I will be a guest speaker at Harvest Point Church on Sunday, 24 September 2023 from 2 pm where I will share my thoughts on why I’m voting “no” in the Voice Referendum.
See you there!
Sunday | 24 Sept 2023 | 2pm
Harvest Point Church
25 Walker Road
Gleneagle QLD 4285
Join me at the Wagga Wagga Civic Theatre on 26 September 2023, where I will be speaking in support of the “NO” campaign in the upcoming referendum.
Seats are limited so reserve yours now at: https://www.civictheatre.com.au/…/vote-no!-voice-to…, or by calling 02 6926 9688, or in person at the box office.
Tuesday, 26 September 2023
6 pm
Wagga Wagga Civic Theatre
Burns Way (off Tarcutta Street)
Wagga Wagga NSW 2650
Following my questions to Minister Farrell regarding the constitutional legality of the wording on the ballot paper for The Voice, I explained the legal advice I had received on the matter and warned the government that they need to sort this out quickly.
https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/constitutional-questions-raised-over-referendum-ballot-paper/
“The scope of the voice is its strength,” said one of its Indigenous architects, Megan Davis. The Voice is racist. It is flawed, divisive — inserting race into the constitution. It would destroy the People’s constitution which is for ALL Australians and replace it with a Politicians’ constitution.
The problem with the Voice is what is being hidden from the public: the power being created and how that power changes our system of government. The ‘Yes’ campaign has no basis for its argument that the powers being created won’t be used and in trying, it is deceiving Australians. There is no doubt that past governments have failed aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ needs despite spending billions of dollars. Since 2018, there have been 19,000 grants given to 300 indigenous corporations for aboriginal purposes, at a grand total of $11.5 billion. The grants and other funds directed at these issues are not closing the gap. Where has this jaw dropping amount of money gone? It is in fact the aboriginal industry that is entrenching this gap to our national disgrace. Billions already spent and billions more to run the Voice.
No one should be surprised that the Native Title legislation’s preamble is littered with references to the Voice’s roots, the globalist United Nations. The Voice would further entrench aboriginal disadvantage, promote victim mentality and sow further division.
The public has turned against the Voice in spite of concerted efforts by government and their corporate sponsors to force compliance.
The PM initially said if people reject the Voice, he would not rule out legislating it into parliament instead. What is the point of a referendum, if politicians will not listen?
I will be voting no!
Tonight my remarks go to the path ahead. I serve my home state of Queensland, which is made up of many different people. Some came here first, others were born here and others have come here since. With the Voice referendum legislation decided, the cohesion of our Queensland community is threatened by the most divisive government initiative since the Vietnam War if not ever. Never has this country seen an issue that splits Australians right down the middle, where the vote will be won or lost on just a handful of votes in a handful of states. With the vote so close, every Australian must act with caution. Sadly—tragically—I see no sign that that is to happen. I’m deeply concerned that in the months ahead emotion will be deliberately triggered to leverage the emotional response for votes, which will continue hiding deeply troubled absent details. There will be appeals to fear and there will be shaming on both sides. These are evident now, and the campaign has not yet been called.
Above all else there will be disinformation, which will occur because the Prime Minister refuses to reveal the details of the Voice. By details, I don’t mean the discussion document and the Uluru Statement that are legally irrelevant to the practical application of the Voice. Those documents do not form part of the vote and will not inform a legal challenge to a voice provision should one occur. I mean the legislation that will set out how the Voice will work in practice. If the implementing legislation is presented before the vote then without a doubt the High Court will hold the government to that legislation—no more, no less. That is why the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, will not release it. The less detail revealed, the more discretion the Prime Minister will have to introduce a woke political agenda under the cover of implementing the Voice, an agenda that will fundamentally reshape Australian society.
Don’t take my word for it! Listen to the words of voice architect professor Marcia Langton who only last week said:
People who are opposing (the voice referendum) are saying we are destroying the fabric of their sacred Constitution. Yes, that’s right, that is exactly what we are doing.
