Thursday, 31 August 2023

Motions

Voice to Parliament

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (15:27): I move:

That this house:

(1) acknowledges that the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the First Peoples of Australia in the Australian constitution is long overdue;

(2) recognises that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is fundamentally about achieving better outcomes for First Peoples by giving them a say in the decisions that affect their lives;

(3) notes the date for the Voice referendum is 14 October 2023;

(4) further notes:

(a) the transformative and nation-leading work of the Andrews Labor government as the only jurisdiction in Australia that has taken action on all three elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart: voice, treaty and truth; and

(b) the vital work of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria as the voice of First Nations people in Victoria on treaty.

I begin my remarks today by paying respects to the traditional owners of the land, the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung people of the Kulin nation, and I pay my respects to their elders past and present. This always was and always will be Aboriginal land.

Voice, treaty and truth – that is what our elders called for in 2017 when they gathered on sacred land in Uluru to write a new chapter in our national story. Standing there in the footsteps of generations of our ancestors and strengthened by an ancient and powerful connection to country, our elders made a call for a better, fairer future for our children. They humbly asked us to write a new chapter in our national story, one based on a just, truthful and mutual relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. This year their calls have finally been answered as we embark on that long-overdue step of recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the constitution through a Voice to Parliament by referendum. As a proud Aboriginal woman, I know just how important it is that we do not let this moment slip through our fingers. And now the date is set: 14 October. This date will be the most significant and meaningful moment in the relationship between First Nations people and non-Aboriginal people since 1967 – many years before I and some of my peers in this place were born.

I have taken the time to reflect on my life and the many opportunities that got me to where I am today. I am thankful for the guidance of many powerful First Nations leaders like Jill Gallagher, or Aunty Jill, as I call her. I have had the opportunity to find and develop my voice, but not all of us feel empowered and strong enough to have our say. I am thankful to be able to give my mob a voice in a place like this. I am proud to represent a government that was the first in this country to embark on the journey to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full.

However, I cannot but stop and think of the thousands of First Nations people across the country who do not have this opportunity, who cannot and do not have their voices heard. Voices like those of the health professionals, most valued by everyone in the community but not heard when decisions are being made about the future of Aboriginal health and wellbeing. I have shared a room with some of the brightest minds: our nurses, researchers, Aboriginal health workers and doctors, and even the folks in our hospitals. When they come together, you cannot help but feel the passion for change. They want the statistics to stop and the human story to be heard, because for them, and for us, they represent our families and our loved ones. They know that there is a brighter tomorrow for our communities. They ask advocacy bodies like the Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation and National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation to speak up, be heard and have government listen, and, wow, did they try.

I know because I was the one trying to ensure that those stories were heard. I endured the endless emails and calls saying, ‘No, we don’t have time to meet you’, the last-minute cancellations and sometimes the ‘We know better than you’ attitude. I saw the pain in the doctors’ eyes when I said with sadness that no-one heard our calls for that nurse to help address juvenile diabetes, or for that extra worker at the hospital to help make sure that Aboriginal people that came to emergency are believed, so that the next aunty that presents with all the signs of a stroke is not dismissed and told to just sleep it off, or even to have a simple sticker on the meds to make it easier for people to understand when and how they need to take them. And then, like clockwork the Closing the Gap report comes around full of terrible statistics about us going backwards.

Our elders have recognised this and have extended to this country a once-in-a-lifetime chance in the Voice to Parliament. This referendum is a chance for all of us to come together, in the spirit of healing and reconciliation, to right the wrongs of the past. It is a chance to acknowledge that governments have tried and failed time and time again and that we are, as a nation, mature enough to acknowledge that and to try something new. We need to break the cycles of disadvantage that have perpetuated racism towards and discrimination against Australia’s First Peoples for generations. We need to ask ourselves: why is it that Indigenous Australians have lower life expectancy? We need to ask ourselves: why do Indigenous people have higher incarceration rates than any other community in the world? And why do Indigenous people on average retire with less super and less dignity in our older years?

That is why a Voice to Parliament is needed: because governments have tried and failed. They have funded and defunded advisory bodies, and they have treated my people like political footballs, all without success. This time around we need a permanent voice. We need something that will not be taken away by the government of the day. It is a chance to realise the dreams of our elders who have fought for recognition and self-determination for decades. Those of us in the Labor Party know that we have a strong history of walking with First Peoples, from the national apology and even thinking back all those years ago to Prime Minister Gough Whitlam dropping the red dirt of Daguragu through the hands of Vincent Lingiari to signify the handing of that Gurindji land back to the Gurindji people.

