HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-02-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

First Nations Voice Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 February 2023.)

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (11:01): It is with great pride that I rise to speak in favour of this bill. In this nation's ongoing journey of reconciliation, governments have taken a number of meaningful steps in the direction of justice and fairness for Australia's first people. This legislation will see South Australia take one of our most powerful steps to date, one with which this government hopes to make a permanent and transformative impact on the lives and futures of South Australia's first people and their communities.

It is a big step and it is a reasonable one, but it is clear, from both public discourse and from the views of members in this place and the other, that there are South Australians who take issue not only with this piece of legislation but also the ideas and beliefs that underlie it. I address my remarks on this bill to those people in the hope that they will consider the perspective that I wish to put forward here today.

In doing so, I ask you to envisage your idea of home. Think of your family, your children, for whom, undoubtedly, your heart radiates with indescribable love. Think of your parents, your grandparents, your aunties, your uncles. Think of your dearest friends and your closest neighbours and their children and their families. Think of the land and the waters that have surrounded and sustained you. This is your place, it is the place you know and that you love. It is the place where you belong deeply and fundamentally.

Imagine that strangers turn up one day, strangers who speak to each other and sometimes to you in a language you cannot understand. At first, there are only a few of these strangers but their numbers quickly grow. Soon it becomes clear that these strangers intend to make your place their place. They are determined to stay on the land that has nurtured you and your family and the families around you since time immemorial.

They occupy more and more of the land that you have always known to be your place. They flatten great swathes of the natural landscape and start growing unfamiliar plants; they start grazing unfamiliar animals. More strangers keep arriving in alarming numbers. They are rapidly turning your home into a place you can no longer recognise, and there is absolutely no way for you to stop them, because in the event that you try you are met with a violent response. Their tools of violence are swift and lethal. Your tools are no match.

Over time, these people take all of your place. It is now, they reckon, their place. Then they start taking your children. You do not know where they are, and you will never see them again. The colonists of this state and nation treated First Nations people like vermin who stood in the way of the free enjoyment of the land they stole. Those they did not exterminate they removed. Those who would not be removed they found other ways to alienate and disenfranchise.

Such a campaign of eradication is not just monstrous and inhumanly cruel, it is genocide. The colonising forces perpetrated a devastating genocide on the First Nations people of this land. They did it in other parts of Australia and they did it here in South Australia. There are those who say it was not that bad, but everything I have just described is fact. There is no other group of people in Australia to whom all of this happened, and it happened based on the colonisers' ignorant belief, extreme by any modern standard, that it is morally justified for one culture of people to be subjugated by another.

The colonising forces set South Australia up to look at our world through that frame of understanding, and over the past 187 years it seems we have failed to reframe our communities' understanding of that. This legislation proposes a pathway towards bridging the divisions of culture and identity that our past has created and that we have allowed to persist for so long.

The Voice to Parliament invites First Nations Australians to finally participate formally in the system of government that was imposed on them without their consent by the people who stole their land, massacred their families and took their children. It gives them an opportunity to help government shape the policies and the programs that have thus far largely failed to make enduring impacts towards improving education, health and economic outcomes for Aboriginal South Australians.

We clearly need that help, because all sides of politics agree that too much of what we have done thus far has not worked well. So much time and money wasted on good intentions, when all along we could have just chosen to ask Aboriginal people how they thought we should go about things. Aboriginal South Australians know what they and their communities need. We just have to be willing to listen to what they tell us.

That is not a big ask, unless you think Aboriginal South Australians do not know what they and their communities need. And frankly, if that is your position, then you share that view with the colonisers, and I reckon your turn is over. It is time to try another way. For the rest of us, a Voice to Parliament is an eminently reasonable proposition.

It is unfair to say that this proposal affords privilege to a group of people who are profoundly, structurally disadvantaged by the systems that were imposed upon them. What it does give them is a proper seat at the table when it comes to decision-making that affects them. That is not privilege. It is not even restitution. It is simply an opportunity and a dignity that governments have for far too long denied.

While this is a meaningful reform, it is not a radical one, it is not a world-leading initiative. There are longstanding First Nations' advisory bodies in plenty of other global jurisdictions. What is the alternative? To continue to refuse to listen to Aboriginal South Australians in any formal and meaningful way? Nothing will change. This government seeks to take the steps outlined in this bill because there is every reason to believe a formal elected Voice to Parliament will help create lasting positive change. It is impossible to dispute that change is needed.

A view has been put to this chamber that perhaps the desired change might come from bringing Aboriginal South Australians down from remote areas and resettling them in the city. Asking Aboriginal South Australians to leave their land and culture behind to move to the city and integrate—that is not my word, it is quite offensively used by others in this context—gallingly devalues the proud history and contributions of Aboriginal people to this state and this nation, and denigrates the cultures that First Nations Australians have preserved and sustained for tens of thousands of years.

Furthermore, plenty of non-Aboriginal people living regionally across many areas of our state experience lower economic opportunities and poorer health and educational outcomes compared to their metropolitan counterparts, yet I do not hear many people telling them to move to the city. On the contrary, I hear people justifiably standing up in this parliament and calling for increases in the allocation of resources and greater efforts put towards improving outcomes for those people. Telling only Aboriginal South Australians that if they want a better life they should move from the regions to the city, sounds to me suspiciously like division of regional people on the basis of race.

Another view has been put that legislation such as this should be based on need. To that I can say nothing other than this: no group of people in South Australia is in greater need of deliberate, well-considered and a legally enshrined mechanism to drive structural change than Aboriginal people. I do not feel the need to spend time here reciting statistics. We should all be familiar with them already. From health outcomes and life expectancy, to incarceration rates, to university matriculations, to hiring decisions made by employers, our First Nations people are being let down at every turn.

The idea of opposing a moderate mechanism like this one aimed at providing Aboriginal South Australians an avenue of formal participation in government, in decision-making that they should have been afforded long ago, represents a disappointing misunderstanding of what was taken away from our First Nations people 187 years ago. It is such a saddening abrogation of a moral responsibility to do right by those who have been wronged for so long, those who are, remarkably, still willing to extend the hand of friendship and walk together with us.

As Prime Minister Paul Keating, I think, so poignantly observed of First Nations Australians in his Redfern speech:

They are there in the wars. In sport to an extraordinary degree. In literature and art and music. In all these things they have shaped our knowledge of this continent and of ourselves. They have shaped our identity. They are there in the Australian legend. We should never forget—they have helped build this nation.

Whenever we ask First Nations Australians to be there for us, they are. Imagine how patient, how generous of spirit you would have to be as a people to keep turning up for those who continue to decline to turn up for you.

Enshrining a Voice to Parliament in law is just about the bare minimum we can do to begin turning up for Aboriginal South Australians, affording them the opportunity to be formally heard by this parliament. To suggest that the Voice to Parliament is not about need is an idea based on the grotesque moral indulgence of ignoring how South Australia's history has unfolded.

This bill is absolutely about need. Every aspect of this bill is about recognising, understanding and addressing need. When there is need in a community, sometimes that need has a relationship to culture and identity. That does not invalidate the need. The concept of a First Nations Voice to Parliament finds a very welcome ally in veteran journalist Chris Kenny. He recently said that it is:

…wrong to claim this is a racial or racist measure—it proposes a representative body for Indigenous people not based on racial characteristics but on the simple reality that they are the descendants of the original inhabitants.

Nor does it confer special privilege; it allocates only an opportunity to offer advice on matters affecting Indigenous people.

It is advice we have done ourselves the grave disservice of failing to seek for so long. The shocking level of need that we see among First Nations people today is a direct result of decade after decade of misunderstanding, maltreatment and moral indifference. It was the colonisers who first consigned Aboriginal South Australians to a position of need, and it was successive governments, and their policies of displacement, of exclusion, of erasure, or of direct or deliberate harm, that kept them there.

It has been the failure of even well-meaning governments to take suitably effective steps in the direction of empowerment and elevation of First Nations people that has allowed that position of need to persist for so long and become ever more entrenched. This parliament has used our laws to disenfranchise Aboriginal South Australians, to make sure that they have no chance of clawing their way back out of the hole that we pushed them into. Every time we have had the opportunity to use our laws to help them get out of that hole, we have failed to ask them what gear they need to make the climb.

By stealing their land, polluting their waters and demolishing their culture, we destroyed Aboriginal people's ability to be self-sufficient. We trampled their human right to be self-determining and now we might call them weak or lazy for not succeeding by the standards that we continue to impose on them. Some people in our community, even plenty in this chamber, are evidently happy to deny them that opportunity to claim back just a sliver of the self-determination they lost when we knowingly took it away.

