginal land rights legislation in Australia back in 1966, which established the Aboriginal Lands Trust. Building on the work of Don Dunstan, South Australia passed land rights legislation in 1981, for the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands. In 1975, Gough Whitlam famously poured a handful of red soil into the hand of Vincent Lingiari. This symbolised the legal transfer of Wave Hill Station back to the Gurindji people.

This process has been immortalised in so many ways, including the famous song From Little Things Big Things Grow. That was written by Kev Carmody and Paul Kelly. I did not think that that song could get any better until I heard the recent version by South Australian duo Electric Fields. When Zaachariaha Fielding, the child of Robert and Kaye from Mimili in the APY lands, sings in language you almost cry with sadness and joy, both at the same time. It is an Aboriginal story told by an Aboriginal person in an ancient Aboriginal language in a beautiful First Nations voice.

In 1992, Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating delivered his famous Redfern speech. I know that our Attorney-General and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the sponsor of this bill, has a personally signed copy on his wall. He is not alone. Multicultural Youth SA has this speech on their wall amongst other beautiful murals which speak to equality and inclusion. In that speech, Keating outlined the outrages committed against Aboriginal people since colonisation, and asked us to all imagine if it were us, and I quote:

…it might help us if we non-Aboriginal Australians imagined ourselves dispossessed of land we had lived on for fifty thousand years—and then imagined ourselves told that it had never been ours.

Imagine if ours was the oldest culture in the world and we were told that it was worthless.

Imagine if we had suffered the injustice and then were blamed for it.

It seems to me that if we can imagine the injustice we can imagine its opposite.

And we can have justice.

If you believe in these words fundamentally, how do you not support a Voice? Passing this bill, and then working towards Truth and Treaty, is fundamental to providing justice for Aboriginal people.

In 1995, federal Labor Attorney-General Michael Lavarch instigated the Bringing Them Home report. The report was delivered under the Liberals but some findings were rejected, and John Howard refused to say sorry. While we had to wait for a Labor government to be elected, Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2008 finally offered a formal apology to the stolen generations. This was leadership. The now leader of the federal Liberal Party, Peter Dutton, boycotted that apology. It took him another 15 years to express regret for doing so.

Today, I ask the Liberal Party in South Australia to learn from Peter Dutton's mistake. They do not have to wait another 15 years to support this bill or show more support for Aboriginal people: they can do it here and now. In 2015, under Labor, South Australia became the first mainland state to introduce a Stolen Generations Reparation Scheme, under the person who introduced this bill into the other place. As I mentioned earlier, SA Labor drove the Buthera Agreement that was agreed in 2018 and then, in 2019, committed to a state-based version of the Uluru Statement. Sadly, the leadership we had seen in South Australia came to an end when the Liberals put an end to the Treaty process.

It will also be the great privilege of my life to have been the Minister for Human Services, but it would be remiss of me not to highlight the challenges that Aboriginal people face across my portfolio areas. It is my hope that the Voice will bring a spotlight to the areas of disadvantage where there must be decisive action with all levels of government working hand in hand with Aboriginal people.

In remote South Australia, the NDIS markets are not thin: they are effectively invisible, with utilisation being as low as 15 to 20 per cent. In very remote Aboriginal communities, this is compounded further. A plan often cannot even be procured. The great promise of the NDIS is a social contract that Australia has made for people with disability to have dignity, choice and control. We will only have achieved this when it applies to all Australians.

I will never shy away from the challenging areas of my portfolio, but there are confronting moments every day, none more so than in youth justice. Our youth justice system is sadly significantly over-represented with Aboriginal young people. This is the sad reality of dispossession, generational trauma and the truth that we must confront as a community. I will not shy away from difficult conversations, but there is so much that we can do to improve outcomes.

We must speak to elders and grannies and take advice from the community, from women and from yarning circles. We must divert young people from youth justice systems because we know that this significantly impacts their life outcomes but also because it is the right thing to do. I am in this chamber because I know the reality of violence, the consequences of youth justice systems and the impacts of trauma. After my time in this place is over, I want to have overseen significant changes and improvements to young people's outcomes, particularly those who have touched the youth justice system.