I was fortunate enough to be in Brisbane for the recent ALP national conference. It was a powerful display of our party’s unequivocal commitment to a yes vote in the referendum. We unanimously resolved to throw everything we could into walking alongside our First Nations brothers and sisters, to not just endorse but to wholeheartedly campaign for a yes vote. I was proud to move that motion, just as I am proud to be here moving this motion in this chamber today.

I know that our Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has a long, long commitment to First Nations justice. I know this because 15 years ago I saw it. I saw it with the national apology that was delivered to the stolen generations. I saw it when the then Leader of the House was in the chamber as the Prime Minister delivered that apology. He did not leave, like the federal opposition leader – he stayed. He met with the survivors and their families, he heard their stories and he hugged them through their tears. I know because I was one of them. I was in that building that day because Prime Minister Anthony Albanese – well, he was not the Prime Minister at the time – gave me his ticket. He asked that I join his friend and now colleague Linda Burney in the gallery, and whilst those words were delivered by the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Aunty Linda looked on. We cried as those words rang out:

To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.

We howled across the chamber as we heard:

For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.

He understood what the apology meant to our elders, the survivors of the stolen generations and their descendants like me and that for years the government had been called upon to say sorry for the atrocities that came with removing Aboriginal people from their country, their kin and their culture. He understood and felt in that moment that we sought to write a new page in the history of our great continent. But what he did not understand or see in that moment was the torment of our powerlessness, the pain of our hope unrealised and the power we seek over the destination of our children. That came years later with the crafting of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Here in Victoria we heard that statement, and the Andrews Labor government has been leading across our nation in answering those calls for First Nations justice. I am really proud that I live in the only jurisdiction in Australia to have meaningfully started on the path to voice, treaty and truth. It is the government that I am now a member of that has stepped up when called upon by First Nations communities. We have fought for and implemented real change for Indigenous Australians by realising the hopes of the Uluru statement with our First Peoples’ Assembly, which met here in this chamber. What a remarkably special moment that was. It puts First Nations people in the driver’s seat to achieve change on issues that affect them. We are on that journey each and every day, and our journey towards treaty as a state is guided by First Nations voices.

Treaty is the embodiment of Aboriginal self-determination. For us, treaty is the power to have First Peoples control matters which impact their lives. Treaty is an opportunity to recognise and celebrate our unique status, rights and cultures and of course our profound 65,000 years of history as First Peoples. There are countries all over the world with treaties with their First Peoples, and achieving a treaty will mean that Victoria is ahead – ahead of all the other states in its efforts to ensure First Nations self-determination. I again know that we should be proud to be the state that leads Australia in our efforts to establish treaty. So we stop, we take a moment and we think about what the rest of the nation needs to do. Treaty will see an honest reflection of our history. It will see the 60,000 years of continuous culture on country is respected and is listened to and the wants and needs of those who have cared for country for thousands of years are put to the forefront.

But whilst I could talk about what we are doing here in our state, as a country we need to move forward towards a model of self-determination. Indigenous people have been fighting to be heard for decades, and we know that when we are listened to we achieve more effective outcomes. By giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people the ability to be heard, to choose our own way forward, to take the first step towards a system that acknowledges the barriers and the challenges that we face, we will be a better nation for it. We know that as Indigenous people we are best placed to make decisions for ourselves. We have the cultural knowledge and the lived experiences to make the choices that will enable our communities to thrive. We have the knowledge, and we are the very best placed to know what will work for us, and that is what the Voice to Parliament will give us – a route to inform policy and legal decisions that impact our lives.

It could not be that we are facing this moment without Linda Burney, so I just need to take a moment and acknowledge Aunty Linda, as she is known to me and probably should be known to just about everyone. In Aboriginal communities we often say that we stand on the shoulders of giants, and whilst Linda Burney may not be a giant in stature, she is a giant in the role that she plays in our community and to me for helping me get to where I am today. For the leadership that she shows us and the path that she paves she should be recognised, celebrated and honoured and listened to when she says that this truly is the very best path forward. I strive every day to honour her work by showing up, and I will work every day I can over the next six weeks to achieve this yes vote.