Our history is riddled with injustice and cruelty towards Aboriginal people perpetrated by non-Aboriginal people, and now we want to talk about not making it about race? Too late. We made it about race 187 years ago. You want to talk about practical action? How about getting some advice from the people on whose behalf you seek to act. But for the ignorance and prejudice of those who came before, we could have spent the last 187 years respecting culture and identity and belonging, advancing understanding and meaningfully addressing need. The opportunity to do that in a way that actually matters, in a practical way, in an effective way, is before us now.

The Voice is a liberal concept and a fair idea. The idea of consulting people who are the subject of special laws and policies is the only liberal solution. Those words are not my words. They are those of Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg of New South Wales. This legislation offers us a chance to make the laws of this parliament better, to make them work better for those they intend to support, and to begin to repair the damage that longstanding injustice has wrought.

On 3 December 2020, Dr Roger Thomas, as then Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, provided a report on the achievements of his office to the South Australian House of Assembly. This was an historic event because it was the first time an Aboriginal person spoke formally on the floor of the House of Assembly—the first time in the 166 years of existence of the bicameral parliament that was built on land that belonged to Aboriginal South Australians for thousands of generations. There is no other group of people in South Australia whose voices we have worked so hard over the centuries to silence, and all that this bill asks the parliament to do is to let Aboriginal voices be heard. What person could deny such a request, such a modest request?

We should be thankful that Aboriginal South Australians are, after all this time, still willing to take part in the processes of this parliament, despite the unthinkable horrors that our policies and laws have forced them to endure. Inviting the voices of South Australia's First People into this parliament cannot harm us, it can only help us make sure that our future offers the compassion, the opportunity and the dignity that our past has so long denied them. It is my profound honour and privilege to be here now passing this bill when we finally begin to listen.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (11:22): I rise today feeling proud to speak on the First Nations Voice Bill 2023. I want to begin by providing a brief history about the Aboriginal Tent Embassy because of the significant connection it has to this bill. The Aboriginal Tent Embassy was the site of the longest protest for Indigenous land rights and sovereignty in the world. In 2022, it celebrated its 50th year of occupation. The opening paragraph of an essay, initially published on thecoversation.com/au website, gives a powerful introduction, and I quote:

The Tent Embassy began its public life on 26 January 1972. On that day Michael Anderson, Billie Craigie, Bertie Williams and Tony Coorey…drove to Ngunnawal Country (Canberra) where they planted a beach umbrella, opposite what is now known as Old Parliament House.

They erected a sign that said Aboriginal Embassy. The term Embassy was used to bring attention to the fact Aboriginal people had never ceded sovereignty nor engaged in any treaty process with the Crown.

As a collective, Aboriginal people were the only cultural group not represented with an embassy. According to Aboriginal activist and scholar Gary Foley the absence of an Aboriginal Embassy in Canberra was a blatant indication Aboriginal People were treated like Aliens in their own land.

Do we as a nation want our First People to continue to feel alienated? Parliamentarians and leaders in this state have a great opportunity to amend this sorrow.

The South Australian parliament has acted and introduced this bill to make sure we begin a new chapter and a new journey with our First People. This bill will recognise the unique perspective our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters can offer. It will reflect the diversity amongst First Nations people. It will reflect the issues within our regional communities and give a voice to males, females, elders and future generations.

For the first time in history, this bill will empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be involved in making the decisions that affect their lives in each of the prescribed regions in South Australia. The functions of our Local First Nations Voice will be specific to each of these regions for the purpose of this act. To support Local Voices being heard, electoral boundaries will be established and people will be elected to speak on behalf of First Nations people living in each of the prescribed regions. The regulations pertaining to this act will specify and prescribe the number of regions.

To deliver change that embodies the diverse Indigenous cultures in our state, we must include the grassroots voices from South Australia's regions so that real and practical advice occurs. The functions of this parliament's Local First Nations Voice in each of the prescribed areas will:

1. Consider and discuss matters of interest to First Nations people;

2. Promote, encourage and help First Nations people to communicate their views on matters of interest;

3. Receive the views of First Nations people in its prescribed region and pass those views on to the State First Nations Voice;

4. Liaise and collaborate with the State First Nations Voice on matters of interest to First Nations people in each of the specified regions; and

5. At the discretion of the Local First Nations Voice, engage with local governments and with other organisations on matters of interest to First Nations people in its region.

Our local South Australian First Nations people will enlighten all South Australia about our history and heritage through the establishment of a Voice to this state parliament. I am aware that education in Australia has had limited teaching about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. I am sure there are members in this chamber who may feel this way about their own education experience. I think we can do a better job in educating our nation about the history and culture of our First Peoples than we have done in the past.

While students in Australia are currently taught all the basics of Indigenous history and can engage in various reconciliation activities, such as NAIDOC Week and Sorry Day, there is not enough focus on educating our students about their local First Nations communities. By improving our curriculum in this area, we will be giving our students a richer and more well-rounded education. In fact, this bill will put us all on a path of developing greater respect and understanding for our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters.

First Nations people have developed over 60,000 years of rich cultural traditions that they express through songs, dances, stories, rituals, visual arts and other media. These traditional cultural expressions enjoy a great diversity among different regions: from burial practices to gods and goddesses that each tribe believes in, to the Gunditjmara oral histories, which includes the oldest Aboriginal story ever told about an ancient volcano eruption, and to Bora, the initiation ceremony for young boys being welcomed to adulthood.

While attending a service in the Pilgrim Uniting Church with many of my parliamentary colleagues recently, I was handed a brochure that was developed by a group named Walking Together as First and Second Peoples Group. Inside this brochure it described the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart:

…as a generous gift of reconciliation from the First Peoples to the Second Peoples of Australia.

In Australia, we will soon have an opportunity to vote to continue the process and journey of reconciliation by changing our national constitution, a change at the highest level and one which finally recognises the prior sovereignty of the First Peoples and the importance of a Voice to Parliament about matters that directly affect them.

As the story of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy tells us, Treaty between governments and First Nations people has been a very long time coming. In countries that have a history of injustice, there has been a process of truth-telling. Truth-telling about Australia's colonial history and the treatment of our Indigenous people does not mean that non-Indigenous Australians should feel guilty for the past injustices that make up our country's colonial history. However, it does require that Australians learn about the confronting dispossession of land, the unjust treatment and horrendous crimes that were carried out by some individuals and many levels of government.

More than 30 years ago, former Prime Minister Paul Keating said that the process of truth-telling:

…is a fundamental test of our social goals and our national will.

The truth of our First Peoples history is an important opportunity for Indigenous Australians to record evidence about past events and share their culture, heritage and history with the wider non-Indigenous community. It is time to acknowledge that history is calling out to us, not just here in South Australia but nationally. We have thousands of years of history and cultures that Australia must embrace, protect and speak about.

Our Premier, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas MP, when speaking on ABC radio recently about this bill, said:

I think it presents an extraordinary opportunity to do something profoundly good, a significant progress in the operation of our democracy, not too dissimilar to what we achieved in South Australia back in 1894 when we were the first place anywhere in the world to give women the right to run for parliament and vote. So I think this will be something that we will look back on in due course and say no harm done and even potentially a lot of benefit will come from it.

As the Premier reminds us, South Australia was the first jurisdiction to give women these rights. In the context of what life was like in 1894, this would have been 'out of this world' 130 years ago. Back then, questions were being asked, such as, 'What good would it do for women and their families?' and 'Women have husbands and children to care for, and this won't solve poverty and other social problems.'

However, history shows us that giving women the right to vote and stand for parliament not only created future policies that improved their lives but also made our society better and fairer. With this bill, the lives of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters will improve too, and Australia will be a better place and more inclusive.

I began with reference to the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, which is certainly a sustained symbol of protest and self-determination. It is a protest that stood firm in its rejection of the deceit and insincerity of successive governments. Here in this chamber we are leading the way as we transcend this story and change forever an oversight of such magnitude it is difficult to describe.

The Voice is not based on race or racist measures; it is based on the reality that our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are the descendants of the first inhabitants of this country. It has been a very long journey, and hopefully the whole of Australia, not just South Australia, can begin to look forward to continuing on that journey together. I proudly commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (11:36): When we acknowledge failings in our history and accept the wrongs of the past, we go a long way to fixing them and moving forward. The wrongs inflicted on the Aboriginal people are as shameful as they are well documented. The First Nations Voice to Parliament is one way of acknowledging and addressing those issues. It is a long path, but this initiative is a good place to start.

Nobody with any knowledge of our history would dispute the setbacks and discrimination the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have endured since colonisation 245 years ago. Even in South Australia, First Nations people have endured poor and often cruel governance for almost 200 years. Australian history is full of wrong and misguided decisions made for Aboriginal people, without their involvement.