I hope that my legacy in this portfolio and the legacy of this government will be making significant inroads into improving public and social housing. Nowhere is this more a requirement than in Aboriginal housing. Our original agreement, the national partnership on remote housing (NPARIH), made some incredible steps between 2008 and 2018, including 134 additional houses, 89 replacement houses and 280 upgraded houses. South Australia was a leader in remote Aboriginal housing, and we were making significant strides towards the kind of respectful, dignified existence that we expect for all South Australians. The cancellation of this agreement under the former state and federal governments has pushed back this progress.

It can sometimes be hard to look beyond your neighbourhood. When we talk about remote housing, I understand why people in Adelaide might not understand the implications of these funding agreements. A Voice to Parliament can shine a light on community concerns. It will bring a light to the issues affecting Aboriginal people, particularly those in remote communities. We can and must do better, and a Voice will be this moment in history. It may only be the start of our new compact, but it is a promise. It is a promise that we will listen, that we will act, that Aboriginal voices will be heard.

The bill before us comes almost six years after the Uluru Statement was handed down in 2017. Its words are as powerful, generous and brilliant as they were on that first day. The closing sentence says that 50 years after being counted for the first time Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people sought to be heard.

At this point, I want to offer an apology of my own. I am genuinely sorry that it has taken another six long years for a response to that call, but today is part of making things right and building a better future. To all those who contributed to drafting the Uluru Statement and to all those who keep fighting to make it real, I say thank you from the depths of my being.

When the Liberal Party announced their opposition to this bill, the member for Heysen was quoted by media as saying the bill 'has been provided to not just us but Indigenous communities, leading groups around the state, at very little notice'. Even though I support this bill completely, I also support open debate and welcome people with different views—and there are many—but I was genuinely stunned when I heard these comments.

I do not mean to single out the member for Heysen for criticism, but he has done so upon the Premier. He was the only member, or maybe one of two or three members, of the opposition to join us in the Balcony Room after this bill was introduced in the other place. It was a scene of joy and celebration and it was fantastic to have him there, but this just increased my confusion when I heard his comments about the bill being provided at short notice and being rushed.

Members may recall the Liberal Party introducing their own bill to establish an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament. That bill was available for public consultation for just nine days. There was no media release from the former Premier, the member for Dunstan. The Liberal bill was only posted on the website of the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement. The former Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, a brilliant man, Dr Roger Thomas, said on ABC radio on 17 September 2021:

I've expressed to the Premier, I've expressed to the process. I find it very, very insulting that it doesn't give Aboriginal people sufficient time to talk this through because it's such a significant piece of legislation.

The only additional resources provided were a map of proposed electorates and a two-page set of frequently asked questions. The Liberal bill was not even put on the YourSAy website, despite this being the government's go-to and their main tool for public consultation. The Liberal government also happily used this for consultations on everything from fishing to public transport to civil liability legislation, but not for a First Nations Voice.

Upon coming to office, the Malinauskas Labor government got to work consulting with Aboriginal communities about what they wanted to see from the Voice, what it should look like and how it should work. In July 2022, the government appointed Kaurna, Narungga, Ngadjuri and Ngarrindjeri man Dale Agius as the state's inaugural Commissioner for First Nations Voice. This was a bittersweet moment for me. Dale is an amazing person, a friend. Our Minister for Aboriginal Affairs made an inspired choice in the commissioner, but the minister poached Dale from my department and he left some very big shoes to fill. Difficult to forgive, but watching this journey I think I will have to.

From August to October 2022, Commissioner Dale Agius undertook extensive consultations across South Australia. In fact, I bumped into him on one of my many trips to Port Augusta. This included dozens of in-person engagement sessions, from the CBD to remote areas. This led to the publication of the first engagement report and key insights from Aboriginal people about wanting a direct Voice to the South Australian parliament; diverse representation in the South Australian First Nations communities, including nation group diversity, gender, youth and LGBTQIA+ people; and direct access to government decision-makers, including cabinet and chief executives.

Following this, the government released a draft bill that was published on YourSAy for public feedback, and Commissioner Agius commenced a second round of in-person consultations. The second round of consultations resulted in several recommendations to government, all of which are reflected in the final version of the bill. Following all this consultation, the First Nations Voice Bill was introduced to parliament by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Kyam Maher, from the other place, on 9 February 2023. In summary, I simply cannot fathom how the Liberal Party thinks this has been rushed or lacked consultation. Those are disingenuous comments at best. For all his work through the consultations, I want to say a huge thank you to Dale.

