Chair: I understand Senator Roberts has some questions for the NIAA, so I give the call to you, Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing today. What are the total dollar costs to the taxpayer of holding the proposed Voice referendum?
Dr Gordon: Thank you for the question. In the 2023-24 budget, the government provided $364.6 million over the three years from 2022-23. That included $336.6 million over two years for the AEC to deliver the referendum; $10.6 million to produce information pamphlets for the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ cases; $12 million over two years to deliver a civics education program on the referendum, the Constitution and the referendum proposal; $10.5 million in 2023-24 for the Department of Health and Aged Care to increase mental health supports for First Nations people during the period of the referendum; and $5.5 million in 2023-24 to the NIAA to maintain existing resourcing levels to support the referendum. Those measures build on measures from the budget in October last year, and those measures were $50.2 million to the AEC to commence preparations for the referendum, $6.5 million over two years to NIAA to support the referendum and $2.4 million to the Department of Finance and the Attorney-General’s Department.
Senator Roberts: That totals $364 million?
Dr Gordon: It’s $364 million in 2023-24 plus those figures from the October budget last year.
Senator Roberts: What is the $10.5 million to be spent on mental health for?
Ms Guivarra: I think we’ve got colleagues from the department of health in the room next door. We might just get them to come in so they can provide more detail on that.
Senator Roberts: Thank you.
Senator McCarthy:I’d just note, too, there was a follow-up question from Senator Stewart around the mental health as well.
Mr Matthews: I missed the question. I think the question was to understand a little bit more about the $10½ million for mental health support for the referendum. Is that the question?
Senator Roberts: That’s correct.
Senator Stewart: We both asked it.
Mr Matthews: You both asked the same question? That’s good. I’m just clarifying that I’ve got the frame of the answer right. The budget does provide $10½ million in support for mental health for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the referendum. That’s in recognition that the referendum process may have an impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and cause levels of concern around the debate that plays out publicly in that. So it is to provide additional supports and places that they can go. The measure will basically provide funding through to the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, who will coordinate the use of that funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to reach in. It will provide a range of supports for people. That will be co-designed very heavily with NACCHO and other mental health experts into the design and delivery of that funding. There is also half a million dollars in there for a process to monitor and evaluate that process.
Senator Roberts: So $10 million is for mental health assistance and half a million dollars is for monitoring that assistance?
Mr Matthews: Yes.
Senator Roberts: Are there any expected mental health issues?
Mr Matthews: There’s obviously wide research over time about the impacts of racism on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the impact that that has on their mental health and wellbeing and, indeed, their broader health outcomes. That is a known phenomenon. I think there is also a range of literature and lived experience that, when there are a range of public discussions around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs or things that are sensitive around that, that can bring up issues for people and make things difficult for that. So it’s to ensure that there is support for that. Part of this also leverages back to the experience of the same-sex marriage debate. I think the learned experience out of that is that that also did raise issues for many people in the affected communities for that that were looking for increased support through that process. So it’s looking at what happened in that experience, and this is really framed to respond to that experience and ensure that, upfront, we’ve got supports in place and are expanding on it. It also builds on the existing mental health effort—that’s probably the other bit that I should add in. It’s not a standalone thing. The government invests probably about $1½ billion per year on mental health funding overall. That’s for mainstream and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. There are, obviously, specific things within that funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health generally but also the mainstream population. This would put a specific support over and above that for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but obviously the vast weight of that money is also for—
Senator Roberts: What do you mean by ‘the mainstream population’?
Mr Matthews: The broader Australia population, so anybody can access it.
Senator Roberts: Can you confirm the total sum of $781.5 million was allocated to the NIAA in the October 2022-23 budget, building on $1 billion and $21.9 million previously announced? That’s a lot of money. The figures are taken from the budget papers. Is that correct?
Ms Guivarra: We have our CFO online. Nick, do you want to confirm those for the senator, please?
Mr Creagh: Sorry. Could you repeat that question, Senator?
Senator Roberts:Can you confirm the total sum of $781.5 million was assigned to the NIAA in the October 2022-23 budget, building on $1 billion and $21.9 million previously announced?