The stolen generations are a prime example of this. Not every decision made in what has become a shameful scar in our history was done with cruel intent. Sometimes the administrators thought they were doing the right thing, but the outcome was just the same. The point is that, whether or not we had the best intentions, the sheer fact that we made decisions on behalf of people whose culture we are still learning about was always doomed to fail. It was based on a flawed logic—sometimes sheer racism, sometimes just ignorance—and we are well past the time where we need to start setting things right.

While many would argue that we have made significant advancements in the 56 years since Aboriginal people were belatedly recognised as full citizens with the right to vote, we have a long way to go. The 1967 referendum was a landmark in Australian history, but it still means Aboriginal people were denied a vote for far longer than they have been afforded that right in the years since Federation. Denying Aboriginal people the right to vote for so long reflects just one aspect of how poorly the First Australians have been treated since colonisation.

Aboriginal people still endure worse health, education and employment outcomes than other Australians. In 2022, the life expectancy of First Nations people was about eight less years than non-Indigenous people in cities and up to 14 years less in remote areas. These figures are not just staggering, they are tragic and they show that we need to change. Whatever the reasons for those outcomes, our health system is not addressing the often specific healthcare needs of Indigenous people. Health and life expectancies are vital issues but just part of the reason we need a First Nations Voice to Parliament.

It is absolutely appropriate and necessary that Aboriginal people have a voice to this parliament. For so long, they did not even have one representative voice within parliament. It was not until 70 years after Federation that Senator Neville Bonner became our first Indigenous politician. There have only been 15 members of parliament at the federal level in our history and, sadly, South Australia has had only one, my respected MLC colleague Kyam Maher. It means that not one Aboriginal person has ever been elected to an electorate in this state—and people wonder why it is so important for Aboriginal people to have this voice.

The Voice will help Aboriginal people influence laws, policies and programs that affect them. It will inform decision-makers at the highest level and provide them with essential knowledge before making their decisions. The First Nations Voice Bill 2023 will put in place measures to enable First Nations people in this state to speak directly to parliament and have a voice at all levels of government. Under the bill, each region of South Australia will have its own First Nations Voice. Each region will be equally represented by male and female members. They will be elected by First Nations people—which, after the initial election, will coincide with state government elections—and will meet at least four to six times a year.

The state's First Nations Voice would make an annual address to parliament and would have a say in all bills of interest to the First Nations people. The Voice will allow First Nations people to speak with ministers and relevant chief executives about matters such as budget and policy within government departments. Instead of somebody sitting in Parliament House or in a government office high above Adelaide making decisions that will affect and impact Aboriginal people in remote areas, country towns and out in the suburbs, they will have input from the people who know best. Who would know more about the specific needs of Aboriginal children in outlying regions—their parents, families and local community or an executive who may never have been there?

We have to address the specific issues and often hardships impacting Indigenous Australians. Giving First Nations people a voice can only help. In 2019, a study found that type 2 diabetes was 18 times more prevalent in Aboriginal children. It also found that Aboriginal children were more likely to develop kidney disease and obesity. It is fair to say that the European health model may have tried to address Indigenous health issues, but it has not succeeded. Our best minds, whether we are dealing with health, education, jobs or infrastructure, can only succeed if they have the right information. The Voice will help deliver that information. Members will inform decision-makers, including Indigenous decision-makers.

In view of our problematic history, having Indigenous voices assisting with the decision-making process is not only preferred but is vital. Consider the Bringing Them Home report. This was tabled in federal parliament in 1997 and contained 54 recommendations on redressing the wrongs imposed on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders by a raft of race-based laws. That report, of course, led to the national apology that was stubbornly rejected by long-term coalition Prime Minister John Howard before Labor MP Kevin Rudd made it a priority in 2008.

The apology, of course, was the right and mature thing to do, but it remains a concern that some of the recommendations within that Bringing Them Home report have yet to be actioned 26 years later. These were wrongs done to Aboriginal people through legislation handed down by decades of government that were supposed to be there for all Australians. They were race-based laws that we shudder to imagine today, yet we still have not dealt with them properly.

The report shows that people of the stolen generation—that is, children forcibly taken away from their parents—have endured ongoing hardship. They are 50 per cent more likely to be charged by police, 30 per cent less likely to enjoy good health and 10 per cent less likely to have a job. It shows that more than 50 years after the stolen generation essentially ended, descendants of those people taken away from their communities are still impacted and they are still suffering. The Voice will go a long way to addressing those recommendations. It will also help deal with issues that have come up since and make this country a better place for all Aboriginal people. That, of course, makes it a better place for all Australians.

Just as Kevin Rudd did with the National Apology, it is time to acknowledge the wrongs of the past and to take responsibility for them, even if we did not actually and personally create them. Current generations could not have possibly caused that harm, but we can go a long way to correcting it. It is time to correct the wrongs of the past, and the Aboriginal Voice to Parliament is one major step in the right direction. It is far too easily dismissed that the Voice to Parliament could create further division between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.

I reject that. Divisions already exist, racism exists, and it is not being rectified quickly enough. Sweeping it under the carpet and pretending that it does not exist will not fix anything. To suggest things are going okay and let them take their natural course is both wrong and deeply arrogant. Aboriginal people need to have a say in decisions that are made for them, just as every South Australian has a right to be represented. They need to have a voice, and this parliament needs to listen. A First Nations Voice to Parliament will ensure that we do listen, that the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are met and that all South Australians move forward on a journey together. I support the bill.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (11:45): I would like to start my speech with a very big naa marni. Marni naa pudni. Ngai nari Emily Bourke. Kaurna miyurna ngadlu. Kaurna yarta tampinthi.

One of the first things I did when coming into parliament, after going to a number of events, was to contact an Aboriginal elder to learn the Kaurna language. At many of the events I was going to I was taking the time to learn the language of the multicultural event that I was at, but I was upset at myself because I did not understand the culture and the language our very First Nation, the oldest living culture in the world, that of our local Aboriginal people. It is something I am really proud that I have taken the time to do, and something I have learnt a lot about along the way, not only the language but the culture and history about our area that we all now call home.

I rise to speak in support of the First Nations Voice Bill and to congratulate the Attorney-General and his staff, and the Commissioner for First Nations Voice, Dale Agius, and all Aboriginal people who have contributed to the development of this bill. We cannot go back in time and change the wrongs of the past but we can and we should do everything in our power to make amends for those wrongs. Giving the First Nations people of this state a Voice to Parliament and government, a direct say in shaping the policies and laws that affect them, is an important step in making amends for the past wrongs. I am so proud to be part of a government that is prepared to do what is right, even though it might sometimes be difficult, because that is what leadership looks like.

As a government, we are committed to implementing the Uluru Statement's three principles: Voice, Treaty and Truth. This bill is a very important first step. While all Australians will have their say later this year in the referendum to change the commonwealth constitution, we do not need to wait to make that change in our state. If this bill is passed we can all be proud that South Australia will be the first state in the country to establish a Voice to Parliament and government for First Nations people.

The bill is the result of substantial consultation, and again I congratulate the Attorney-General, who I know has spent countless hours on this for many, many years, with the Commissioner for First Nations Voice, Dale Agius, leading two rounds of community consultation and engagement between August 2022 and January 2023. This includes both face-to-face discussions with Aboriginal people throughout South Australia and feedback through written submissions.

Following the first round of engagement, a draft First Nations Voice Bill was developed, and a second round of consultation sought feedback on the draft bill. As a result of community consultation several amendments were made to the bill, and the result is a model that has broad support and where Aboriginal people had genuine input—just the way it should be.

It must be said that not all legislation that comes through this place is exciting or inspiring, but with this bill we are making history. The preamble to the bill is beautiful in its simplicity. It is simplicity in recognising the first custodians of this land, the harm that has resulted from colonisation and that our First Nations people have the right to have a say about the laws and policies that affect them.

It is a shameful fact that Aboriginal people are the most disadvantaged people in our community. They make up 19 per cent of the prison population, yet are only 2 per cent of the general population. While the gap is closing, the life expectancy of Aboriginal people is still eight years less than of non-Aboriginal people. Around 25 per cent fewer Aboriginal students finish secondary school than non-Aboriginal students. We need to do more. A Voice to Parliament and government is one way we can address some of this disadvantage.

When this bill was introduced by the Attorney-General, the gallery was full of Aboriginal people who had come to witness that historic moment. The emotion and joy in the chamber expressed by many was unmistakable. In this chamber we have the opportunity to do something for the betterment of not just Aboriginal people but all of us. This will help our community come together, and it will help us in this place be better lawmakers. It is above politics. Please do not waste this opportunity. I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (11:50): I rise to make some remarks on the record in relation to this piece of legislation. I would like at the outset to thank the Attorney-General and Mr Dale Agius for the opportunity to examine this piece of legislation. Mr Agius is someone I have worked within government, and he is someone who is greatly respected and has done some wonderful work. I would also like to acknowledge Professor Roger Thomas in his role and thank him for his ongoing advocacy for Aboriginal people over many years in his informal and formal roles.