Luckily, almost every Labor MP has put their hand up to speak on this bill, so while I have not touched on the technical aspects I am sure they will be well covered, also when in committee. I have criticised some past actions by the Liberal then-government, now opposition, in my contribution and have raised questions about their objections to the bill, but that is not about platitude and it is not to score points. I am not about patting myself on the back. I hope—I am pleading—to ask those opposite to join us in supporting this bill.

The Liberal Party loves to tell us that members are free to vote how they like, and I simply do not believe that there is no-one on that side of the house who does support this bill. There will be decades ahead for political trench warfare and politics as usual on all kinds of issues, but today we have just one moment—now—when we can come together with one voice to support a First Nations Voice to our parliament and to our government. I commend the bill.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (12:26): Just as I am grateful to have been born, to live and to work on Kaurna land, which always was and always will be Aboriginal land, I am honoured and grateful to be able to speak to this bill, in a way I have rarely felt before. This is one of the most important bills we will deal with because it has resonance beyond that of the actual changes being made, as important as they are. To be part of a piece of legislation that has merit in itself and that will make a difference in its delivery but also is part of a larger change in culture and sense of nationhood is a rare privilege.

I will not mention again my deep disappointment that the other side has expressed its opposition, as I do not wish to sully this bill, nor this speech, with talk of partisan differences, but I only note the passing of an opportunity for this culture shift to be a shared view of this parliament, with the inevitable exception of One Nation. That choice has been made, I am sure not without some pain, on the other side of this chamber—indeed, it would comfort me to think it is not without some sense of regret.

To understand the importance of the Voice to Parliament for First Nations, it is essential, in my view, not to restrict ourselves to considering the very real and crushing challenges that disproportionately face the Aboriginal people of our state. I will speak shortly about this truth, and I do not turn away from it. Indeed, it is essential for every South Australian to face up to the reality of the experience of far too many Aboriginal people and to do all in our power to address injustice.

The importance of the Voice is not limited to the way in which it can address inequality, racism and dispossession, although it does and will, as I will address shortly. What the Voice offers us as South Australians is a large step towards true reconciliation with who we are. This question is too often and too easily glossed over, yet to be Australian is to be uniquely of a nation that has three strands, as the incomparable Noel Pearson has described for us. It is to be grateful for and to celebrate the Aboriginal heart of our nation that no other has a claim to. It is to embrace and respect the British heritage of the institutions of representative democracy, the rule of law and an independent Public Service. And it is to welcome the great gift of multiculturalism, Australia being the most successful multicultural nation in the world.

What this intellectual framework offers us is an understanding of our essence as a nation that has been hitherto lacking, as we take being Australian for granted, or we celebrate our great fortune, or we are thrown into torment by the pain of dispossession inherent in knowing that the nation came from taking land from a people already living here when Europeans decided to settle. Noel Pearson offers us a path to embracing all our truths. However, to do so entails understanding why it matters that there was another culture here before the Europeans arrived, and to accept the profound difference between the idea of race and that of culture.

Race does not exist. It is an artificial distinction between people that has no foundation in fact. We are all human: there may be a wide variety in how we look, but there is no discernible difference of any significance between people of any nation on this earth. Any suggestion that this legislation is about this outdated notion of race is simply wrong.

What is important is the idea of culture. It seems to me that most of what makes us ourselves, what guides our choices and animates our ideas, is culture. A child born today and magically sent to a family in ancient Egypt would not believe in a Christian god, would not understand the concept of representative democracy, and would have a very different view of taxes, education, health care and justice to those we take for granted today.

Similarly, the way in which we consider the values of family, how we regard the environment on which we depend, and the ways in which we make decisions, are shaped by the beliefs, values and ideas of our culture. So, too, is how we are treated by others heavily dependent on the culture we come from. To be identified by others as Aboriginal is almost inevitably to be treated in a way that is different from that of someone who is known to be Chinese or Jewish or Ukrainian.

There is, of course, much that unites us in our humanity and much that, as a nation, defines who we all are as a collective. We have some sense of being Australian in common as well as very different experiences and views, but to emphasise the universal to the exclusion of the understanding of difference risks reducing our understanding of all the ways in which people can live and make choices to that of the dominant Western European culture of which we are the inheritors.

To exclude difference in culture is to exclude the very diversity that gives us, as a people, a nation, and a species, our strength and resilience. To pretend that we are treated equally regardless of the culture we identify with is simply to deny reality.

