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.”
Click Here for Transcript | Part 1
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.
Click Here for Transcript | Part 2
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.
Over-expenditure, red tape & lack of transparency always needing to be addressed- thank you for your great work, Senator!
If the referendum on Voice gets up, we expect that as tax payers we will have to pay tax for every kilometer we drive along the roads because it all belongs to the Indigenous people they claim.
We would like to see a statute of limitations whereby people who have less than one eighth of aboriginal blood in them are not counted as aboriginal. Some people who look as ‘white’ as you and I claim to be aboriginal because it benefits them financially.
Who is enabled to rectify the lack of Duty of Care across the breadth of those already in place, supposedly, to serve the needs of the Aboriginal human beings?
There is a serious lack of integrity in this arena, which no one ever seems to address.
The quality of life for any Australian is severely impacted in recent years.
Lack of Duty of Care accountability, across the board, looks like
The Gap that is
‘The Elephant in the Room’.
I’m having difficulty comprehending how The Voice was ever allowed to gain such momentum.
What a slap in the face it is, to ALL of US.
OMG it must be horrifying for the Aboriginal Elders to realise this train wreck is in play.
Many of the Elders wish to encourage upliftment for ALL of the Australian community.
They are not about continuing same old, same old, which has produced some very distressing outcomes.
I think you all need to look into your hearts and bother to put some love into what you create.
Thanks for your consistent and transparent coverage on this Trojan Horse which is the Voice, Senator.
Old wine in new skins. Another centralised so called (government controlled) “representative” group to speak on behalf of all Aboriginal people is what this is. ATSIC really worked didn’t it? ATSIC created a self serving and corrupt black elite and a lot of divisions in the community as a consequence. Culturally, Aboriginal people DO NOT make decisions via any central group.
Aboriginal people are a sovereign people and don’t need anyone to “include” them in political participation.
Australians ought to be more worried about the billion dollar expenditure in funding the referendum and the implementation of this scam than being called a racist for using their heads and rejecting it.
Rio Tinto and BHP have been quietly lobbying for this for years. Yet the Top End Aborigines are against the Voice. Tell you anything? Aboriginal people have a long history of betrayal by government, this is just the next episode.
The Voice is about increasing globalist power over our freedom, property and resources; it has nothing to do with Aboriginal equality.
Liz, well stated. Last paragraph needs to be put out there. Many people are ignorant of what is taking place in our world.
How much more money and privileges do we give to the Australian Aboriginal peoples before things change. Where has all the millions gone that have been paid to assist. Violence, rape incest, poor living conditions. The Voice won’t change that. Education will.
What worries me about if the Voice get in what happens to Freehold Land titles. Will still own your house and land or a rural property.????? As I understand it this sort of thing has happened in NZ & Canada.
KP
Dear Malcolm, Staff and Contributors,
November last year (2022) I brought to Malcolm’s attention a CSIRO publication for him to read.
TITLE “State of the Climate 2022”
I even made the offer to discuss any matters he wished to raise after reading the said publication.
I received no reply except to be placed on the mailing list to this website.
Taking up the invitation to contribute I started posting some comments.
I endeavoured to keep my comments polite, to the point and confined to the topics where I felt I could make some contribution to yours and your reader’s general knowledge.
There are many cases where the information provided by this website is at significant variance from general scientific knowledge and from what can be found on the internet.
In the interest of accuracy and understanding I attempted to bring these departures to the attention of all.
Stating (several times) my willingness to change my viewpoint in the light of scientific evidence I asked questions for any person to answer.
I have received only one (partially complete) answer to these questions.
I have even provided links to websites where related information could be found.
My main concern is the level of censorship applied to my inquiries.
Even replies, by others, to some of my postings were also deleted.
Requests for explanation of the censorship have been denied.
I do not expect to make any significant progress with this complaint as I am not in control of the website.
All I can do, in the hope of receiving meaningful answers, is to continue asking for clarification on contested areas.
NOTE
Examples of these allegations can be supplied if requested.
Cheers,
Col