There has been a history of a lot of great bipartisanship in relation to Aboriginal rights and progressing Aboriginal rights, based on the history of what has taken place in South Australia and Australia. I would like to acknowledge all of those who have acknowledged that. Indeed, the Attorney-General, in his second reading explanation, acknowledged that there have been advancements from both sides. These include land rights, constitutional recognition, the apology, the establishment of statutory rights for the APY lands and Maralinga Tjarutja land rights and the like. These are all things that we support and are important in ensuring that Aboriginal people have their rightful place within our community and in respect of their country and their traditions.

In principle, the Liberal Party supports an Aboriginal representative body. I would like to refer to the second reading explanation from the then Premier the Hon. Steven Marshall when he introduced a bill on 13 October 2021. He spoke on a range of issues, including Closing the Gap and the Uluru statement from the Heart. He said:

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

That particular bill has been reintroduced by my colleague the Hon. Josh Teague and is on the Notice Paper in the House of Assembly. It is a fairly detailed piece of legislation. I think it is worth reflecting on the preamble, which includes nine clauses, compared with the three that are within the bill before us. Part 2 of that bill has the following purposes and principles of the act. This is clause 7 of the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill:

(1) The main purpose of this Act is to provide Aboriginal persons with a voice that will be heard by the Parliament of South Australia, the Cabinet, State authorities and other persons and bodies.

(2) This Act also has the following additional purposes:

(a) to provide Aboriginal persons with an ongoing right to a seat at the table in respect of decision making by the State where the decision affects Aboriginal persons;

(b) to improve the social, economic and cultural lives of all Aboriginal persons by providing formal means for the advocacy and direct representation of their interests to the Parliament, Cabinet and government;

(c) to encourage Aboriginal cultural values to be included at the forefront of the way in which the business of Parliament and government is conducted in South Australia;

(d) to support Aboriginal persons to realise their aspirations to determine their own destiny.

That is the position of the Liberal Party, very firmly, so I think that needs to be placed on the record. Of course, that model is different from the one which is before us. As well as establishing the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement in statute, it has very extensive clauses in relation to a committee which would have been the mechanism by which a lot of that consultation would have taken place.

For those of us who have spent any time in this parliament, the committee system is very useful. It can examine things in a depth and a breadth that sometimes is not captured by a lot of the debates that take place on the floor of the parliament. Largely for that reason, we are unable to support the version which is before us today, because it does not contain the same level of depth and breadth going forward.

In relation to consultation, I make no reflections on Mr Agius in this respect but the feedback that I have had is certainly that the model that the Attorney-General came up with last year was very much the one that was going to be presented to this parliament. I have had significant concerns expressed to me that this piece of legislation has been rushed. I know through my own experience with our Aboriginal housing strategy that that took a lot longer than we had hoped. Indeed, I note there was criticism from numerous Labor members in relation to the Marshall legislation that was tabled in October 2021, and the claim there was that that particular process was rushed.

I think for the parliament to be dealing with this legislation effectively within a few days of parliamentary sitting time is inappropriate in order to give due consideration to it, and the consultation on the legislation itself is disappointing. We have had Labor members say that this has broad support but I think there is feedback to dispute that.

In relation to our Aboriginal housing strategy, that was a process, as I have mentioned, that took a lot longer than we expected. We were hopeful that we would have been able to bring all the parties together and that took a significant amount of yarning, and lots and lots of consultation with all the communities to ensure that we reached a landing on that, and that was released, I think, in May 2021.

I say that because I think it is worth taking the time to get these models right. My concern is that this model is not the right model. I suspect, and the Attorney may well address this in his closing remarks in due course, that this has been brought on because it will place South Australia in history, but sometimes it is worth taking the time to get it right and letting history be determined by other timetables.

I would also like to raise the concern that has been placed on the record by SA Native Title Services. The criticisms that they have of this model, I think, would potentially also apply to the Liberal model of the legislation, but there is concern that the persons who are elected to these bodies in this bill which is before us might not have cultural authority. That is a huge concern because I think if we are talking about a Voice, most people consider that the Voice should be as much as is possible a consensus view, and one which has the support of the majority of Aboriginal people.

In the letter that has been written by SA Native Title Services, there are a lot of concerns that have been raised, including in a 10-page attachment, which I am not going to read in full, but which, I think more eloquently than I will ever be able to, presents a lot of concerns with this bill before us. It was written by a very significant number of bodies. On page 1, it states:

…the proposed model would establish a regional or Local Voice with no defined representation, linkages or accountability back to native title groups…

That is one of the principal concerns. It also states:

The proposed model will create new institutions, rather than investing in and strengthening the existing First Nations leadership.

We are also concerned with the proposed election process.

The letter goes on to outline that voting rules will limit Aboriginal people to voting within their region of residence, and goes into that in great detail. These are significant issues that have been raised. I do not believe they are addressed in this legislation. For those reasons, we urge the government to go back to a range of those groups and make sure that this model is one which does actually have the confidence of Aboriginal people in South Australia.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (12:01): I rise today to speak on the First Nations Voice Bill 2023. According to section 8, this bill is expressed 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. As such, most of what I have to say relates specifically to this bill but, contrary to how the government is presenting this legislation, we have walked down this path before.

One of the fundamental problems I have with this legislation is that it rests on the notion that parliamentary democracy is not capable of representing certain minorities. This is an attack on parliamentary democracy and principle. One of the foundations of political liberalism is that all citizens are equal in civic status, regardless of race, gender, religion, background and the like.

In fact, one of the South Australian Liberal Party's core values is to ensure that we will do everything in our power to ensure all South Australians have the same opportunities—a level playing field—no matter their geographical location, social background, race, religion, gender or any other factor. Effectively allowing a fourth arm of government, one where First Nations people will have a direct say on health, education, defence and other policy or pieces of legislation, is undemocratic. It goes against the heart of our democracy, that is, that all Australians are equal under the law.

As the Hon. Kyam Maher acknowledged during his second reading explanation, this is not the first elected Voice to Parliament. The concept of a First Nations Voice to Parliament is well known in our nation. It is well documented that back in 1973, the Whitlam federal government established the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC), otherwise known as 'The Voice'.

This consultative committee was similarly elected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Maps were divided to provide electorates for the council and the council, when formed, was there to advise the then Aboriginal affairs minister, Mr Bryant, and his department on matters concerning First Nations people, similar to what is being proposed in this piece of legislation, although they did not include a provision to address parliament.

At that time, similar to today, the Voice was seen by some to be a step in the right direction to ensuring First Nations people could share in constructive proposals on matters affecting their communities and would be in a strong position to get things done. However, others had grave concerns about the plan. One person who had significant concerns about the proposal was Queensland Liberal Senator, Mr Neville Thomas Bonner, who was the first Aboriginal Australian to become a member of the Parliament of Australia. He warned that the government's plan for the Voice was apartheid. Senator Bonner stated that it was:

…going to divide Aborigines not only among themselves but also from the rest of the Australian Community. I would like to give warning that this is going to cause trouble in the Aboriginal Community.

This difference in opinion divided the nation at that time and continues to divide the nation today. Similar warnings are being made today by Indigenous leaders around the nation on a federal Voice to Parliament, representatives such as South Australian Senator Kerrynne Liddle have raised concerns about its lack of clarity. Similarly, Senator Jacinta Price has accused Prime Minister Albanese of emotional blackmail after he called for people to consider Australia's international standing if a 'no' vote prevails.

Frankly, there are very few or no nations worldwide that can claim such moral heights in relation to their own histories that would entitle them to criticise Australia for rejecting the referendum. In any event, such opinions could not possibly be well informed when Australians have no details of the extent of the constitutional change or the real effect of the ill-defined powers of the Makarrata Commission.

Senator Price, an Indigenous Australian, is a strong advocate for the 'no' vote, just like Senator Bonner was in 1973. She has said, in relation to Prime Minister Albanese's comments, that:

His argument to suggest that the voice is actually a tool to bring people together is proving to be the exact opposite. It is a little bit insulting for a lot of Indigenous Australians to suggest that somehow we are going to be broadly upset if it is not successful. The truth is that Aboriginal people that I've spoken to—and there are many of them—would be quite happy not to have this over-arching extra gatekeep on top of all other bureaucracies that currently exist.

The vote for the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee took place on 27 September 1973, where 195 First Nations candidates stood for 41 seats. Soon after the vote occurred, on 3 December 1973, Mr Paul Coe, President of Aboriginal Legal Aid in Sydney, announced that he thought the NACC would not be successful, and I quote:

The NACC has no power of legislative review. It can only make recommendations, and there will be no guarantee that they will be implemented by the government.