So here we are: a nation, a state, that had a complex and sophisticated culture here long before the now dominant culture arrived—so long that to say always was, and always will be, is true. A culture that can count thousands of generations in one place truly always was and always will be of that land, yet the keepers of that culture, since European arrival, have experienced discrimination, disposition of country and children, severing of family relations, disrespect of culture and denial of autonomy.

The results are here today. We are not talking about a history lesson. As the Statement from the Heart said so movingly:

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.

Noel Pearson, again, in his first Boyer lecture this year, said:

We are a much unloved people. We are perhaps the ethnic group Australians feel least connected to. We are not popular and we are not personally known to many Australians. Few have met us and a small minority counts us as friends.

I am grateful to be in that small minority, but I cannot read those words without feeling their painful truth. Those two quotes are related: how people of Aboriginal culture have been and are treated by the rest of Australia is why they experience poverty and injustice, not because of a fault that rests with them but because of a wound that exists in our national soul.

Stan Grant wrote these devastating words in September last year about the truth of Aboriginal experience of colonisation: 'How do we live with the weight of this history?' He was referring to the 'we' that is the Aboriginal people. I took the words as for me too, as a non-Aboriginal Australian: how do I live with the weight of the history of the nation I call home? It can only be by being part of repairing what has caused harm, and by celebrating what is a precious gift—the fact of our First Nations culture existing to this day.

To do this, we have been given a great opportunity in South Australia, and later this year in Australia, an opportunity to recognise that of all the cultures that contribute to this nation and this state there is one that exists nowhere else, which came into being in and as part of this land and this land alone. Even without the harm caused by European colonisation, that makes this culture special in a way no other can claim. Again I quote from the Uluru 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 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 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.

A culture with this connection to what is now our shared home has value and deserves respect. Their voices should be heard and celebrated and respected.

But added to this is the great injustice at the heart of our origin story as a nation. We do not live in a country where First Nations people have been listened to and respected. We have collectively treated Aboriginal people as a problem to be solved, a community to be pitied and a social experiment to be tinkered with. As a result, we live in a state of lingering pain, where disadvantage, poverty and shortened lives stalk Aboriginal people, robbing us all of their potential and what they have to offer their families, their culture and our communities.

In a state in a nation where this is true, how can we not seek to remedy the dispossession and the powerless by fully recognising the humanity of Aboriginal people, their agency and their self-determination. We must listen to Aboriginal people for our collective benefit as the custodians of the uniquely Australian culture and Aboriginal people have a right to be heard after being so long objectified and silenced.

So I speak in favour of the creation of a Voice to SA Parliament for First Nations people, for the benefit of Aboriginal people to be heard, for the improvement of legislation for having listened to Aboriginal voices and for the shift in the soul of our state that taking this action represents.

I pay tribute to the Premier for his unhesitating and unstinting support for this legislation. I thank Dale Agius for his work as Commissioner for First Nations Voice. I thank Professor Roger Thomas for his work two years ago laying the foundations for the subsequent consultation with the Aboriginal community. I acknowledge with gratitude all the Aboriginal people who have built this voice together with patience and generosity and I thank the non-Aboriginal members of our community, who recognise it is simply the right thing to do.

I honour Kyam Maher, my dearest friend in this strange world of South Australian politics, who has done more than anyone else to change our collective understanding of how we find a path to reconciliation, recognition, respect and celebration of being a state with an Aboriginal heart and soon an Aboriginal Voice.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER (Wright—Minister for Education, Training and Skills) (12:37): It is a privilege to rise in support of this bill and to stand on Kaurna land and support the passage of this landmark piece of legislation. This is an historic day for our state, as it is for our country. Once again, South Australia is leading the nation.

This bill, which is the result of extensive consultation with Aboriginal communities right around our state, is an important step in implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It is a long overdue recognition of the unique position of Aboriginal people as the traditional owners of the land on which we are privileged enough to live and work. But more than just recognition, this is also an opportunity, an opportunity for us as a community to do better, to stop bad policies, no matter how well-intentioned they may be from being implemented, and to make good policies better.

In contributing to the passage of this bill, it is impossible not to think about policies of the past that might not have ever come to fruition if a body like the Voice to Parliament had existed then. Not to put too fine a point on it, our track record has not been great, as was just outlined in some excellent detail by the Deputy Premier.