I invite all Victorians to walk with me and my brothers and sisters as we build an Australia that values, listens to and respects the cultures, knowledges and unbroken connection to country of its First People. I really invite all of you in this chamber to walk with me as we realise the Voice to Parliament. Some things are bigger than politics. People on all sides of the aisle have been moved to support a yes vote, and I encourage everyone here today to do so as well. It is such a year of incredible importance and we just must band together, standing shoulder to shoulder with First Nations communities, to get this vote across the line.

I am going to take a moment to reflect on my own community and thank them for all that they have done to already put their hand up to join the community campaign for the Voice. Having these conversations is not easy. It is an uncomfortable space for so many people to talk about injustice and talk about what has gone wrong, to recognise that maybe you in yourself, your family and your history were a part of it. But people have done that, and I thank them. These conversations not only with each other but with ourselves are what will win this referendum – conversations that cut through misinformation that is being spread by really, really hurtful things that are cutting deep in my community right now, and particularly those that just do not feel that we are worthy of having a say.

So whether it is at work, at the dinner table or at the shops, I implore every Victorian who cares about the future of Australia’s First Peoples to be loud and be proud in their support, and I have seen so many folks getting out and about all over the state and in fact in other places around the country doing just about everything to make this possible, from knocking on doors to putting up posters, making calls and having some hard, hard conversations. I celebrate them.

So be like Judith, be like Michael, be like Jan, be like Jenne, be like Tom, be like Lucy and Simon, and be like the union movement. Be like the Unions for Yes campaign and be unequivocally, proudly standing beside First Nations people in this campaign for yes, because solidarity extends beyond having an Aboriginal friend. It extends beyond liking something on Facebook. The solidarity that I am calling for now is convincing conversations, and to those that want to say that they will do everything they can: I ask you to think very deeply about what your diary looks like between now and 14 October, because it is an important day in the fabric of our nation.

I have had some folks already walking with me in the 15 years that I have been campaigning for constitutional recognition – 15 years; my gosh, that is a long time – and I want to say thank you. First and foremost, I want to thank the mighty trade union movement, who taught me what it is to campaign and taught me what it is to achieve justice for First Peoples and who now, today and every day for the next six weeks, will be talking to the Victorian people.

And thanks to those folks that just have never campaigned on anything ever before but feel like this is something that means something to them and feel like, when they reflect on 15 October about what they did to bring about this moment, they want to be part of the national story. So to all those folks that have stepped up for the very first time to campaign on an issue that is a little bit new to them – it is a little bit scary and it is a little bit challenging – I send to you my deepest, deepest of thanks.

What we are asking for later this year is a very simple question, which is about just two things. It is about recognition, and it is about listening. We need recognition to connect with the past and acknowledge that Australia is home to the longest continuing culture in the world; that is something that we as a nation should be enormously proud of. That pride should be expressed in our founding document, and that is right because not only is that document an expression of the powers of our nation and who does what but also it should be an expression of our values. And we need to be listened to – we as First Nations people – through a Voice to Parliament. This is a meaningful step in the right direction. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and I say to each and everyone of you here, to my Victorian friends and family and to everyone that I know: please let us get this done by voting yes on 14 October.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (15:49): I am pleased to join this debate and to make a number of clear points. I start by saying that this is a matter that I have thought about deeply and have researched deeply, and I have spoken about it widely with a considerable number of people. I have hosted two recent forums in my electorate, most recently on Monday night this week with Senator Price from the Northern Territory; Louise Clegg, a barrister from Sydney; and John Roskam from the Institute of Public Affairs. Hundreds of people have attended those forums, and there are some very clear messages that have come back to me.

One of the problems with these referendums is they can be divisive, and they are divisive in another sense that is perhaps unavoidable. They do seek to change the constitution and, in my view, to weaken our position as a nation. I make it clear that I have the highest regard for many people of Indigenous background and have worked with them over the years, including as Minister for Health between 2010 and 2014 and at other times in my parliamentary career. I have sought to support them in every way with financial support through budget initiatives and health and other steps. But on this occasion the federal government has brought forward this Voice referendum, and I have looked at the constitutional implications of that referendum. I am deeply disturbed about what it will do, and I am going to lay that out in some detail.