Mr Coe said that the NACC was a 'good exercise in political propaganda' and that 'the Whitlam government is paying Aboriginals lip service'. What unfolded after this was a swift and severe fracturing in the relationship between the government and this elected body. In February 1974, the NACC made a move to change its title to the National Aboriginal Congress (NAC).

They sought to alter their remuneration to be above and beyond that of a sitting federal member of parliament. They sought to change their function from that of an advisory body to an executive status and demanded that the then Labor minister for Aboriginal affairs, Senator Cavanagh, give the NAC direct control of the $117 million budget allocated to the Aboriginal affairs department. When this was refused by Senator Cavanagh, and he threatened to withhold delegate's salaries in the dispute of the future of the NAC, the NAC called for his resignation.

Relations between the congress, known later as the conference, and the commonwealth government progressively deteriorated over the course of its life, as its purpose did not align with the expectation of Aboriginal leaders, who sought self-determination and a representative body that would provide the mechanisms for this self-determination.

What started very clearly as a formal body or a voice through which Aboriginal people could make representations to the government, manifested into a fight over funding and autonomy. The conference was eventually abolished by the Hawke government in 1985. Since then, we have seen a number of statutory authorities, including the ADC (Aboriginal Development Commission), the AECD (Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation) and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). ATSIC became a body known for its culture of mismanagement and flawed priorities to such an extent that its existence was abolished in 2004 by both major political parties.

History is critical, and it is always important that we acknowledge our past, that we learn from our past when thinking about the future so that we do not make the same mistakes. We must acknowledge the suffering of the First Nations people since 1788. We must do better when it comes to Closing the Gap and ensuring tangible, practical outcomes for Indigenous communities when it comes to health, education, safety and employment.

We must acknowledge that the Voice is not new and has been troublesome in its incorporation into government in the past, federally. Why would incorporating a similar Voice into the constitution, or empowering a South Australian Voice, produce a different result? Additionally, the current Voice proposal refers to Treaty and truth-telling, but they are not strictly defined. Treaties are agreements between sovereign nations and states.

There is only an oblique reference to a Makarrata Commission to supervise agreement-making. What sort of agreements? Why not clearly tell South Australians? Our first duty as parliamentarians is to preserve government sovereignty. We cannot in all conscience head South Australians down an unknown path that undermines sovereignty.

I think it is also important to note that including a provision to address parliament has the potential to impinge on parliamentary sovereignty and raises questions on who else should be allowed to have their voice heard. As Liberals, we believe in right-sized government. We believe in running an efficient government, one that provides essential services, a safety net and laws that form the basis for a free and fair society, without unnecessary bureaucracy or wasteful spending. The functions performed by right-sized government are those things that are necessary to protect the life, liberty, property and sovereignty of the people.

I am predominantly against this bill because this piece of legislation will enable a fourth arm of government and create a fourth bureaucracy. It is another elected body that has the power of making a contribution to any piece of legislation that comes through this parliament. This is something that no other South Australian, except for those who are privileged enough to be elected to this place as part of the Westminster system, has the right to do.

This extra layer of bureaucracy will delay an already slow-moving government wheel, and it will do so because section 7 ensures the continuance of existing First Nation bodies around the state. This act will not reduce or replace already existing layers of bureaucracy. If you do not take my word for it, listen to the words of former ABC journalist and now InDaily columnist Matthew Abraham, who said about the Voice:

The 36-page bill reveals an expensive—$10 million allocated over the first four years—and on paper at least, cumbersome and bureaucratically dense structure.

…The government will dispute this, but it is creating a fourth tier of government in South Australia, one that is far less accountable than our elected state, federal or local governments. It is hard to read the Voice Bill in any other way.

As Matthew Abraham points out, it is a well-known fact that big government leads to more taxes, more inefficiency and fewer practical outcomes.

The reality is that a Local First Nations Voice cannot be directed or controlled by the state or by the minister, as stated in section 10. At its own discretion, according to section 15, it may assist Public Service agencies in the development of policies and procedures. In other words, the obvious potential for debilitating disputes with government agencies will exist, and with it the enhanced probability of litigation. It will certainly slow down the functions of our state government.

Quite apart from my objection in principle, this bill establishes a cumbersome series of local and state bodies, plus at least four advisory bodies. Robert Gottliebsen points to the dangers which lie within the Makarrata Commission to the property rights of non-Aboriginal voters. Will a Treaty remove these rights, either in whole or in part? And if a referendum succeeds, which body—state or federal—is going to have precedence in negotiating Treaty reparations? These are the questions that South Australians are asking and ones they deserve to know the answers to.

As a member of parliament, I also believe in the power of community consultation, and therefore I cannot understand why the Malinauskas government is pushing this legislation through both chambers before allowing the people of South Australia to have their voices heard in the referendum. I have heard the Leader of the Government's reasoning for pushing forward on this legislation. He does not want the risk of it not occurring, but is that not our job as members of parliament: to listen to the voices of all our community, not just a chosen few?

I have grave fears that this legally tortuous, costly, uncertain and divisive bill will not have any effect on or make any difference to Indigenous circumstances. History suggests this. Worse, I fear that this bill will destroy the concept of equality of citizenship. Every member of this parliament, in both chambers, on both sides, indeed all but a handful of prejudiced Australian voters, will commit themselves to any action that will positively close the gap. I enthusiastically join them in this honourable objective. Sadly, this proposed legislation is not the way to achieve this essential goal.

The views I have expressed are not founded in the luxury of an air-conditioned parliamentary office but are shaped by my experiences as a resident living most of my life less than 10 minutes' drive from the Gerard Indigenous community at Winkie in the Riverland. Winkie remains my primary place of residence. Some of my primary school education was spent at a school where Indigenous families made up approximately 75 per cent of the students, and I am very familiar with the initiatives undertaken by the Gerard community over my lifetime.

At their insistence and their local voice, a substantial art gallery, featuring Indigenous art, was established at Glossop and at the community's suggestion, the commonwealth invested almost half a million dollars in the construction of a commercial yabby farm. The list of well-intended and locally embraced proposals goes on. These people have always been heard and their concerns heeded.

Sadly, much remains to be done if we are to adequately address their needs, but self-evidently much has been done and will continue to be done without the passage of this legislation. What we are debating today will, I fear, be just another layer of bureaucracy and just another cost with very little practical outcomes for Indigenous communities in South Australia.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON (12:15): I would like to start today by highlighting my disappointment with the rate at which the government thought it appropriate to rush through such a significant piece of legislation in this place. The legislation will impact every single South Australian and change the way in which our parliament and, more broadly, our democratic society will function.

The government introduced and gave its second reading explanation on the last sitting day and seeks to have all second reading contributions completed today and the bill passed by Thursday. I appreciate that the government may have the support of the majority of this chamber and that the bill is likely to pass, but members of this parliament and the broader South Australian community, frankly, deserve more respect than the government has afforded.

The ability for members of this place to be able to consult on the introduced legislation for more than a week would have been, I would have thought, a good place to start if the Malinauskas government is, in fact, legislating a Voice to Parliament for the betterment of all South Australians, in particular, for the improvement of lives for Indigenous South Australians. One has to wonder: why has there been such a rush?

Whilst I appreciate that the government has a mandate when it comes to this legislation, as it formed one of their long list of election commitments, I put it to this chamber that most South Australians were likely unaware of this commitment when they went to the ballot box in March 2022. I think they were probably more focused on the chalked ambulances and scare campaign that was run by the Labor Party and Ambulance Employees Association around ramping. The slogan 'Vote Labor like your life depends on it, because it just might' tends to have that effect.

We are around 11 months into the Malinauskas government's term and there has not been a delivery on their commitment to fix ramping. In fact, it is worse than it was then. Yet, here we are today with the now not-so-new Malinauskas government urgently forging ahead with a state-based Voice to Parliament with a limited engagement on the final bill with the public and the view to having this done and dusted by tea on the third day.

I note the federal government is moving to hold a referendum on their proposed Voice and it would have been beneficial for members of this place to see the results of any federal referendum, where the views and opinions of the public, in particular the South Australian electorate, are respectfully engaged before this legislation was brought to this place on such an important topic, which this parliament cannot afford to get wrong.

I recognise it has been said on both sides of the chamber, but the way in which members in this place vote on this bill will have a long-term impact for generations to come. The support or otherwise of this bill is not a decision to be made lightly or to be made under the emotionally charged belief that a novel idea such as that proposed in this bill is somehow the only mechanism to resolving what are deeply complex, varying and generational issues that have impacted the Indigenous communities in this state.

In my belief, a Voice to Parliament seeks to create an unfortunate divide in our state, based on race. An important pillar of our democracy is that we are all equal: one person, one vote. We, here in Australia, have the privilege of electing our members of parliament. The South Australian community has the opportunity to elect a member of parliament that they believe will best represent their interests to create a South Australia that they can be proud of, a South Australia where opportunities are created so that individuals and communities can prosper.