I find it difficult to reconcile the words of the architect of the Voice, Professor Langton, with the words of Prime Minister Albanese, who called his proposal ‘modest’. Destroying the fabric of our nation’s Constitution modest? I thank Professor Langton for her candour, and I criticise the Prime Minister for his lack of candour, his cover-up, his deceit. Not that Professor Langton spoke truthfully out of a higher regard for the fundament principles of peaceful discourse—in fact, far from it. In 2019 Professor Langton said:
It would be terribly unfortunate for all Australians if the debate sinks into a nasty, eugenicist, 19th century-style of debate about the superior race versus the inferior race.
Who’s doing that? Who’s saying Aboriginal Australians do not deserve equal representation and do not deserve the same access to opportunity as anyone else in this country? Who’s saying that those on the no side desire less for Aboriginals than they do for any other Australians. No-one is saying it; that’s who—no-one. Those words in and of themselves inject a level of vitriol that the speaker has claimed is coming from the no side. Those comments invite hatred and violence against the no side. Those comments tell everyone who Marcia Langton is, not who we are. Labels and slurs are the refuge of the ignorant, the dishonest and the fearful. They reveal a lack of solid data, facts and logical argument.
I’m concerned that the hatred we are seeing from some in the yes case must lead to violence. I call on the Prime Minister to call out the personal attacks and restore stability to the debate coming from the yes advocates. It is a fundamental principle of One Nation that Aboriginals together with all who are now in this country must be treated fairly and offered equality of opportunity. Anyone who seeks to minimise, to harm, to malign, to deprive those who were here first has no place in One Nation. I implore all Australians to remember the golden rule of free speech, which is this: just because you can say something does not mean you should. I implore both sides to consider your words. Consider your memes and your signs at the rallies, which will no doubt occur. Consider that on the other side of this referendum we will still be the same country composed of the same people, and we will all need to get along. To use an old saying: least said, soonest mended. This advice was first seen in writing in the 1606 literary classic Don Quixote. Ironically, like the Voice, Don Quixote is a cautionary tale of a man who does not see the world as it is but rather as he needs it to be, in order to justify his doomed quest to vanquish imaginary enemies for his own ego. One Nation will continue to advocate for measures that actually raise Aboriginal Australians up, through the provision of basic services, jobs and, above all else, opportunity.
112 page document obtained under FOI is available for download below.
The Prime Minister has deliberately hidden his true agenda and contradicted his own statements regarding the Voice with lies about the Uluru Statement and a Treaty. He failed to tell Australians that without the constitutional change called the ‘Voice’ there is no national body of Australians with which to sign a Treaty.
On a radio talk show, he was asked if he would move on to a Treaty and he answered ‘no’!
Prime Minister Albanese has called for a Treaty on the record in parliament, and the Uluru statement calls for a treaty. His denials of his intention to proceed to Treaty is a lie too far.
The fact is, PM Albanese is committed to implementing the Uluru statement in full. That is, the entire 26 pages of the Uluru Statement from the Heart that every Australian should read. Not the single solitary page passed off by the PM as the entire statement. Another lie.
The Uluru Statement outlines a plan to divide Australia into two separate nations that closely resemble the apartheid regime. Denying that he intends to proceed to treaty is a lie too far from PM Albanese.
The statement calls for annual reparations calculated as a percentage of our GDP, which even at 1% could amount to $20 billion a year, which as we all know would not reach those who truly need it.
The real aboriginal community look to a shared future of mutual respect and equality of opportunity.
The PM has lost the opportunity for that shared community because of his lies.
Sentiments of respect and equality are missing from this elitist and divisive leader whose real intention has been exposed.
Senator Roberts: As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, polling has turned against the Voice because the Prime Minister has told a lie too far.
Prime Minister Albanese said repeatedly that the Uluru statement fits on one A4 page and that he was committed to implementing the statement in full. The Uluru statement is 26 pages; the remaining pages have been released under freedom of information.
These contain a clear path for the partition of Australia into two separate nations that closely resemble South Africa’s apartheid regime. On committing to implementing the Uluru statement in full while lying about the contents of the statement, the Prime Minister has told a lie too far. As opposition leader—
The Acting Deputy President (Senator Sterle): Sorry, Senator Roberts, there is a point of order.