It is clear to me that the Voice is wrong in principle. I will use Ms Watt’s words. She said that it is about two things: recognition and listening. It is certainly about those things, but it is about much more. It will have a major effect on our constitution. It will shift the balance in our constitution and lead to bad outcomes for not just Indigenous persons but also potentially much more broadly than that. I do not agree with this high-level discussion that some want or that this is all just about doing the right thing, as it were, and some sort of positive vibe. In fact it is a deep change to our constitution. What I would say is the introduction of a fourth chapter in the constitution in this way – a fourth chapter that would in fact alter the balance in our constitution very significantly – is something that I am personally very concerned about. Could some good come of it? Of course it could. But at the same time quite a deal of negative will come, in my view, as well. Not only will it divide one Australian from another – that is the important principle – but, as I say, the outcomes will be unfortunate and negative in practice.

I think most of us see a role for recognition of the nation’s history and see a role for recognition of Indigenous communities and their longevity in this nation, or on this landmass – there was no nation of Australia before British settlement. There was none, and there was actually no nation of Australia until 1788. There were individual Indigenous groups and individual nations, if you will, but they were not one and they were not the same in each part of the landmass. I think it is important to state that. Just like Victoria is a creation of the imperial Parliament, Australia is a creation of the largely settler community. I make the point very strongly that Australia is a nation comprised of three parts. There is certainly a very strong Indigenous community. There is the British heritage, which gives us this chamber and our law and language and so forth. But there is also a very strong migrant community and immigrant community, and when I talk to the recent migrant community, many of them have quite a different view to those who would call for the Voice. Many of them say, ‘Actually, we’ve come here in good faith. We’ve come here to build our lives and we’ve come here to build as Australians.’ I understand that point very strongly indeed.

I think Bob Hawke summed it up quite well. The constitution belongs to us all, not just some of us, and any constitutional change should have something for everyone. We are a country with no hierarchy of descent and no privilege of origin, to use Bob Hawke’s words, which he spoke at our bicentennial in 1988. It was obviously 200 years of European – British – settlement that that was celebrating. I understand that there was a much earlier heritage, and I in no way diminish that or reduce the significance of that. ‘No hierarchy of descent … no privilege of origin’ I think are very, very important words that we need to stick to. So let there be recognition, by all means, of our heritage, recognition of our antecedents and recognition of an attempt to go forward with great support and enthusiasm as one group of people committed to the future of our country. I think there is a real concern with the Voice entrenching an outcome that will not easily be unwound. We have seen with a number of the previous bodies that were legislated that they did not work. If that experiment had been repeated in a constitutional way, we would not have been easily able to unwind it. There is no question when you read the documents behind the one-pager, the Uluru Statement from the Heart,that there are close to 20 or maybe more pages behind that. I am persuaded. I have looked at this, and I am persuaded strongly by the point that Peta Credlin has made that there is in fact a set of documents there ‍–

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: No, I am actually very clear. There are actually a number –

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: This is actually a very serious matter, and I think we should treat it that way. I think people should be treated with dignity and respect on this matter. I will certainly do that, and any others who speak I will certainly listen to with care and consideration. I am being very clear here. I am stepping through this step by step rather than in any way that should elicit the sort of response we just saw.

The call of voice, treaty and truth I think is something that concerns people. This is not just about the Voice, it is about entrenching a constitutional change. It is about entrenching a position where a small group – 24 people – is what is proposed. We do not have formal legislation on that, but we have the words in the constitutional change and we have proposals to the side that are not fully formed. I think they should have been fully formed. I think the federal government should have put forward a proposed bill, which might not have been the absolute final word, but there should have been a proposed bill that would have enabled people to look at this in a clearer way. Either way, the fact that you are entrenching a body of this nature in the constitution – it will have the power to look at all manner of things, not just related to Indigenous matters. It will be able to look widely, and it will be able to intervene widely as well. As a Victorian, I am very concerned, for example, that an Indigenous Voice based in Canberra – a Canberra-based Indigenous Voice – could be looking at all of the intergovernmental agreements. I am actually worried that Victoria, as always when these things occur, will actually end up much worse off. They will, in my view, early on start to look at funding formulas. They will look at funding for Victoria, and we will be the poorer in this state under these arrangements. That is my point. I make some very specific points that I think will be concerning.

I should say I was deeply impressed with Jacinta Price and her communication to the people that I was with on Monday night. She was responded to very warmly. Her points were very clear, and people understood that she is an Australian, she is a person of Indigenous background, she is a person of great integrity and she is a person who actually very much wants for our country to do better and wants for Indigenous people to do much better in her community. Obviously she understands her community in a way that none of us here – or few of us here – do. I understand that role that she is playing and that she is actually prepared to speak out. And I say those who disagree with her should listen closely to her. They may not agree with every word she says, but they should listen to the intent and they should listen to the honesty and they should listen to the preparedness that she has to engage broadly.