People of our state may not always be satisfied with the outcome of an election, but come the next one, South Australians are yet again given the opportunity to have their say at the ballot box. With respect to those opposite, the establishment of a Voice to Parliament undermines the very premise of equal representation, giving greater weight to a vote of one group over another and creating barriers to representation, based on race.

It creates a situation where, if you are of a certain race, you get two votes on election day: one to the South Australian parliament and another to the Voice to Parliament. Generations before us have fought hard, and continue to fight for, the harmonious ideal that we are all equal before the law and that all votes should be counted as equal.

We are a country, or at least I hope we are, which believes that your race, ethnicity, sex or religion does not and should not determine what opportunities you have in your life. The premise that one person's voice is more worth more than another's or that someone would not be given the same opportunity, purely based on race, is not the Australia I know. I cannot stand here in this place, particularly in this chamber that represents and reviews the laws of this land for over 1.7 million South Australians equally, and support any bill that aims to legislate for the creation of what is effectively a third chamber, based on race, at the highest level: our South Australian parliament.

This parliament must lead by example. If we expect the broader community to not discriminate or limit one's opportunity, based on race, religion or gender, then tell me how establishing a Voice to Parliament teaches our children that we are all equal? We cannot expect our children to be inclusive in the schoolyard and then at the highest level, our parliament, seek to divide people on race by relegating one group to a third chamber to advise us what is good for them, when convenient.

We are a nation which strives to be a fair and tolerant society, and the parliament must be the place for all South Australians, whether from Indigenous communities or otherwise. Creating an expensive administrative third chamber of parliament for Aboriginal South Australians sends the wrong message. It wrongly tells South Australians that the parliament is not for all South Australians. Arguably, it wrongly tells Aboriginal South Australians that this parliament, in its current form, is not for them. This was highlighted by the second reading explanation of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, when he said:

Far too often in our history post-colonisation, it has been the practice of governments at every level not to invite, and quite often not to permit, Aboriginal people to be included in, or contribute to, the decisions that directly affect their lives. This means decisions have been made for Aboriginal people and not with them.

He says that the bill:

…ensures the voices of First Nations people in South Australia are heard directly by this parliament and by the South Australian government.

He also says:

We can become the first jurisdiction in the nation to legislate for a Voice to Parliament and a Voice to government for First Nations people, empowering them to shape decisions, instead of being subject to them.

I put it to you that Aboriginal South Australians already have a Voice. It is in this parliament; it is in every single one of us. It is in our Attorney-General and Aboriginal affairs minister, an Indigenous person himself. It is in our federal parliament, where they have great Indigenous representation: 11 MPs who identify as, or descend from, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, all of whom were able to achieve this through existing channels and without the need for a separate body of elected members. Here, in this parliament, is the best place for Indigenous Australians and their representatives—us—to champion for their communities.

So the question really is: why does the government feel they need what is essentially an expensive administrative third chamber of parliament to tell them what they should already know? Why not just get on with tackling the issues Indigenous communities are facing, while hearing the input they have already received from the numerous advisory bodies established in this state, which this Voice regrettably seems to ignore?

While I disagree with this legislation in principle, I hold concerns on the drafting of this bill, not limited to the costs, electoral processes, gender allocations and the effect of doubling up of advisory resources to government. The legislation has not provided a clear outline as to the anticipated remuneration, allowances or expenses for members, let alone what the overall costs will realistically be. Nor has the legislation provided a cap on how many committees can be established of which members can be remunerated. I query whether this is a blank cheque South Australian taxpayers are being asked to write to the government to create a Voice to Parliament with limited transparency and information available to date.

While the same criticisms around transparency and particulars have been levelled at the federal government in the media in recent months at least that exercise will face the electorate via referendum later this year, with voters able to determine themselves whether they have enough detail to make an informed decision on whether that change should or should not be implemented.

I understand there has been $10 million allocated to run this body over the next four years, which I note would go a long way if it were put towards some other tangible meaningful solutions, perhaps some extra resourcing to assist with the poor health and education outcomes often facing Indigenous Australian communities, better measures around children in the child protection system, improved prevention of family and domestic violence, tackling substance abuse issues amongst Indigenous youth and seeking to decrease the disproportionate adult incarceration rates amongst Indigenous communities—the list goes on.

The way in which our parliament legislates and provides funding must be needs-based, not race-based. I highlighted in this chamber in recent weeks that the Alexander report, published at the end of last year on a review of child protection in South Australia, highlighted that, in addition to a need for increased spending on early intervention measures, there needs to be a deliberate and vastly increased investment in early intervention and family preservation services for Aboriginal families. The report notes that spending on Aboriginal children and services should be proportionate to their representation in the system, not the population.

As reported, South Australia currently spends 3.4 per cent of the child protection budget on Aboriginal community-controlled organisations, which is lower than most other Australian states and territories. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2020-21 report on child protection in Australia states that there are 18,187 Aboriginal children in South Australia, who make up 4.9 per cent of the 369,658 total South Australian children. Nationally, Aboriginal children make up 6 per cent of the total number of children. Although Aboriginal children make up 4.9 per cent of the total number of children in South Australia, they make up 34.5 per cent of the children who received protection services in 2020-21, yet only 3.4 per cent of the child protection budget is spent on Aboriginal community-controlled organisations.

I therefore query whether the $10 million allocated over the next four years would make a more tangible difference to Indigenous communities if it was spent on issues like this one, rather than on an expensive administrative body. This is $10 million spent before Indigenous communities see any additional funding or policies from initiatives of the Voice? In isolation, in my view, this body will really not be able to do much to improve the outcomes of Indigenous communities.

To be clear: I do not believe that simply splashing cash is the solution either, but where reports, such as the Alexander report, already highlight the issues out there in some of these communities, it is not clear how the government's proposed Voice aims to solve the matters already known.

Another concern, as relates to the drafting of this bill, is around the electoral processes proposed for the composition of the Voice, particularly as relates to the appointment of processes where a casual vacancy arises within 18 months of the Local First Nations Voice election. In no other elected position to parliament, to my knowledge, would a casual vacancy be filled by the next person who received the next highest number of votes to that election, putting aside the party-political appointment process members engage with here in this chamber.

However, on a state electorate basis, if there were a casual vacancy, either a by-election would be held or, in instances of the Legislative Council or Senate, a preselection may be held internally within the relevant political party, but ultimately the decision falls back to the South Australian community to have their say.

To appoint someone who did not have a quota and therefore arguably did not have the support and backing of their community is not in the best interests of their community or our state. To put that into context, that is like if an electorate voted for a Liberal member of parliament who subsequently retired and that position was then offered to a person who received the next highest number of votes in that election—the other major party, Labor. They may have only received, say, 30 per cent of the votes after preferences and may clearly have different values and vision than that of the majority of their community, but with this logic they would be offered the role and appointed to same—something that their community may be unlikely to accept on the whole.

Whilst it may not be a contest between the major parties, there will naturally be competing personalities, community groups and family groups that may play a part in the First Nations elections, which runs the risk that flaws in the system may lead to unnecessary conflict and division within the electorate. The State Voice will not only have a legislated right to address both houses of parliament on any matter it wishes but also a guaranteed right to speak to the state cabinet and to CEOs of state government departments.

It is my understanding that currently, unless the houses rule otherwise, only elected members of parliament have the ability to stand on the floor of parliament to advocate for their communities. I am sure there are many South Australian community groups which would love the opportunity to stand on the floor of parliament, all of whom have an equally important message to share. Like all of us, such members must run for parliament to be able to stand on the floor of this place to speak on behalf of their community. This legislation acts to change the very way in which our parliament will function.

The most recent version of this bill has also implemented an eleventh-hour change before its introduction, a proposal to amend the Constitution Act 1934. Whilst I appreciate that, unlike its federal counterpart, the state constitution is simply an act of this parliament which can be amended by both houses, I hazard a guess that most South Australians would agree that perhaps a referendum, or in reality a plebiscite, might have been a more appropriate manner in which this government could have put such a significant, if only symbolic, change to the South Australian people to ask them what type of recognition they wish to have embodied in their state's primary governing document. Notably, in the amendment it states:

…through the First Nations Voice Act 2023, that voice will be heard, and will make a unique and irreplaceable contribution to South Australia that benefits all South Australians.

It would have been advisable for all South Australians to have had an opportunity to give their voice on the Voice's creation. Notably, not all South Australians will partake in the Voice, despite this amendment providing for all. Furthermore, this bill ignores existing engagement methods which could and should better be utilised but instead deliberately steers clear of those longstanding bodies. One has to wonder whether the long-term impact will be the watering down of the voices of the many existing methods of advice provided to the government of the day.

In an InDaily article written by Matthew Abraham on the First Nations Voice Bill on 10 February 2023, he shared an excerpt from the magazine America, which states:

Before we voice a preference on public policy, whether in the voting booth or talking with family members over dinner, we should consider one question with two parts.

First, what are the costs of choosing the wrong policy? And second, who would have to bear those potential costs?

If the wrong solution is chosen, a problem will likely persist as before or even be made worse.

Something about this question has stuck with me throughout the very short carriage of this debate and, in the short time I have had, I have pondered over my position on the bill and the message I think it sends, not just to Indigenous communities but to the South Australian community at large.

I think, like all South Australians, my firm belief is that Indigenous communities in South Australia deserve a seat around the table to speak up about the issues that impact their communities, often disproportionately in matters of great importance. Where I differ is that my belief is that the table should not be pushed off to the side and relegated to some third chamber funded on a discretionary basis by the executive government of the day and burdened by bureaucracy and symbolism.

The voice for these communities is and should be here in this parliament as representatives of all South Australian communities at large and within the existing framework of our great democracy that treats every vote equally no matter who you are. The very people the bill seeks to assist may very well be the people it disadvantages the most. As members of this parliament it is our responsibility to make sure that the voices of all South Australians are championed in our parliament. I think it is time that we refrain from virtue signalling and just get on with the job. A Voice to Parliament is not the solution.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO (12:39): There is no doubt that we must as a state ensure better outcomes for First Nations people. There is no doubt that every person in this place wants to perceive better outcomes right across the state: better outcomes across health, education and justice, and within other services for First Nations people. This bill, however, is not about outcomes; it is about adding another layer of government, another layer of bureaucracy.

There are so many unanswered questions and a significant amount of detail that is lacking in this bill, including the cost, the operations and, most importantly, the changes to be made to the constitution to enact this proposed bill. We must have a better method in place to achieve better outcomes within First Nations communities; however, this model has so many flaws and concerns that I cannot support it in its current form.

The minister mentioned transformative outcomes in his second reading explanation. I have many unanswered questions about how this will be achieved based on the proposed bill. This bill is not the right answer. As well as creating another level of bureaucracy, this proposed bill creates division. The measure of success of this bill must not be more talk. There must be meaningful action.

This bill has not had appropriate consultation and scrutiny. A bill like this deserves far more consultation, community engagement and time in this house to consider this legislation. The fact that when writing this speech I had questions on just about every clause is concerning. I flag now that I have a number of questions during the committee stage.

Changing the constitution without consultation with all South Australians also raises great concerns. Our constitution should not be changed without thorough engagement and consultation across the state. I assume this is why the federal Voice is going to a referendum—to allow the Australian people to have a say.

The consultation for this bill has not been sufficient. The First Nations Voice YourSAy survey went out on 17 November 2022 to 6 January 2023, a mere six weeks, including at least two weeks of Christmas and holidays. I would be interested to understand the level of engagement in this survey, given the timing. A bill to ensure transformative outcomes needs more time.

As a member of the Liberal Party, I believe in small government and democracy. I find this bill does not align to either of these important values. I have concerns about how the elections will be managed and how, logistically, one individual not elected by all South Australians will be able to come into the parliament and speak on any or every bill.

We here all have an incredible privilege of being elected to this place by all South Australians. We are very proud in this house to have all been democratically elected by universal elections by all South Australians. In 1894, when the South Australian parliament passed the Constitution Amendment (Adult Suffrage) Act that meant that all men and women over 18 could vote. There were no longer qualifications based on landholdings, wealth, race or gender.

We are very proud in this house to have all been democratically elected by votes from across South Australia rather than being appointed, like in the House of Lords. Our Westminster system is the envy of many countries around the world, even more so in South Australia, where South Australians have the opportunity to vote for their local member and the member of the Legislative Council as well.

The original Liberal Party bill, the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill 2022, allowed for engagement via a committee rather than in the parliament. Committees play a very important role within this parliament, and I strongly believe this would be the best way to incorporate First Nations opinions and views on legislation and to be heard in a constructive way to help with the development of such legislation.

In the proposed bill 60 people will be elected by a body to ensure better outcomes for First Nations people. We have seen the challenges getting enough people to nominate for council, especially in regional towns. I have concerns about the sheer number of people to be elected, and the complexity, including specific requirements relating to gender and location, will make the election process very challenging.

There is insufficient detail in the legislation to provide comfort that this process will be successfully implemented. What will happen if no-one nominates for a particular region, or no females or, alternatively, no males nominate? This entire process appears to be challenging and flawed. With 60 members of the First Nations Voice, by-elections are inevitable. What will the cost to taxpayers be? How will it be coordinated? Again, so many unanswered questions in this rushed legislation.

First Nations people have been let down for generations. How is the government going to ensure that this is different? This legislation does not suggest to me guaranteed better outcomes for First Nations people. Only this morning, the minister referred to this bill on radio as an 'advisory group' and highlighted the fact that the parliament has no obligation to take on the thoughts of the First Nation's Voice. How elections for the First Nation's Voice will occur still remains a mystery to many of us. I have many questions that I am told will be decided by regulation rather than legislation. This to me is very concerning.

The people of South Australia deserve to know the answers to these questions before it is legislated through the parliament. Logistically, how will 60 people be elected across the state, 12 people elected to a council, and only one voice in parliament be able to speak on any matter when it only meets four to six times a year? How will this not impact on the parliamentary system as a whole? How will this not delay the legislative process?

We have all seen how the Labor Party loves to carelessly rush through important legislation, with new bills such as return to work provided at the eleventh hour. How will members of the First Nation's Voice be given sufficient time to review legislation when they only meet four to six times per year? This seems tokenistic at the very least and ill-thought-out at the worst, but it will not improve outcomes for First Nations people. There are so many unanswered questions about the number of people involved, the fee paid to each member, the frequency of the meetings and how that will align to the parliamentary sitting calendar, and whether this will delay the passage of legislation.

I am very concerned that there is very little clarity about how the boundaries are established and whether there will be movement in boundaries as populations potentially change and move. Will there be a redistribution like in the state electoral boundaries? What are the quotas or number of First Nations people in each region who have allocated local representatives? This population mix will no doubt change over time. How will this be addressed by the Electoral Commissioner?

In section 10, the legislation states that each Local First Nation's Voice is a corporate body capable of suing and being sued, and can hold and acquire property. I have many questions on how this will operate. What is the personal liability for the Local First Nations Voice? Will they be legally liable or will the taxpayer be exposed to huge financial losses? Again, there are many unanswered questions.

Advisory groups are important. I do question the number of First Nations advisory committees and how these will operate in addition to the 60 local First Nations members. How will the voices from the advisory committee be fed through? There are more people in these groups than there are in both houses of parliament. I look forward to exploring this further during the committee stage.

Clause 39 states that First Nations Voices are to be notified of the introduction of bills. This is well and good but how does this work when they are only meeting four times, but not more than six times per year? By the time the bill has been introduced, it is likely to have already passed before the group meets again. I question if this is the Labor Party's view of sound and robust consultation.

Clause 40 outlines that the First Nations Voice is entitled to address parliament in relation to bills. Where do I start with this? The parliament has always been and should always remain made up of representatives who are democratically elected by all South Australians. I strongly believe that this should remain the case.

I have many concerns surrounding this clause including logistically how it would work for the First Nations Voice to come into parliament, which house they would be speaking to, who is responsible for actioning the comments and recommendations made, how long they will be allowed to speak, and if they are only meeting four to six times a year how will they ensure their voices are heard on relevant, important legislation in a timely basis? I have concerns that this will become an ineffective advisory body. A committee structure is much more appropriate, as proposed by the former government bill.

In recent times, we have seen emergency declarations on multiple occasions. We have seen the recall of parliament for key pieces of legislation. How will members of the First Nations Voice be able to be involved if they are only meeting four to six times per year and limited to six? They require ministerial permission to meet more times than this. It seems very restrictive and tokenistic. What happens when the First Nations Voice speaks to a bill and then there are a significant number of amendments? Will they have the opportunity to speak again? Again, I look forward to exploring this further during committee stage.

Clause 45 outlines chief executive briefings. The opportunity to meet with any or all chief executives is an interesting addition to this legislation—a benefit that is often not afforded to any other member in the parliament. Again, I am keen to explore this further in the committee stage. With regard to clause 48—Resources, there is next to no detail in the legislation on what resources will be allocated to these appointments, on how many staff will be allocated or the cost of staff. If there are 60 Local First Nations representatives, will they each require a staff member? We get 1.6 staff members here as a full-time member. The lack of details on this legislation, which has been carelessly rushed through, is concerning.

Clause 49 outlines the use of public servants. The minister can also request public servants to assist. To me, this is quite incredible. As a member of the opposition, I am unable to speak to public servants without permission from the minister, yet the members of the First Nations Voice can request this at any time. How is this demonstrating a fair system?