In recent decades, we have learned about the devastating impact of past policies like forced removal of First Nations children but it is not only matters of the past. The difference in life expectancy, educational attainment, health, contact with the child protection and criminal justice systems between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians is still confronting and should be a concern to all of us, but particularly to policymakers and those fortunate enough to sit in this place.

So given the opportunity to listen directly to Aboriginal communities here in our state about how we might do better in addressing these challenges, I think we should seize that opportunity with both hands. There are some who would seek to argue that no differentiation should be made on the basis of race; however, this negates not only the special position of First Nations people within our community as the traditional owners of this land but also downplays our responsibility to do better in seeking to address the wrongs of the past and the policies of government presently that do not serve to support our First Nations people.

I am a white man of relative privilege and I cannot pretend to have either the lived experience or the cultural understanding to fully appreciate the impacts of policies that I may have a deciding say over. I became a member of parliament, however, because I wanted to make a positive contribution to my community and I see the Voice to Parliament as an important way to help make sure that the contribution I can make as a member of this place, and as a minister, better serves the Aboriginal people in my community and the state more broadly.

Long we have talked the talk about reconciliation, certainly throughout my lifetime, but I see the Voice to Parliament as an opportunity for us to finally walk the walk. When I think of young people in our schools, and even my own experience of education, I think of how we emphasise the importance to young people about standing up and having a say, and that their contribution is valued and meaningful. But it would be fair for a young Aboriginal person to look at the structures within our society that are, on the face of it, there to enable people to have their say, to question how in reality their voice and their unique perspective can in fact be heard. This legislation is a marker that Aboriginal voices are recognised as unique, are recognised as important and are recognised as valued.

It has been my privilege over the last 11 almost 12 years to have the perspective, and the input and the friendship of this state's first Aboriginal Attorney-General, the Hon. Kyam Maher MLC. His connections to Aboriginal communities right around the state, large and small, have offered government the direct perspective of many in those communities on a wide range of topics over the past two decades. I have benefitted from those perspectives from the Hon. Kyam Maher as a friend, as a staffer in former governments, as a backbencher and now as a minister, and I know that the input he has made has made a difference to many decisions over a long period of time.

The Malinauskas government wants to ensure that giving a Voice to the Aboriginal communities of South Australia does not come down to whether or not you are lucky enough to have an Aboriginal person in your cabinet. We want to see Aboriginal people having the opportunity to influence and guide decisions that impact their communities, their heritage and their wellbeing, regardless of which party is in government.

But there is also another dimension to this discussion that seems to be rarely addressed. Much of the commentary about the Voice has been framed as though non-Indigenous Australia is giving something to the Aboriginal people of this nation. Indeed, some go as far as to say that it is a sacrifice to be made by white Australia and that we are giving away part of our sovereignty. In reality, though, the opposite is true. We need to view the Uluru Statement from the Heart as something that has the potential to take all Australians regardless of their background, regardless of where they live, regardless of their age, to a better place.

In the same spirit that informed the Uluru Statement, we should now reciprocate and accept the great gift that we are being offered. The oldest continuous living culture in the world has offered its Voice to us, to our nation; 60,000 years of accumulated knowledge, wisdom and understanding of the land we now call Australia is there for us if only we listen. People who for 200 years have survived unspeakable wrongs and injustices, despite that now want to share their wisdom and resilience with us—that is us as the beneficiaries of those who committed the wrongs, and what a gift we are being offered.

We must not let hubris and pettiness stand in the way of meaningful change that has the potential to lift others out of discrimination, out of disadvantage and out of inequality. After all, that is I think what drives most people, regardless of their political party, to be in this place. Those who choose to see and to listen will know that this is a momentous occasion, not only for South Australia but for the entire nation. This is the beginning of this journey; it is not the final destination. As a government and as a community we must commit to continue walking together to fully implement the Uluru Statement.

It is remarkable to me to reflect that 25-odd years after I was at high school, learning about what has happened to First Nations people in this country over the two centuries before that, I get today to play one very small part in the important process of righting at least some of those wrongs. People of the future will look back on this time, in this place, and know that something good was achieved for humanity. I, for one, am incredibly proud to stand here today in support.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS (Enfield—Minister for Small and Family Business, Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs, Minister for Arts) (12:45): I rise today in support of the introduction of the First Nations Voice Bill. I want to do that, acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet today and paying my respects to Kaurna elders past, present and emerging.