Mr Creagh: Senator, I will have you shortly. I just have to quickly draw on the October portfolio budget statements. It might be best if you go to the next question, and then I will come back to you when I’ve got the answer for you.
Senator Roberts: Okay. Does the role of the NIAA, the National Indigenous Australians Agency, already include raising to government issues that are specific to the needs of the four per cent of the population of Australia who are Indigenous?
Ms Broun: Thank you for that question. The NIAA has a broad role working, leading and influencing right across government and leading a couple of important pieces of work like Closing the Gap, so we do have that role, but we are also a deliverer of programs to First Nations people right across the country. That is a role that we take quite seriously—that leading, influencing and working in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—but we are a government agency.
Senator Roberts: So will the NIAA still be relevant if the Voice proceeds?
Ms Broun: I think that there’s a lot of work to be done before that question can be answered, and we don’t have a position on it at the moment.
Senator McCarthy: The response is yes, Senator.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. Should the ‘yes’ vote in the coming referendum be successful, please tell us what the set-up costs of the Voice are estimated to be and what the yearly running costs of the Voice would be.
Ms Guivarra: Of course, the work to date has been in establishing design principles for a Voice. That is the work of the Referendum Working Group. In terms of how the Voice will function, a lot of that obviously will happen through a consultation process that will be conducted post referendum in finalising the design, and of course that design would be considered by parliament. So ultimately some of those features that you’re describing will be things that parliament will need to consider.
Senator Roberts: So we don’t know the cost, really.
Mr Matthews: At this stage, no.
Senator Roberts: There would be many costs involved. There are the direct costs and then the indirect costs in terms of another entity being put in place in the legislative process, for example.
Ms Guivarra: I think it would just be a bit speculative at this stage to try and predict what the costs associated with the administration of a Voice might be. As I said, there are design principles, so we know some of the elements of how the Voice may function, but, indeed, many of the things around the specifics of the design will be things that would be considered through a consultation process with the broader Australian community and be settled with parliament involved as well.
Senator Roberts: Yes. Minister, it leaves me concerned because, the way this parliament works, it doesn’t work on data when it makes policies and legislation. To have an open-ended script or a blank cheque doesn’t seem the right way to go. I have some questions for you, representing the Prime Minister. Why are these costs of running the Voice being held back from Australian voters?
Senator McCarthy: Senator Roberts, there’s nothing being held back. We’ve been as open and transparent as we can be in terms of our steps towards the campaign and in terms of the referendum itself. We’ve certainly been open and transparent about the costs that are associated with running a referendum, the costs associated with running a civics education campaign and the costs, of course, of the actual referendum itself, right across the country. We’ve also been very clear that, should the campaign and the referendum be successful, the debate has to occur within the parliament, and that will take whatever the next 12 months will be post the referendum. We’re also incredibly mindful that this is a challenge. It will be up to the Australian people to determine whether they’ve got enough information as we lead into the campaign proper. We still have to debate the constitution alteration bill that’s before the House at the moment. We still have to debate it in the Senate. We still have some work to do just here in the parliament.
Senator Roberts: So there’s a lot of uncertainty?
Senator McCarthy: There’s always uncertainty about any referendum.
Senator Roberts: Especially when the proposal is not clearly defined.
Senator McCarthy: The debate hasn’t concluded in the Australian parliament yet.
Senator Roberts: While people are tightening their belts during this period of out-of-control costs, with savage inflation biting and huge cost-of-living increases, how can Australians afford this expensive exercise of destroying the Australian parliamentary system of democracy that has worked so well to date?
Senator McCarthy: I totally disagree with your concept that any debate that we are having right now is destroying anything. It’s enabling our country to have the democratic conversation that we should.
Senator Roberts: I agree with you: debates are always wonderful and very useful—if they’re done openly, and that’s my concern.
Senator McCarthy: It’s before the House at the moment. It comes to the Senate. There is nothing that has not been brought before the parliament in terms of the bills. This is where we have the open debates.