Based on this, it is clear that the way this proposed legislation is currently structured to access ministers, cabinet, chief executives and public servants is far greater for the First Nations Voice than it is for a member of parliament. I fail to see how this will help with outcomes; rather, it will increase the amount of talk with no action. I see a great imbalance of power that Labor is harbouring.

The parliament has no obligation to action or take on what the First Nations Voice says. It is still referred to by the minister as an advisory body. I do not see why this cannot be done through a committee rather than through the house, which is the current system and procedure and has served us well.

Many South Australians are unaware that the constitution of South Australia will need to be changed with this proposed legislation. This appointment is elected by a portion of our society—not everyone—and will be able to speak in this chamber. No other minority group is able to do this. I find it very concerning. I still have many questions to ask and will address them during the committee stage.

I will conclude by saying that, as I have shown, this is extremely flawed and carelessly rushed legislation that will sell First Nations people short. We need to focus on outcomes, not a talkfest. The outcomes for First Nations people need to improve and I am not convinced that this legislation will do this.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (12:47): I would like to inform the chamber that my speech will go for probably around about 30 minutes, so I will need to seek leave to conclude at about 1 o'clock, when we break for lunch. I have spoken with the Attorney and he is comfortable with that. I am just giving everyone some notice of that. Also, my voice is not 100 per cent at the moment, so if the chamber can just bear with me. In my experience, if it appears to go, it will come back—so that is the good news.

Just some preliminary remarks, if I may. Listening to the other contributions, I approach this in a relatively unique way, and that is that I do not seek to be necessarily adversarial on this issue. I think we would all agree in here that this issue really is above politics and is the sort of thing that all members of this place, whatever party you happen to represent, would have a genuine interest in and, if I can put it this way, a genuine affection for seeing genuine improvement in this area. It is something that governments have struggled with on both sides for many, many years. Regardless of the amount of money thrown at the situation, improvement seems to be slow, even glacial at times, and I think that disappoints all of us.

In a way, I can understand why the government would seek to make a radical change, if you like, as this bill is, because, clearly, what is happening at the moment is not working. That is about as nice as I can be because after that I would have to say that I do not agree with this bill, I will not be supporting it, and I will explain why in some detail as I get to the body of my speech.

In one way, this bill represents a call to arms for all of us, in that this is a very significant issue and I think the Australian population has a right be disappointed in the progress of improvement. Aboriginal people certainly have not been neglected—it is through no lack of trying—but the outcomes have not been, I think, to anyone's satisfaction, and certainly not to mine. I imagine that is true for all of us in this chamber.

In terms of my formal contribution, I rise to speak to the First Nations Voice Bill 2023, which seeks to establish an elected body of Indigenous South Australian representatives, colloquially known as the State Voice to Parliament. This Voice would formally interact with our parliament and state government, including receiving notification of the introduction of every bill to state parliament and given the opportunity to address either chamber, although not both, with regard to any given bill.

The Voice would be required to deliver an annual report and address members at a joint sitting of state parliament each year, and to ensure that the issues raised therein are considered, and a response to the report must be provided by the minister, including detail as to whether any action has been or will be taken. Required meetings will take place between both the Voice and cabinet, with briefings held for the Voice by the chief executives of every government department at least twice yearly where any matter of interest can be discussed. As stated by the Attorney-General in his second reading explanation, this direct access to government will provide Indigenous people with the ability to influence decision-making at the highest possible level in South Australia.

I would like to start by acknowledging that I have no doubt that those who argue for this change do so with the best intentions. They see the challenges faced by the Aboriginal community and seek to provide a solution. This is admirable, and what is expected of us as parliamentarians. Equally, like every member in this place, it is of course my desire to see every South Australian, including Aboriginal South Australians, succeed and prosper in all aspects of life, and have access to education, health, employment and housing services, for example, in order to reach their potential and become thriving members of the community.

The difference between those who argue in favour of this bill and those who oppose it, as I do, is the method they seek to employ to achieve these improved outcomes for Aboriginal people. It is not in the desire to see these outcomes achieved that we disagree on, but rather how they are achieved. I see my role in this place as being an advocate for all South Australians, including Aboriginal South Australians of course. I am sure that every member of this chamber would seek improved outcomes for every South Australian, regardless of their race, culture or religion.

What we spend most of our time debating in this chamber is often not what we seek to achieve but rather how we seek to achieve it with finite resources. Whilst there can be debate about desired outcomes, it is the question of how to achieve common objectives that demands much of our energy and commitment. There is genuine difference of opinion on the question of how we do things, and I argue strongly that it should be expected and welcome when this is the case, as well-intentioned reasoned debate will almost always improve outcomes in my experience.

There is no doubt that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people face very serious challenges that cannot be ignored. The truth is, however, that they are not being ignored. I think it is entirely reasonable to say that both sides of politics, indeed all sides of politics, including the minor parties, have taken this issue seriously over many years, and have made repeated, ongoing and genuine efforts via policy positions, very substantial funding allocations and other practical steps, to address Aboriginal disadvantage in South Australia and, more broadly, across our nation.

The success of these measures is able to be debated, but not the genuine focus on and attempt to address Aboriginal disadvantage that they represent. This has been genuine and even heartfelt, I would argue, in our nation for a very long time now. These are not hollow words, but in fact are supported by substantial evidence. According to the Australian Productivity Commission in its Indigenous Expenditure Report of 2017, of which I have a copy, the Australian taxpayers allocated over $33 billion to Aboriginal-specific related matters in the tax year 2015-16 alone—just one single year. The report goes on to state:

In 2015-16, the estimated direct expenditure per person was $44,886 for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, around twice the rate for non-Indigenous Australians ($22,530)...

It has increased since then, of course. Furthermore, the parliamentary library informs me that the following organisations exist to advocate for First Nations people in South Australia in the parliament and the community, and connected to various organisations. There is quite an extensive list, and I will not read them all because it would take too long, but I will point out that the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations maintains details of every Aboriginal and Torres Islander corporation and keeps a register. It currently lists some 193 entries in South Australia alone on its register of Indigenous organisations that exist specifically to support our Indigenous population.

I will read some of them. Some of these names will be very familiar to members of this place: the Aboriginal Affairs Executive Committee, the Aboriginal Drug and Alcohol Council, the Aboriginal Education and Training Consultative Council, Aboriginal Family Support Services, the Aboriginal Health Council of South Australia, the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee—which of course is impacted by this bill—the Aboriginal Lands Trust, the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement and the Aboriginal Sobriety Group Indigenous Corporation, and on and on it goes. As I said, there are some 193 in total that are listed by the registrar at the moment operating in South Australia.

My point is, and I think it is undeniable, that there has been a really substantial effort from both sides of the parliament, indeed all sides of the parliament, to address Indigenous disadvantage. The issue is not whether governments want to address these matters and do governments want to intervene and see a substantial improvement in these issues. The debate is about how it should be done. Labor has presented a model today which I disagree with and in fact all my Liberal colleagues disagree with. The Hon. Ms Game is yet to speak, but from her media comments I suspect she will oppose the bill, and I am not quite certain of One Nation's position; that has yet to be revealed.

The bottom line is that all the members in this place on all sides of this parliament—I think I can say absolutely confidently—have a genuine desire to see an improvement in the state of the wellbeing of our Indigenous people in South Australia. I think the fact that there are some 193 organisations on the register that I have just outlined and some huge expenditure—double the expenditure to non-Indigenous Australians—demonstrates that conclusively.

It is something that in a way we should be proud of. There has been a real genuine attempt for some substantial length of time in our nation now and in our state to address these matters. I have been a member of this place, as people know, for coming up to 17 years next month, and in that time I have had literally hundreds of conversations over the years about this exact issue and how to address specific matters, usually quite detailed conversations that have, in my view, resulted in the impetus, if you like, for more positive outcomes. I have always taken those matters seriously, as I know my colleagues have in this place, Liberal, Labor or otherwise.

I think the first step in this debate is acknowledging that. The first step in this debate is acknowledging that Liberal, Labor and crossbench members, and any Independent member that I have ever had dealings with in this place, have all had a genuine concern for this matter and genuinely sought to improve the lot of Indigenous Australians, in this case South Australians. We need to acknowledge that initially. In the argument or the debate, the difference stands on how we do it; not what the desired outcomes are but how they should be achieved.

I think there has been unnecessary heat in this debate when this is really a matter, to me, that should be in many ways above politics in order that we provide the most reasoned possible outcome, which, as I say again, in my experience would normally lead to a better outcome. In this case, a better outcome is certainly needed because we are dealing with a group of people who have had substantial disadvantage for some time. I make that point: it is about how to do it, not about the outcome. We agree on what we want as an outcome. What we do not agree on is how to do it. With that, I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:15.

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