I think there are quite a lot of points that we need to get across. The key point that I think we want to see is the issue of how this Voice would actually operate. We have not been told how its so-called 24 members would be chosen, and that is a concern for me. Would they be appointed, and by whom? By the federal government – by a federal Labor government – appointing 24 Indigenous people from around the country? I would be concerned with that. I do not think that that would give a balanced outcome. These are not elected positions, these are actually positions that people – indeed the federal Parliament – would have some say in how that is done. But the government, as best as you can see from the intentions, a federal Labor government, would indeed seek to appoint those 24 people.

That does concern me; it really does. They would then be in a position to intervene on all manner of things. The health agreements, the large health agreements that actually fund big parts of Medicare and our health system, would become open areas for debate and contestability by the Voice. The large education agreements would become areas of open contestability by the Voice. People may shake their heads, but I can tell you this is exactly how it would work. And make no mistake, the GST and the grants commission will be an early point for a newly elected Voice to start. They will start to look closely at the funding formulas and they will seek to rejig them. They will seek to tweak them in a whole range of different ways. Of course that is what will happen. People will understand that in a federation like ours you need to follow the money, you need to understand how the federation works and members of the Voice will take a special interest, in my humble view, in ensuring that a series of examinations are made.

At the moment, Mr Limbrick, for example, there is a review of infrastructure across the country going on, including many of our projects – not the Suburban Rail Loop, strangely, but the airport rail, a number of other road and other projects, and the Geelong rail. All of these have become matters of review. The Voice, under the model that the government has proposed, would be entitled to ask questions, would be entitled to seek information and would be entitled to make input. There is no question that the High Court at some future point could give the Voice a very expansionist role. I do not trust the High Court to decide on the role of the Voice in the long run. Whatever you think about this High Court, it is what the High Court may do in five, 10, 20 years time. We have seen High Court decisions over the recent period that have been quite expansionist, that have actually given greater powers than anyone understood in certain areas, and this is exactly what I think would occur with the Voice. I think the Voice would be given more and more power than is intended. I think the truth of the matter is that there would be really significant concerns over the long term about the powers of the Voice to intervene, about the powers of the Voice to demand information and about the powers of the Voice to look for documents, to subpoena people and to subpoena a whole range of information about particular topics that become of interest. Make no mistake, a long-haul view of how the Voice would operate is it would become a major fixture inside the federation. It would become a major fixture that from a central perspective would actually weaken the position of the states and in particular of Victoria.

Every time things are managed from Canberra, every time decisions are made by Canberra and every time the control shifts to Canberra, Victoria loses – every time. We become a bigger donor state and we pay more; our taxpayers pay more and get less and less. As I said to a couple people in the chamber here the other day, we are the only state that has been a donor state every year of the federation, 123 years – long before the GST, this is true. But the GST exemplifies how over time we have actually been a donor state, supporting and propping up other jurisdictions around the country. I think the same will be true when it comes to Indigenous matters or the matters on which the Voice seeks to exercise its concern.

I heard Nicholas Aroney speaking at the Samuel Griffith Society conference on the weekend, and I must say I was very much convinced by his points about the expansionist nature of the Voice and the outcomes that would occur there. It will become a fourth arm of government. It will have that very significant role. Future High Courts will look at this and they will say there are three chapters – the main institutions, the Parliament the court and so forth – and now a fourth one, the Voice, equal. And it concerns me that it will disturb the balance in our federation. Our federation has been by and large successful. Nobody would suggest it is perfect, but it has been by and large successful. The issues that I think so many Indigenous people have faced deserve very serious attention. I think there are criticisms of how the Closing the Gap matters are working, because there are some areas where the Closing the Gap approach is clearly not working. I think all of us are worried about that and see that more needs to be done there.

But it is interesting to look back to 1967. There were promises made about the changes then. Everyone here in this chamber would support the changes that were made in 1967, I would imagine. But promises were made then about how those changes would deal with many of the issues that were faced. You could almost transpose those words. I have seen a list that lays down what is being said this time about how the Voice will fix things and how the 1967 change would fix things. It did not.