Senator Carol Brown: I ask Senator Roberts to withdraw those assertions about the Prime Minister.
Senator Roberts: I withdraw that statement and say he has told what seems to me to be a lie too far. As opposition leader, Prime Minister Albanese—
Senator Roberts: A mistruth too far. As opposition leader, Prime Minister Albanese said the Voice must be followed by a makarrata commission to inform a national treaty, yet he failed to tell Australians that without the Voice passing there is no national body of Australians with which to sign a treaty. The Prime Minister’s decision to not admit that without a voice there can be no meaningful treaty is a mistruth too far. When asked on ABC radio if he will move on to treaty if the Voice is passed, the Prime Minister said no; his exact word was ‘no’. Yet the Uluru statement includes a high-level treaty and the Prime Minister has called in parliament for a treaty. It’s on record, and he has the T-shirt to prove it!
The Prime Minister’s denial of his intention to proceed to treaty is a mistruth too far. The Uluru statement calls for reparations in the form of an annual cash payment calculated as a percentage of GDP. Even one per cent would be $20 billion a year in cash to 800,000 Aboriginals, or $100,000 for a family of four, which, as compensation, is tax free. The Prime Minister deliberately hid his true agenda. He’s been found out and he’s now lost any chance of a settlement with the real Aboriginal community that looks to a shared future of mutual respect and equality of opportunity. Loss of shared community is a heavy penalty for one man’s mistruth too far. (Time expired)
Martin Luther King’s dream was that his children would ‘not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character’. I share that dream.
Who would have thought we would be again fighting for such a basic concept nearly 60 years later.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I expressed my view about this legislation, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, and the brain-snapping folly that will occur if the Yes campaign wins the upcoming referendum. Martin Luther King’s dream was that his children would ‘not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character’. I share that dream. Although I doubt that he imagined we’d be discussing this same principle nearly 60 years later.
The Voice would result in constitutionally enshrining deferential treatment based on skin colour and heritage. I cannot endorse racism, and I will not do so. It’s difficult to discuss the ‘no’ case in relation to the Voice and its operations without being labelled racist. This has been Mr Albanese’s deliberate policy. He’s hoping to mislead voters into thinking this is a modest proposal, merely a goodwill gesture that needs very little thinking and should be supported because it’s simply good manners and will not change much or anything at all. He’s taken a leaf out of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s playbook. Mr Albanese is telling us, ‘Don’t you worry about that’—the details—’Just do as I say.’ Mr Albanese is telling a great mistruth.
The Voice, if established, will become a huge new institution with vast powers enshrined indefinitely into the Constitution based on race. It will change governance to Australia’s detriment. There’s no doubt that past governments failed to address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s needs. This is despite billions of dollars successive governments have wasted lining the pockets of white and black bureaucrats, academics, activists, lawyers, consultants and all those whose incomes are based on the white and black Aboriginal gravy train siphoning off the money that rarely filters through to those who should benefit from assistance.
The government is already seeking mass endorsement of the ‘yes’ campaign. It’s calling in support from those already dependent on government funding. Sports organisations, the arts and big business are all dependent on government funding grants and contracts. They aren’t exactly independent but bribed. We’ll hear from more of those organisations in the lead up to the referendum.
While it’s interesting to look at the elites supporting the ‘yes’ case, we need to consider what real Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people want. I’ve travelled with my staff to Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory and across Queensland. I’ve visited every Cape York community twice and in some cases three times—and to Torres Strait communities. I’ve listened to residents, and one thing that has struck me is the fact that there is little knowledge or even interest in this Voice. There is little interest or respect for the so-called Closing the Gap. A counsellor in the Torres Strait community of Badu summed it up accurately, saying that many in the Aboriginal industry do not want to close the gap; they want to perpetuate the gap to keep milking taxpayer funds.
There’s no common understanding as to what the Voice is or what it might offer residents in terms of improving people’s lives. Opinions differed from community to community. They differed from family group to family group. In fact, on most issues there’s little commonality of views. There’s no single Voice that could represent the differing views of each separate Aboriginal and islander community. I remain deeply concerned about the unworkability of what’s proposed.