Senator Roberts: I’m talking about the definition of what the Voice would, will like, how it will operate, what the systems will be, where it will impact—
Senator McCarthy: Those principles and the design principles are very clear. You may not accept them or like them, but they are very transparent and open for everyone to see.
Senator Roberts: It’s not matter of whether I like them or not. It’s a matter of definition—
Senator McCarthy: It clearly must be, because you keep referring to the fact that there’s nothing out there, when it is out there, in terms of the design principles. We’ve said that on numerous occasions here in this estimates process. It is there on the website. It is there in the information for the public to access.
Senator Roberts: Do you think the Australian voters will support a ‘yes’ vote if they know how much this will cost them in taxes to pay for it? It will cost a lot of money to put in additional bureaucracy.
Senator McCarthy: Any referendum in this country is very difficult to win. Forty-four have been held. Only eight have been won. We acknowledge that this is a challenge and that the Australian people will determine the outcome.
Senator Roberts: This is an open cheque written on behalf of the Australian taxpayers. There are so many things that are undefined. The direct costs of running the Voice, if it gets up, and then the indirect costs and the impact on so many operations in this country are huge.
Senator McCarthy: The process is not concluded. The bill is before the parliament in the House and yet to be debated in the Senate. We have not concluded the process of the parliament and therefore, when we do, there will be many things that the Australian people can make their decisions on.
Senator Roberts: Why isn’t the government talking about the indirect and direct costs of running the Voice if it gets in?
Senator McCarthy: You’ve seen the total already. We’ve been talking about the figures, which—
Senator Roberts: No, that’s the referendum.
Senator McCarthy: In terms of the referendum, but we’ve also looked at the costs of going forward with regional voices. These are things that we are bringing forward in terms of our debate in the parliament. I think I’ve made that very clear.
Senator Roberts: The Labor Party or the government has not talked about the potential negatives openly with the people: the frustration of parliamentary processes and the addition of a ninth chapter. We’ve only heard the benefits, and even those have been very vague. This doesn’t give people confidence.
Senator McCarthy: Only time will see on that front.
Senator Roberts: What will be the other costs to voters from the slowing down of government, bogged down with court proceedings and increased bureaucracy?
Senator McCarthy: As we’ve heard from legal experts across the country, that will not be the case.
Senator Roberts: How many new jobs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will be created by the Voice?
Senator McCarthy: This will be an opportunity for First Nations people in every state and territory jurisdiction to be able to speak to the parliament and the executive, should we be successful at this referendum, which will also mean that local and regional voices will also be established. In terms of particular jobs right now, our focus is on jobs across the CDP sector; and the health sector, in terms of the 500 health positions that we want to roll out. These are connected in terms of where we want to lift the problems that we encounter right across the country.
Chair: Senator Roberts, you’ve had a good 15 minutes now.
Senator Roberts: Last one?
Chair: Great. Then I will give the call to Senator Steele-John, and then we are back over to this side.
Senator Roberts: How many new bureaucratic officers will need to be found and what will be the salaries of the thousands of new positions created to service the Voice?
Senator McCarthy: I’d certainly like to think that our First Nations regions, in terms of the Voice should it be successful, will need the capability of a secretariat of sorts to assist them in terms of defining specifically what that will be. Clearly we have to see what happens with the outcome of the referendum and our debate post that.
Senator Roberts: Sticking to that point about the bureaucracy: having travelled to all of the communities on Cape York—mixed communities and Aboriginal communities—they’re very concerned, frustrated and sometimes angry about the lack of impact of the funds that we give them on the ground. They see that the bureaucracy, whether that be black people or white people, it doesn’t matter; the bureaucrats, the lawyers, the activists, the politicians—people are frustrated. They want real change, not more bureaucracy.
Senator McCarthy: Nowhere is that more clear than for those of us who’ve only just come into government in the last 12 months. We understand that, and that’s why we’re trying to create the changes that we see will give our country hope going forward.
Senator Roberts: But you’re adding more layers of bureaucracy.
Senator McCarthy: We’re giving hope.
Senator Roberts: Thank you, Chair.