This is truly a historic moment: the introduction of a bill that, once passed, will give First Nations people a voice that will be heard by the Parliament of South Australia. It will also give First Nations people a voice that will be heard by the South Australian government. It will establish Local First Nations Voices and the State First Nations Voice, and it will repeal the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee Act and amend the Constitution Act.

In speaking on this bill today I feel the significance of this moment, and I have a real sense of pride that this bill has been introduced by the Malinauskas Labor government. I feel very proud that such a bill is being introduced right here in South Australia and that South Australia is the first state to introduce such a bill. It is fair to say that Labor's record at a state and federal level, with respect to Aboriginal affairs, is commendable.

Our policy efforts over the past 50-or-so years have been monumental and, though far too many to list, there are some key achievements I just want to mention. Of course, in 1966 the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Don Dunstan, introduced the first Aboriginal land rights legislation—the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act—establishing the Aboriginal Lands Trust.

Federally, in 1975, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam famously poured a handful of red soil onto the hands of Vincent Lingiari, symbolising the legal transfer of Wave Hill Station back to the Gurindji people. It also meant the Gurindji people became the first Aboriginal community to have land returned to them by the commonwealth government of Australia, and it was a significant turning point for Aboriginal land rights.

In 1992, Prime Minister Paul Keating delivered the Redfern speech, which is still a famous point in time for Aboriginal rights in Australia. There is a famous quote:

…it might help us if we non-Aboriginal Australians imagined ourselves dispossessed of land we had lived on for fifty thousand years—and then imagined ourselves told that it had never been ours.

He closed his speech by stating, and I quote:

It seems to me that if we can imagine the injustice we can imagine its opposite.

And we can have justice.

In 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made a formal apology to the stolen generations, whose lives had been blighted by past government policies of forced child removal and assimilation.

In 2015, the South Australian Labor government became the first mainland state to implement a Stolen Generations Reparation Scheme, which was introduced by the Aboriginal affairs minister, my friend the Hon. Kyam Maher. Our stance on First Nations people has been clear. Prior to the last state election, our leader and now Premier, Peter Malinauskas, made it a clear election promise to have this bill introduced should the Malinauskas Labor government be elected.

In the lead-up to the last state election, we promised that an elected Malinauskas Labor government would establish a state-based version of the Uluru Statement—Voice, Treaty, Truth—believing in Aboriginal self-determination to guide and protect the oldest living culture on our planet.

We also committed to recognising the significance of implementing Aboriginal statues and monuments to remember the great people of the past and educate our future generations. We also pledged to take better care of South Australia and establish a First Nations advisory group to consult directly with the Minister for Environment and ensure Aboriginal voices are heard for the future of our River Murray.

The Malinauskas government also committed, with the federal Labor government, to provide more than $15 million to rebuild the Yadu Health clinic in Ceduna and provide additional funding to implement Gayle's Law, helping keep nurses and patients safe in remote communities. We made it a priority, should we be elected, to legislate and enshrine the Nunga Court as part of our justice system, to ensure that Aboriginal elders have a voice in sentencing offenders and in healing victims. I am proud to say that bill has already come before this house.

This bill focuses on the first part of this government's election promise in establishing a fully elected First Nations Voice to the parliament of South Australia. It comes almost six years after the Uluru Statement was handed down in 2017. Now it is important to note that the lead-up to the handing down of the Uluru Statement did not come without its challenges.

In 2015 we saw then Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, supported by then Labor leader Bill Shorten, establish the Referendum Council. This was the start of the process to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in our constitution. During 2016 and 2017, the Referendum Council led First Nations engagement and consultation across the country. Following this extensive consultation process, the First Nations National Constitutional Convention was of course held at Uluru in 2017, which called for three changes:

the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Commonwealth Constitution;

the process of agreement-making between government and First Nations people; and

truth-telling about Aboriginal history.

It is with the successful election of the Albanese Labor government that we see renewed focus on delivering a First Nations Voice in the federal parliament. I am pleased to say that the Malinauskas government has undertaken an extensive six-month consultation process led by the Commissioner for First Nations Voice, Mr Dale Agius. This process has been significant and robust and integral to the introduction of the bill that we now have before us in this house.

In a recent letter to the Premier, Mr Agius congratulated this government on success in introducing the First Nations Voice Bill to parliament. The commissioner highlighted what a historic day that was. He emphasised the significance of the bill being passed in the other place and mentioned how his community would be eagerly watching with interest and excitement as the bill is considered by this place.