Jacinta Price’s view of course – and I will let her writings and statements stand by themselves – sees a greater ability of Indigenous people to chart their own course as a very big part of what is needed. It is not a solution to divide. It is not a solution to step into a position where people of one race are able to have additional control, additional input and additional impact on our constitution and all of our constitutional processes. People think that this Voice will only talk to Parliament. That is not true. It is the executive as well. And there is no doubt that the High Court will read the ability to make proper input as requiring adequate budgets. There is no doubt that the High Court will read the ability of the Voice to put various representations as requiring a bureaucracy. And there is no doubt that the High Court will also see that it requires information, and early information, across the whole front of government activity.

So there will be a Voice that is actually, in my humble view, intervening quite early in the legislative process, intervening quite early and widely in administrative processes, intervening quite early and quite significantly into the processes and balance of the federation. I think it will disturb the balance of the federation, it will weaken the states, it will weaken Victoria in particular and we will lose financially as the Voice presses on a whole range of fronts to shift resources out of our state. That is what would worry me. That is one of the things that deeply worries me.

I want to say something here about how the Voice should be chosen. It is not clear from the current documents exactly how it would be, and I think that that is a mistake in itself. Yes, I understand that it is up to the Commonwealth Parliament, but we do not know precisely how that will occur. The government could have brought forward a piece of draft legislation, where we could have seen their proposals. I accept that there could be changes from that, but they have not done that, and I think that that is a mistake. I also think that Anthony Albanese has been disingenuous with his decision not to provide some of the detail. I think he has been disingenuous with his decision to not admit that the Uluru statement is more than a single page. It is impossible to read that FOI – it is impossible to read those documents – without concluding that there is a totality there, that there is a cohesion in what is there, and many of the points that are outlined there are points that should concern Victorians.

I am concerned about proposals for reparations. I am concerned about a whole series of other matters that are laid out in those other documents, and I think people do need to focus on that. I do think we have got to be quite clear about the points on those issues. I think the truth is that the government has chosen not to come forward with some of this information. The truth is that the government has chosen not to be clear about some of its proposals. And by doing that they are trying to immunise themselves in some way from critique about the detail. I understand why they may want to do that, but I also think it is unwise, because it does lead to the conclusion that their proposals are not well founded and are not satisfactory and do not stand up to the scrutiny that is part of this.

I should say something here about the work of Louise Clegg, who I deeply respect and whose views and points on the legal aspects of the Voice have been some of the best expositions about what is actually going on. She and others have looked at the sequence of the earlier gatherings and decisions by some of those who have been important in the genesis of this document, and it is hard not to conclude that with the way the Voice is framed – with a whole new chapter, a whole set of frameworks that lay out the ability of the Voice to intervene on a wide front – this is deliberately and carefully designed to shift the balance in the constitution in quite a radical way. I say she has done very good work in actually making these points. I also make some commentary about my friend John Roskam and his preparedness to engage on this issue and the work that he has done. I have read closely some of his work and had a number of serious conversations with him. He has made I think very clear and sensible points.

This is wrong in principle. It does divide Australians. It is intended to divide Australians. That is the whole purpose of it: to set up an arrangement that actually splits one Australian from the other, and that concerns me. We heard Mrs McArthur. There are many things I disagree with her on, but actually I think some of the points she made this morning were right: that the decision to –

Michael Galea interjected.

David DAVIS: I heard what you said, but I think that kind of muttering is not becoming.

The point I would make is that it is a very, very good example of how heading in the wrong direction will do damage to our Federation, will do damage to our polity and will actually lead to outcomes that should concern us. Many multicultural communities have spoken to me, and many of them are concerned. Even while their peak bodies have been out speaking publicly in a number of ways in favour of the Voice, people from some key multicultural communities are talking quietly at a lower level and saying that they are concerned. They do not agree with this division. They have come to this country to be Australians – all Australians – where there is no division on background, race, religion or other matters, and that is actually critical.

When it comes to disadvantage, I accept that Indigenous people have suffered. I in no way resile from that. People who have known me for a long time will understand that when sensible proposals come forward I will generally support them.

Harriet Shing: What, like treaty, which you opposed? You opposed treaty.

David DAVIS: I think there are issues with treaty.

Harriet Shing: You opposed the treaty process here.

David DAVIS: Yes, I think there are a series of issues with treaty.

Harriet Shing: You literally voted against it.

David DAVIS: Again, I think we need to actually be quite clear that that is also potentially quite a divisive process.

Harriet Shing: So you don’t agree with treaty or the Voice?

David DAVIS: Well, we need to work through that very, very carefully. There are a series of issues here. We need to make it quite clear that a number of the steps that are required have not been followed here. There was no constitutional convention in this case. These sorts of changes to a constitution should have been preceded by a broad constitutional convention that actually involved jurisdiction –

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: That was not a constitutional convention; that is exactly right. It was a very important event, but it was not a formal constitutional convention. I will be making it very clear to many in my community that I think it is not in the interests of Victoria and not in the interests of Australia that the Voice referendum passes. I will be making it very clear that this is a grab for power at a central level and that it will alter the balance in the constitution. I am going to make it very clear that Victoria will be the loser if the Voice is carried on 14 October.

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (16:18): Thank you firstly to Ms Watt for bringing this motion to the house and for her very moving and passionate contribution. As a First Nations MP in this Parliament, we are all better for your contribution and your voice in this place. On behalf of the Greens, I am proud to lend our support for this motion. We encourage Victorians to vote yes in the upcoming referendum on the Voice to Parliament and the long overdue recognition of First Peoples in our constitution.

As one of the first parties to endorse the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, the Greens believe that this is the first step on that journey. We need voice, truth and treaty in this country. It is what the Uluru statement called for and what we fundamentally believe is at the heart of justice for First Nations. The First Peoples of this land were colonised and dispossessed of their country, their culture and their future. We now have an opportunity to start righting that wrong.

I am a migrant to this country; this is not my land. My family and I arrived here on Wurundjeri country after having to escape the war descending upon our own lands. It was a war that had its roots in colonisation. As Tamils, we were part of the first peoples of our own land, colonised by the Dutch, the Portuguese and the British. Over hundreds of years they attempted to colonise our culture, our lives and our minds. They pitted us against each other, and when they finally left, they left deep wounds and fractures that ultimately erupted into a 30-year-long civil war. Such is the aftermath of colonisation.

First Nations of this land fought the Frontier Wars, and that war never ended. It continues to this day in the systemic injustice and racism that means First Peoples are fundamentally disadvantaged by the colonised system that was built around them and on top of them. And like the colonisers of old, the colonisers of now still try to pit us against each other.

When we arrived here nearly 35 years ago, this country was alight with a national conversation that was sparked by the historic Mabo land rights decision. In that moment, after decades of battle, the High Court overturned the assertion of terra nullius and recognised that First Peoples have native title rights – that this is their land. That Australia that we arrived to felt like a very different one to the one that we experience today. It almost feels further away from the promise that the Mabo decision allowed us to believe in, and that is why I will be voting yes.

Momentum for change has to start somewhere, and this referendum is one such opportunity. We understand and respect that some fear that this change does not go far enough or that it could undermine momentum towards truth and treaty, and we respect that it is legitimate for people to hold other opinions. Indeed this is a part of what makes the Voice so important – that we hear a plurality of voices, experiences and opinions in the political discourse to help shape better outcomes.

Over the next six weeks we are going to hear many different views, and there will be lots of questions. There is also going to be a lot of misinformation circulating. I urge people to keep talking to each other, bringing the topic of conversation up and not being afraid of engaging with the question we are being asked to answer as a country. We might not agree with each other, but we will gain a lot from taking the time to listen and learn from each other. There will also be attempts to exploit and manipulate fears.

We will hear arguments like some that we have already heard canvassed in this chamber today from those opposite – that constitutional recognition and an advisory body to Parliament will not fix the socio-economic disadvantage First Nations people are subjected to. But many of them are the very same people who do nothing proactive to fix those issues or provide any alternative way forward in other times. They seem to be the ones saying ‘No, don’t take this path that could improve things, because it won’t work’ when they have no plans of their own. The only plans they put forward are more of the same, more of the same colonial and oppressive ways that have led to the gap in health and mortality between First Peoples and the rest of the nation. Their arguments are hollow and self-serving and should be seen for what they are: ignorant and racist. Whether those arguments are conscious or not, they have the same effect, and that effect is to keep things the same and stifle any change that threatens their power and their positions.

As a member of Victoria’s migrant multicultural community, who are too often subjected to similar forms of ignorance and racism ourselves, I appeal especially to all our culturally diverse communities to stand in solidarity with so many First Nations communities who are urging us to support them. Change begins with listening. It begins with understanding and acknowledging the problems and then working together to fix them. This referendum gives us a chance to start listening properly. Let us take it.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (16:24): May I firstly join Dr Ratnam in expressing my thanks to Ms Watt for her heartfelt and eloquent presentation in opening this discussion. On behalf of my colleague Ms Payne, we pay our respects to the traditional owners of these lands and waters, which have never been ceded. We are an ancient country. We are a home to an ancient sovereignty – the oldest continuous civilisation in the world. For over 60,000 years this nation’s First Peoples cared for this country, living harmoniously with nature in one of the harshest environments in the world. The Uluru Statement from the Heart speaks eloquently of this legacy. It states:

This sovereignty is a spiritual notion … It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.

How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last two hundred years?

Australia is also a new country. My family migrated to this new country, this new Australia, to make a better life for themselves and for their families, like so many others have done and continue to do. Indeed the areas that Ms Payne and I represent, the Western Metro Region and the South-Eastern Metro Region, with so many residents born overseas, epitomise this new Australia. Over the last 200 years this new Australia has given much to those who have come here and achieved some extraordinary things that we can rightly be proud of. At the same time, this new Australia has done some terrible things, none more so than to our First Nations people. We need to be clear eyed and honest about the consequences of what our 200-year-old project has inflicted and continues to do to these people, these Australians, these first Australians. There is no greater moral challenge than to reconcile the first people of this ancient country with those of the new. I believe this country we all love will not be whole, will not be right, until the old and the new are one.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart succinctly and powerfully articulates both the need for and the path to reconciliation of the old Australia with the new Australia: constitutional recognition, the enshrinement of a Voice, the telling of truths, and treaty. As a Victorian I am genuinely proud of our state government and of this Parliament for commencing this process. It has been done with integrity and inclusion and without great fanfare. May it continue to be fruitful in achieving its stated aims. On 14 October we have the opportunity to commence this process nationally through recognition and Voice.

I would like to note, however, in the context of the activities that have been undertaken here in Victoria, that contrary to Mr Davis’s doomsday scenario, the fabric of our society here in Victoria is in fact not unravelling as a result of this process. Mr Davis’s contribution wallowed in a swamp of paranoia and untruth. It was shameful fearmongering. It is a conspiracy theory that makes the X-Files pale into insignificance. I do not intend, however, to wallow in this disgusting swamp of disinformation and fearmongering. The Uluru statement ends with the words:

We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.

That is the spirit we should embrace – not a spirit of paranoia, not a spirit of fearmongering. I hope and pray that the members of this chamber will take up this generous invitation to walk this path to a better future, a first step towards truly reconciling our past with our future.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:29): I also rise to speak on motion 66 moved by Ms Watt about the Voice. The issue of the Voice and the constitutional amendment – the referendum – has been a source of much debate both within the Libertarian Party and within the wider libertarian movement. I note there are two separate things happening here with regard to the Voice. The first is the Voice itself, of which we do not know the exact details yet, but there has been some information about how it might look – that sort of thing. And the second part of that is around entrenching it in the constitution.

We have a few principles here which would lead me and indeed the Libertarian Party to oppose the Voice. Firstly, back in May during our AGM we passed a resolution that the party will not support governments creating laws that discriminate against people on the basis of race. This Voice is about creating an advisory body based on race, and we do not want to start going down that path. That is the first principle: it violates the principle of equality under law.

The second issue is, as has been pointed out by many both in media discussion and in here, there have been many, many attempts by various governments to help fix some of the very bad issues around Aboriginal welfare and health, education and many other issues, and many of those have failed. The idea that this time we are going to get it right and in fact are so sure we are going to get it right that we are going to entrench it in the constitution to make sure that no future government can unwind it easily is a bit alarming. In fact there is no need to put it in the constitution, and as is pointed out by this very motion, Victoria has gone ahead and done this with no constitutional amendment. There has not been a constitutional amendment in Victoria to have a First Peoples assembly. None of that was actually necessary.

In fact Victoria is living proof that a constitutional entrenchment is not necessary to move forward on this, so I am at a bit of a loss as to why the federal government is insisting on a constitutional entrenchment before they have even put forward the details and the legislation of how the Voice is going to operate. Victoria to its credit at least did that first; it has legislated and it has done all of its things without trying to constitutionally entrench it. They have tried to constitutionally entrench all sorts of other things that I would consider strange in Victoria, such as the fracking ban and apparently the SEC, but they have not as yet attempted to entrench anything to do with the First Peoples’ Assembly.

So that is my position. That is also the position of our party, in that we do not support violating the principle of equality under law, and I urge people to consider very carefully on the referendum whether they think that this time maybe we have got it right. I am not confident of that.

Lee TARLAMIS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:33): I move:

That debate on this motion be adjourned until the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until next day of meeting.