Mr Albanese, when deflecting questions recently on how the Voice would work in practice, has constantly directed questioners to read the lengthy Calma and Langton final report on the Voice. It’s not a policy, merely recommended. The report says there’d be a need for 24 full-time roving commissioners and a secretariat. With 35 districts, there’s a need for local Aboriginal Voice to Parliament groups and committees. On each issue, these committees would seek to develop one opinion. There would be the likely risk of people in Tasmania giving their view on an issue for Torres Strait Islanders. The report did not say all representatives would be elected democratically. Retired High Court judge Ian Callinan has been vocal in opposing the Voice, questioning how it might not be truly representative of Aboriginal Australians and run the risk that the Voice might be made up of a hand-picked Canberra cadre. He noted practical difficulties with drafting the constitutional amendments that would need High Court interpretations. This Voice push is not from the grassroots; it’s coming from city elites, academics and others on the white and black Aboriginal industry gravy train. The Voice faces the real risk of a noisy minority of activist groups hijacking and driving it.
Across Australia are more than 3,000 Indigenous corporations and more than 12,700 registered charities with purposes including assisting Aboriginal Australians. Since 2018 more than 19,000 grants have been made, totalling more than $11.5 billion for Aboriginal purposes. All of this money has been directed towards the needs of a group representing less than four per cent of Australia’s population. For example, Noel Pearson’s Cape York Institute collected more than $50 million. He supports the Voice. The recent budget included $781 million for the National Indigenous Australians Agency, to be added to an already announced expenditure of $1.36 billion. Look around the communities. Where has this jaw-dropping amount of money gone? What has it done to lift the lives of remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? Previously, I raised in this Senate the sorry plight of Aboriginal people on Mornington Island, Australia’s third world disgrace. Has their life benefited from the jaw-dropping amount of wasted money? Clearly, no.
A core issue for me is there is the historic suppression of Aboriginal Australians under governments that continue to patronise and reinforce a victim mentality through misplaced paternalistic care, so-called care—control masquerading as care. This remains a national disgrace. The solution is not creating a powerful unaccountable body to satisfy a small group of activists with vested interests in maintaining an ever growing white and black Aboriginal industry.
There is not one word from the government on the cost of setting up the Voice. There is not one word from the government on the proposed annual costs. Why is this so, asked a famous and much loved and admired TV scientist. The Prime Minister does not want us to know the answer, as it would be a figure so large that no-one in their right mind would agree to such expenditure for yet another new bureaucracy, when many Australians are already wondering if they can afford to put a meal on the table for their family. Billions are already being spent. Billions more will be spent to run the Voice. Whoops, don’t tell the voters! A previous body created to assist and represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ needs was ATSIC, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—and look how that experiment went. ATSIC’s abuse of Aboriginals and the related corrupt waste of taxpayer money led to ATSIC being abolished. It would be almost impossible to abolish the new version of ATSIC, which is the Voice, enshrined in the Constitution—how handy for the corrupt white and black Aboriginal industry, as the Voice, like ATSIC, would be a never-ending cash cow for those in the know, perpetuating bureaucrats, agency heads and board members living off taxpayer funds—parasites.
Let’s not forget the bloodsucking white and black lawyers, activists and academics, who are dipping their snouts in a new public funds trough. Is the Voice really necessary? Is it needed? The government says it’s needed to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people an opportunity for input into government. Currently there are already 11 members of parliament of Aboriginal heritage. Are they not doing the job of raising issues on behalf of Aboriginal Australians? If not, what sort of job are they doing? What about the National Indigenous Australians Agency? Isn’t its job to highlight to government areas of need? Will the Voice replace this body? The Prime Minister suggested that governance of the Voice would come under the jurisdiction of the future National Anti-Corruption Commission. This has been challenged. Retired senior judge Anthony Whealy said that further legislation would be required to extend the commission’s jurisdiction to cover the Voice, as it would not be covered under the current legislation setting up the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
This brings us to the issue of jurisdiction. The High Court would decide disputes about the Voice, because it would be created under an entirely new ninth chapter of the Constitution. The High Court is the only body having the role to interpret the Constitution—a whole ninth chapter added to the current eight chapters, with details in wording hidden. The High Court schedule could fill up rapidly with cases of this nature and slow down the judicial process. The Voice would be able to make representations to parliament and to the executive on matters relating to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. That’s almost everything. There’s little restriction on the sorts of issues that the Voice could raise, and the advisory role is not only to parliament; it’s to the executive government. That means that the potential for excessive involvement of the court system may necessitate expanding the High Court to consider Voice disputes and interpretation.
This leads to another criticism of the proposed Voice. At what stage can the Voice advise the parliament or the executive? Must the government consult with the Voice on all proposed legislation or the development of policy? Is the onus on the Voice to make representations about an issue with the government or the executive? The Aboriginal industry says it is to advise both. The Prime Minister has been unwilling to answer any of these vital questions. Will activists rely on the Voice to slow down government processes to the extent of blocking legislation and holding the government to legal ransom unless demands are met? That seems to be the activists’ intent. The Prime Minister’s comments that the Voice would be subject to the parliament are clearly wrong. Any law that was designed to rein back Voice activities may fail, as the power of the Voice is so broad that it is nigh impossible to minimise such power.
Any law that is passed related to the Voice must be subject to the Constitution. Surely that is a recipe for confusion and parliamentary disaster. The Voice does not practically solve any of the current issues facing remote Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders. These problems of people living in remote areas, Aboriginal or not, are already well known, yet solutions have not yet been offered. Allocation of vast sums of money, resources and programs have not worked. We’ve been told that the Voice is proposed to be advisory only, with no power to provide programs, resources or grants. How is that supposed to assist Aboriginals in need? The concept of native title was supposed to support Aboriginal Australians yet has failed miserably. Aboriginals living in a community are not able to own their own homes, are locked into rent cycles and unable to borrow to advance themselves, because they cannot use land under native title as security for a business or home loan or other loan. They’re locked into a system that keeps them from improving their lives and livelihoods or working towards buying their own home.
Native title freezes Aboriginal people out of the economy and keeps them from advancing personally. No-one should be surprised that the native title legislation’s preamble is littered with references to the Voice’s roots, the globalist United Nations. The Voice will further entrench Aboriginal disadvantage, promote victim mentality and sow further division.
One of the nastiest sides of this debate has been the coercive approach that ‘yes’ campaigners have taken, pitching any opposition to the ‘yes’ campaign as racist. Even within the Aboriginal community, where there are clear differences of levels of support, derogatory name calling and put-downs are the response from ‘yes’ campaign leaders such as Noel Pearson. He has derided Senator Nampijinpa Price and other leaders taking a strong ‘no’ stance. It’s interesting that in rural areas, where Aboriginals are most in need, the ‘no’ vote is way out front—much higher than the ‘yes’ vote. Aboriginals see little value for them in the ‘yes’ campaign. The ‘yes’ campaign support is in fact falling and remains strongest in cities, with support from the wealthy and the elites who have fallen for the cheap rhetoric of lies from government and lies from elite academia. Sadly, young people are being sold a pup, third hand, through a deceitful government media blitz providing huge sums to others to run a deceitful ‘yes’ campaign on behalf of the government.
What I dislike most of all is the fundamental flaw in this government’s whole referendum push, and that is the out-and-out racism underpinning the whole Voice concept. It is the insertion of a whole new chapter into our Constitution, as the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Ms Lorraine Finlay, recently highlighted by saying:
It inserts race into the Australian Constitution in a way that undermines the foundational human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination …
The proposed Voice will give Aboriginal people special rights. Only the members of the Voice will have a constitutional right to influence the parliament and the executive. No other Australian person or body would have that constitutional right to influence the parliament or executive based on race—not one. This is pure racism. If one goal of the Voice is to create harmony and reconciliation, this is doomed to failure, irrespective of the referendum outcome. This issue is so divisive that, whatever the result, a wedge will have been driven between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members of our Australian society, a wedge based on race, thanks to the Labor government. Australians should all have the same rights. If this referendum succeeds, that will not be the case in Australia, because one group, Aboriginal Australians, will have additional constitutional rights that other Australians will not have. That is racist and it is wrong.
We all share two identities. We are all human and we are all Australians. Our nation is the world’s only nation whose people voted for the national Constitution. Our Commonwealth Constitution is the people’s Constitution. Giving the government’s dishonest proposal an open slate—a blank slate—for changes made by politicians will degrade it to a politician’s Constitution. We have had enough of politicians in this country. In answering a question last week, the Prime Minister acknowledged the public has turned against the Voice. He then confirmed that if the people reject his racist Voice proposal he will legislate it. He will defy the will of the people.
Lastly, what is the point of a voice when the problem is not Australians speaking up; the problem is politicians not listening. It is the arrogance, the deceit, the unwillingness to listen. I will vote no.
Senate Estimates exposed the billion-dollar costs given to indigenous agencies and the unlimited costs required to run the Voice if the Voice is agreed to at the Referendum.
An open cheque book will be required from the taxpayer to fund thousands of jobs and a brand new bureaucracy for the Aboriginal industry to exploit at tax payer expense.
There has been no detail provided as to how the Voice would work if it gets up. The government approach is one of “Don’t you worry about that. We are the government and we are here to help you.”
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.
Chair: Senator Roberts, you now have the call.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. Continuing our discussion, Minister, on ATSIC’s failure. It was a dismal failure, and it showed money without accountability is no substitute for truth. We see Aboriginal women like Senator Liddle and Senator Nampijinpa Price talking about the real issues affecting Aboriginal communities and Aboriginals across Australia, and they’ve won huge admiration across all sectors of Australia’s population. Wouldn’t an open discussion be far more productive than spending and wasting billions more dollars? We have to get the truth.
Senator McCarthy: Senator, I just want to pick up on the lead-in to your question, about ATSIC. I think that everyone has a distorted view of ATSIC, and I can certainly reflect on the ATSIC that we had in the north, with Garrak-Jarru and regional councils. They were certainly not a problem for our organisations across most of Australia. The incident around the particular chair at the time, and others, was seen in a different view, and there has since been political commentary, even by the Liberal-Nationals, in relation to that previous Indigenous affairs minister and ministers who could have handled that very differently. So I do want to pick up on that; it is wrong to use that as the example for why we should not embark on a referendum.
Senator Roberts: You didn’t answer my question, Minister. I said that an honest debate with truth would be far better than another bureaucratic body without accountability.
Senator McCarthy: I did actually answer your question previously today when I said that we have been transparent in every way. We have brought to the parliament, from the very first night we won government, that we were maintaining the promise we took to the Australian people that was qualified in us winning government. We have then proceeded with a working group, an engagement group, and we’ve certainly continued with the principles of the design around the referendum, which are on the website for all Australians to see. We’ve had debates in the parliament over the referendum bill, which have been open and transparent. And we currently have the constitutional alteration bill before the House, yet to come to the Senate. All of this is open and transparent, as it should be.
Senator Roberts: I’m talking about a debate on what the Aboriginal people need and what Australians need.
Senator McCarthy: This is the debate of the parliament, and every single member of the parliament is able to bring their reflections and their views in terms of the people they represent.
Senator Roberts: I’m not talking about a debate on the Voice. That is going ahead. I’m talking about a debate on the issues affecting Aboriginal people and why their needs are not being met. I acknowledge that they’re not being met, and I’d say it’s largely because of the Aboriginal industry. That’s not a slight on the Aboriginals; that’s a tarring of black and white consultants—
Senator McCarthy: It is a slight. You’ve used the word ‘industry’—Aboriginal industry. Straightaway, you’ve put First Nations people in the negative.
Senator Roberts: You cut me off.
Senator McCarthy: You need to be mindful of your words. Words can be weaponised.
Senator Roberts: That was very cleverly done. I was about to explain what the Aboriginal industry is. It’s white and black consultants, activists, politicians and bureaucrats who seek power and manipulate power. That is not looking after the Aboriginal people; that is hindering.
Chair: It’s the same industry we have here in parliament, Senator Roberts, and we all belong to it. I don’t think races have particular industries, unless we’re all part of one here.
Senator Roberts: That’s correct.
Chair: Senator Roberts, do you have a question?
Senator Roberts: Yes, I do. Wouldn’t it be better to have a truthful debate about the real issues—not about the Voice but about the real issues affecting and holding back Aboriginal communities?
Senator McCarthy: Can I ask you what contribution you’ve made to the Close the Gap debate when we have that every year in February?
Senator Roberts: I have proudly called out the Close the Gap initiative because I’ve listened to people across Cape York and people in the Torres Strait Islands, and they have told me that Close the Gap only perpetuates the gap because of the Aboriginal industry. We need to get to the issues—
Senator McCarthy: Doesn’t that answer your question, then? That is the time that we debate all of these issues that you’re raising. Don’t you think you’ve just answered your own question?
Senator Roberts: No, I do not.
Senator McCarthy: The reason why we have Close the Gap debates every February—prior to that it was every October because the previous government changed it for a couple of years; we brought it back to February—is that it reflects back to the stolen generations apology from the Prime Minister at the time, Kevin Rudd. As a result of that, we began Close the Gap so that the parliament, every single year, would know about the treatment of First Nations people and the spending of monies to First Nations people, and we would debate it in a respectful way. That happens every year.
Senator Roberts: I’m ashamed of the way the current Prime Minister and previous opposition leader and the current opposition leader have discussed the gap. It’s just a farce. It’s a sugar coating and a veneer. What I’m talking about is an open and honest debate about the real issues, as Senators Nampijinpa Price and Kerrynne Liddle have discussed at length widely around the country, and as Senator Pauline Hanson has discussed widely around the country. That’s what I’m talking about—a real debate.
Senator McCarthy: Are you saying that the Close the Gap debate is not real?
Senator Roberts: Criticism is not racist.
Senator McCarthy: That is the opportunity. This is what I’m pointing out. You’re putting your questions as though we don’t talk about it at all in the parliament—when we do. We have a specific time when we do it. We also have time, as you know, through the Senate processes: through motions and through private senators’ bills. They are thoroughly discussed and debated in a very open way. I’m not too sure where you’re going with this when we already discuss it. It doesn’t mean that we’re pleased with the outcomes. Certainly, I would agree with you on that.
Chair: We have time for one more question and one answer, and then we’ll break for afternoon tea. Thank you.
Senator Roberts: We are not discussing this openly and honestly. It’s about labels, veneers and pretence. What we’ve got in this country, through this kind of discussion—a charade around an insincere closing the gap—is an ‘us versus them’ situation, which will be exacerbated by the Voice.
Chair: Senator Roberts, where is your question? These are statements. These are debating points for the parliament.
Senator McCarthy: I disagree with you completely, Senator Roberts. You are in a position of power. You are in such a position of power as a member of this parliament. For you to say that it does not get discussed and debated is really quite appalling.
Senator Roberts: It wasn’t discussed until these two women entered the parliament.
Chair: Senator Roberts, you don’t have the call. Minister, have you finished your answer to Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: I haven’t got my question out yet. Isn’t the Voice based on race?
Chair: You are raising debating points, not clear questions.
Senator Roberts: I haven’t finished my question.
Chair: I did say we were about to break for afternoon tea.
Senator Roberts: The Voice is based on a racist proposal.
Senator McCarthy: You’re wrong. You’re totally wrong.
Chair: It seems you’re trying to invoke a debate about this question. On that basis, we will temporarily suspend for afternoon tea.
Casual Coal Wage TheftFebruary 21, 2024 - 2:09 pmOver $30,000 a year being stolen, and it’s been signed off by the union and the government. Find out about the largest wage theft from casuals in Australia.
My Other IssuesFebruary 16, 2021 - 12:08 pm
Murray Darling BasinMarch 23, 2020 - 3:05 am
Foreign OwnershipOctober 16, 2019 - 4:58 am
Property rightsOctober 16, 2019 - 4:39 am
United Nations #AUSEXITOctober 16, 2019 - 2:31 am