The First Nations people have inhabited this place for over 60,000 years and comprise the oldest living cultures on this planet, yet they continue to experience significantly worse outcomes than the wider population in many areas including life expectancy, education, justice, health and more. This First Nations Voice is one way to address the challenges that our First Nations people experience.

We know that policies affecting First Nations people create better outcomes when First Nations people are involved in their formulation. This bill will give First Nations people more of a say on the decisions that affect their lives. The First Nations Voice Bill proposes at least six members are elected by local regions and a State First Nations Voice comprising two presiding members of each Local First Nations Voice.

The Local First Nations Voice will be directly elected by First Nations people from or living in the region which they are representing. Each Local Voice will elect two joint presiding members of different genders, with those joint presiding members making up the State First Nations Voice. It is proposed that the Local First Nations Voice will have a number of functions, including:

discussing and considering matters of interest to First Nations people within their particular region;

encouraging, promoting and assisting First Nations people within their region to communicate their views, concerns and matters of interest;

receiving the views of First Nations people within their region and passing those views on to the State First Nations Voice;

collaborating and liaising with the State First Nations Voice on matters of interest to First Nations people within their region;

at its discretion, the Local First Nations Voice may collaborate with and assist public sector agencies and other organisations in the development of policies and procedures that affect First Nations people within their region;

engaging with local government, at its discretion, and other organisations on matters of interest to First Nations people within their region; and

any other functions that may be assigned to Local First Nations Voice under this act via the relevant minister.

The State First Nations Voice is tasked with functions including:

to represent First Nations people across South Australia;

to collaboratively liaise with Local First Nations Voices to understand their views on matters of interest and to represent those views to the South Australian parliament, the South Australian government and other bodies;

to engage with and provide advice to the South Australian parliament and the South Australian government on matters of interest to First Nations people;

to engage with and provide advice to other levels of government and other organisations, including the commonwealth and other states and territories, on policy and procedures that relate to matters of First Nations people of concern;

to assign names to regions constituted for the purposes of the bill that we are considering; and

any other functions that may be assigned to the First Nations State Voice under this act via the relevant minister.

As you can see, the function of both the Local Voice and the State Voice are comprehensive, and their tasks will ensure that just about every possible aspect of First Nations peoples' concerns can be considered. By passing this bill, it enables these issues to be heard here in parliament with a view to formulating legislation and solutions to assist in addressing those issues.

As arts minister, I am honoured to work with a number of First Nations people on several different projects and festivals across our state. I see firsthand that, when engaging directly with First Nations people, it empowers them to be involved and part of the decision-making process, and I can see how creative and enthusiastic they become in achieving outcomes, not only for whom they represent but for all South Australians, and we are better for it.

By passing this historic bill and affording its opportunity to hear the call from First Nations people, it will enable South Australia to lead the nation. It will show the country how the Voice to Parliament operates ahead of the national referendum on the Voice. This is an historic and long overdue opportunity that we have here. It is the right thing to do, and I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (12:57): I rise today to proudly speak in support of this historic legislation that will rightly enshrine a First Nations Voice to our South Australian parliament. In doing so, I acknowledge that in this place we gather together on Kaurna land, on land that was always Kaurna land and always will be. I pay my respect to Kaurna elders past and present, to Kaurna future leaders and to elders and people of other Aboriginal nations. I pay this respect every day, and I acknowledge the significance of doing so on this historic day.

Every day, in my roles as Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence and Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing and member for Reynell, I acknowledge the role that so many and Aboriginal leaders play in supporting and advocating for young people in preventing and helping to end the scourge of domestic and family violence, in advancing the interests of girls and women and in harnessing the power of sport to make change. These leaders generously share wisdom, knowledge and culture, and through often tireless advocacy over years, decades and lifetimes they make a difference and help each of us to learn.

It is right that we make a decision together in this place to listen to them, as this bill asks us to do. I also acknowledge and thank the many Aboriginal leaders in our southern community, who lend their voices to strengthening the cultural understanding of our entire community. I wholeheartedly and with love and respect acknowledge my friend, the Hon. Kyam Maher, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who moved this bill in the upper house. His introduction of the bill was preceded by decades of him advocating with and for Aboriginal people, and by years of deep listening, contemplation and conversation about Voice, Treaty, Truth and how we truly progress the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT