Posts

Australians Don’t Need & Don’t Want to be Welcomed to Their Own Country

If you still call Australia home, then you probably join the majority of Australians in being over the virtue-signalling ‘Welcome to Country’ ceremonies that are happening with tedious frequency these days.

It was Voice campaigner, Marcia Langton, who promised no more ‘welcomes’ to country if the Voice was rejected. Let’s hope this promise is kept.

This indigenous cultural ceremony is being misappropriated, misused and it’s definitely divisive, as Senator Price says.

I call on this parliament and all other parliaments, government departments and local government to stop welcoming Australians to their own country.

Transcript

As a servant to the great state of Queensland and Australia, I stand to speak to this matter and to again congratulate the Australian people on their overwhelming rejection of the divisive Voice to Parliament at the October referendum. It was more than a rejection of the Albanese Voice referendum. It was a rejection of the entire Uluru statement—all 26 pages of it. It was a rejection of a treaty and so-called truth-telling—or, more accurately, a rewrite of history with an eye on financial settlements funded by non-Indigenous taxpayers. It was a rejection of identity politics, grievance politics, virtue signalling and the activist cult of victimhood. Primarily, it was a rejection of racial division. 

One of the most racially divisive features of modern discourse in Australia is welcome to country ceremonies, along with acknowledgements of country. Australians, including many Indigenous people, are sick and tired of them. We’ve had a gutful. People are sick of being told Australia is not their country, which is what these things effectively do. Supposed welcomes and acknowledgements deny the citizenship and sovereignty held equally by all Australians. They perpetuate the falsehood that nations existed on this continent prior to 1788. They didn’t. This is a foreign notion, an activist device imported from Canada that does not reflect the reality of Australian history. The High Court confirmed that with a similar statement in 2020. 

I remind the Senate of the promise made by leading Voice campaigner Marcia Langton: no more welcomes to country if the Voice was rejected. We can only hope this promise is lived up to. Federal taxpayers forked out at least $45,000 for these rituals in the previous financial year, although I understand the figure could be much higher, as not every government department has come clean on what they spend. It’s not even a pre-settlement ritual for most Aborigines. It was invented in 1976 by Ernie Dingo and Richard Walley. I acknowledge Narungga elder Kerry White, from South Australia, a great contributor to the ‘no’ campaign, who said these rituals are not even being used correctly. She said last year that they should be reserved for Indigenous people welcoming other Indigenous people to local country and that their use by non-Indigenous Australians was just virtue signalling. She wasn’t wrong about the virtual signalling, that’s for sure. Ms White said: 

… they’ve taken our ceremonial process and demeaned it by throwing it out there every day in every aspect of what Australian people do. And I think that is culturally wrong. 

That was an Aboriginal woman saying that. She even said welcomes to country were an attack on Indigenous culture and disrespectful of Aboriginals and their culture, and that it was patronising and paternalistic to adopt them without understanding them. People saying this do not even understand what it means. I also acknowledge another Indigenous leader of the ‘no’ campaign, Senator Nampijinpa Price, who said recently that welcomes to country were ‘definitely divisive’. Those are her words: ‘definitely divisive’. I’m confident there’s a complete lack of care and a contempt for Aboriginals. People are too lazy to bother to listen and understand the needs of Aboriginals. That has to set back the Aboriginal movement. I am confident I speak for the majority of Australians in saying I wish Professor Langton had included acknowledgements of country too. They’re recited at the beginning of every parliamentary sitting, every council meeting and every Zoom meeting held by public servants. We hear them at the conclusion of every domestic flight. You can hear the groans in the cabin every time. They have effectively lost all meaning for their constant repetition. At a conference in Mackay, an interstate speaker stood up and said a welcome to country for the people in Canberra because she came from Canberra and a welcome to country for the people in Mackay. 

To foster national unity and to help put an end to racial division in this country, it’s time to leave Aboriginal rituals to Aboriginal Australians. One Nation is supremely confident we speak for the majority of all Australians, regardless of race, when we call for an end to welcomes to and acknowledgements of country. We know that, for many, the promise of an end to them motivated their vote in the Voice referendum. We call on this parliament, all other Australian parliaments, all government departments and every local government in this nation to stop signalling the virtues you don’t possess and stop dividing this country by abusing these Aboriginal rituals. Start showing respect for the Aboriginal culture in Australia. Australians don’t want this virtue signalling. Australians don’t want racial division. They said that most emphatically on 14 October at the referendum. Let’s move forward together under one flag as one people in one nation. 

/12 Comments/by

Is the Referendum Rigged? Watch this

Is the Voice referendum RIGGED? Let’s talk about it.

Transcript

Is the referendum being rigged? 

The short answer is we don’t know. 

Yet there are many bad actors out there screaming very loudly, without the evidence, that the referendum is invalid or rigged. 

I’m worried some of our opponents in the Yes campaign are pushing these people to make you think it’s not worth turning up to vote. 

You may have seen the polls.  

The only way the Yes campaign can win at this stage is if people who are going to vote no, simply don’t turn up. 

It’s valid to be worried about the integrity of elections and the referendum. 

For years now, I’ve been working hard in the Senate to make improvements to Australia’s election integrity so that everyone’s vote is counted fairly. 

I’ve had some wins, and I’m still working hard on other unresolved issues. 

All of that work will mean nothing if people don’t turn up and write NO on the ballot paper in the first place. 

If you want to get more involved sign up as a scrutineer, in which your job is to watch the votes being counted and to make sure it’s done properly. 

Political parties can appoint scrutineers, apply to One Nation to become one today. 

Remember, voting is a few minutes of your day every few years. 

Can you do that for all our fellow Australians? And I promise to keep doing everything I can to make sure your vote is counted fairly. 

Stop Albanese’s proposal to divide Australia on race. On your referendum ballot paper write N-O.  

/2 Comments/by

Event: The Truth Behind The Voice

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

/3 Comments/by

Constitutional Questions Raised Over Referendum Ballot Paper | Part 2

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.

Link to My Questions to Minister Farrell | Part 1

https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/constitutional-questions-raised-over-referendum-ballot-paper/

/1 Comment/by

Constitutional Questions Raised Over Referendum Ballot Paper | Part 1

Media Release

230911-Voice-Constitutional-Issues-RaisedDownload

Transcript of Questions Asked of Minister Farrell

Senator Roberts: My question is to the Special Minister of State, Senator Farrell. The Constitution requires the proposed law to be submitted to the electors so electors can see what they are voting on in a referendum. Minister, do you agree that the proposed text to be included on the ballot paper is the full text of the proposed law change as contained in the enabling legislation, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Voice 2023?

Senator Farrell (Minister for Trade and Tourism, Special Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate): I thank Senator Roberts for giving me the courtesy of some advance knowledge of this question.

Honorable senators interjecting—

Senator Farrell: Well, some people just like me! I hate to say it—I can’t help it! Some of them actually get a better answer if they give me a bit of advance notice. It’s hard to believe, I know.

I have been made aware that there are claims by one legal academic that the form of the proposed constitutional amendment and/or the ballot paper question do not satisfy the constitutional requirements for a referendum. But the referendum legal issues have been considered in detail by the Constitutional Expert Group, the Solicitor-General and the parliamentary inquiry. This gives me some assurance that the amendment and the question are legally sound, Senator Roberts.

Historically, all referendum ballot paper questions have either used the short title, until 1951, or the long title, after 1951, of the Constitution alteration that passed through the parliament. The question for the Voice uses the long title, consistent with the practice for over 70 years. The government is aware of a potential challenge to the ballot paper reform. This application has not yet been accepted by the High Court and is therefore not an active proceeding. At this point, I’m advised that it is probably inappropriate to comment further on that possible legal challenge.

The President: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?

Senator Roberts: Section 128 of the Constitution makes no provision for a summary of the change to appear on the ballot paper. Section 128 requires the proposed law change to be submitted in full. Form B of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, which allows for a summary, is in breach of section 128 of the Constitution. Minister, will you ensure the Voice ballot paper is compliant with the constitutional provisions for a referendum?

Senator Farrell: I thank Senator Roberts for his first supplementary question. Yes, Senator Roberts, I will ensure that the wording in the question on the referendum on 14 October is compliant with the Constitution. Can I reiterate my earlier answer, that all of the advice that I’ve got from the Constitutional Expert Group, from the Solicitor-General and from the parliamentary inquiry that examined this issue is that it does meet the existing constitutional requirements. I should say that my office has at all times tried to facilitate your ability to get advice directly from the AEC about any issues that you might have with the ballot paper. I invite you to— (Time expired)

The President: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?

Senator Roberts: A case could and will be made to the High Court that including a misleading feel-good summary on the referendum ballot paper rather than the actual details of the change is a breach of section 128 of the Constitution, which may have the effect of misleading voters and rendering the result void. Minister, are you or your government about to make a $364 million mistake?

Senator Farrell: I thank Senator Roberts for his second supplementary question. No, I don’t believe so. I have seen some of the reports that you are referring to. Interestingly, one of the reports I think that you’re relying on was from Michael Detmold, who was my constitutional law lecturer in 1972 at Adelaide university. But that doesn’t mean, Senator Roberts, unfortunately, that everything he may or may not say is correct.

Senator Scarr: Did you pass?

Senator Farrell: You’ll be surprised, Senator Scarr—I did. I not only passed Constitutional Law 1, but I passed Constitutional Law 2. That was even more surprising! (Time expired)

My Response to the Minister’s Answers

/by

Voice – Treaty – Lies

Uluru-Statement-in-Full

26-page-Doc-14-Uluru-Statement-from-the-HeartDownload

112 page document obtained under FOI is available for download below.

FOI-112-page-docDownload

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.

Transcript

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)

/7 Comments/by

Why Albanese Needs to Establish an “Indigenous Voice” to Sign a Treaty

Here’s what’s emerging on Labor’s Voice: Labor sees it as essential for making a “treaty” to create a separate sovereign aboriginal state.

The 1-minute video shows that in pushing the failing Voice campaign, Anthony Albanese contradicts the claims he made in parliament before the election.

Law Professor Gabrielle Appleby* explains why an aboriginal body, the Voice, must come before making a Treaty “with aboriginals”.

She says, quote: “The sequencing of Voice, Treaty, Truth has been given significant thought. Voice precedes Treaty because fair, modern treaty negotiations require first the establishment of a representative Indigenous body to negotiate the rules of the game with the state. It can’t be left to the state alone, and the state must have a group of people with whom to negotiate.

In Victoria, this was achieved through a specific representative institution – the First Peoples Assembly.

Truth follows Voice and Treaty, because, as Torres Strait Islander political scientist Sana Nakata explains, Voice ensures Truth will matter more than just “continued performance of our rage and grief for a third century and longer”. Voice establishes the power for Treaty, and Treaty establishes the safekeeping of Truth.”

While, I’m not a lawyer, I can read a dictionary definition saying the word “treaty” means “a formally concluded and ratified agreement between states”.

Anthony Albanese is setting up to make the Voice as a body to “represent” the aboriginal industry and then make a separate sovereign entity.

Is this why he and the Labor machine including Minister Burney have been hiding the Voice details. Passing the Voice would end Australia as we know it and create another separate nation.

To create that separate nation and divide Australia, the terms and conditions would be negotiated between Albanese’s Voice and Albanese’s government. A power grab.

The result would surrender many controls and rights to the UN. As Labor-Liberals have done repeatedly since the UN was formed in 1944.

And especially since the Whitlam Labor government signed the UN Lima Declaration in 1975, that in 1976 the Fraser Liberal government ratified. That UN Declaration destroyed Australian manufacturing and sent it to China.

As Eddie, an aboriginal from the Northern Territory told me: He is opposed to the politicians’ Voice for two reasons:

1. He’s Australian, and

2. The Voice is racist.

At the Voice referendum, I’ll be joining with many aboriginals voting NO.

*Professor Gabrielle Appleby is a Professor at the Faculty of Law and Justice, UNSW Sydney. She researches and teaches in public law. She is the Director of The Judiciary Project at the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, the constitutional consultant to the Clerk of the Australian House of Representatives and a member of the Indigenous Law Centre. In 2016-2017, she worked as a pro-bono constitutional adviser to the Regional Dialogues and the First Nations Constitutional Convention that led to the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

/3 Comments/by

“Voice running costs? Don’t you worry about that.”

,

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.

/8 Comments/by

“The Voice” is pure racism

Instead of treating people differently because of race and entrenching racism, we need to ensure Aboriginal Australians can access the same opportunities given to all people within our beautiful nation. We are all Australian.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I propose there should not be a new body called the Voice. The Voice, if a referendum approves, would constitutionally enshrine differential treatment based on skin colour or on identification with a race. I’m completely opposed to introducing such a divisive, discriminatory concept that is racist.

At this stage there has been no detail telling voters how this Voice would be exercised and what obligations would need to be met, nor by whom. Locking the Voice into the Constitution would perpetuate parasitic white and black activists, consultants, academics, bureaucrats and politicians in the Aboriginal industry. It’s known that activists want the Voice to have significant influence on creation of laws. It’s not known how much consultation would be needed before the laws would be made. It’s not known how much it will cost to implement a run. It is clear this detail will not be in the referendum question put to voters.

I’ve travelled widely across remote Queensland and listened to many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, from Deebing Creek in the south, across Cape York and to Saibai Island in the Torres Strait. Few of the people I spoke with or listened to had even heard of the Voice.

Last week I met with a delegation of Aboriginal leaders strongly opposing the Voice because these real Aboriginal leaders say it’s racist. They fear the Voice will divide the community into two distinct groups: Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. When they say, ‘In reality we are all Australians,’ doesn’t proposing the Voice admit that the current 11 Aboriginals in federal parliament and the current National Indigenous Australians Agency are failing to represent Aboriginals?

I oppose perpetuating the Aboriginal industry suppressing Australians. Instead of treating people differently because of race and entrenching racism, we need to ensure Aboriginal Australians can access the same opportunities given to all people within our beautiful nation. We are all Australian. We are one nation.

/17 Comments/by

Deals done on Voice Referendum don’t fix core issue

The Liberal/National party and Labor have done a backroom deal on the referendum machinery bill. This bill is more about technicalities of how voting will be organised at the referendum rather than the voice itself.

There are some proposed amendments that are very concerning. If they are incorporated, I won’t be able to support the bill.

None of this fixes the core issue about the voice to parliament. Anything that seperates us based on race is racist, #voteno.

Transcript

As a servant to the people Queensland and Australia, I note that this Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 is about updating the mechanics of referendum voting, and is entirely appropriate and necessary. It has, though, unearthed yet another Labor Party deceit on its Voice proposal.

While many senators have chosen to speak about the Voice proposal itself, I will speak primarily about the bill’s mechanics.  My comments on the Voice proposal for now are that, if passed at a constitutional referendum, it will entrench and deepen the neglect and suppression of Aboriginals in our country.  

It will do so in favour of the Aboriginal industry, which fattens the bank accounts of parasitic white and black academics, consultants, lawyers, activists, ignorant and uncaring virtue-signallers, and politicians. That’s at the expense of taxpayers and everyday Aboriginals and communities across our nation. 

The flood of amendments from across the Senate reemphasises the need to update the referendum process. The amendments, though, include one that is very disturbing to me: namely, Senator Pocock’s addition of schedule 9, on the referendum pamphlet review panel. It flushes out yet another example of the teal Senator Pocock working with the Labor Party to advance Labor’s deceit.

This amendment is disguised as Senator Pocock’s and yet it seems to be, in reality, a Labor Party amendment attempting to enable Labor to take control of the referendum pamphlet’s content. Firstly, my understanding is that if this amendment is successful then a Labor minister, Ms Linda Burney, who has already declared support for the ‘yes’ case, will nominate a Labor controlled review panel that must approve the pamphlet’s contents.

There’s no requirement for a balanced view, and the panel can censor and exclude material. I suspect that the ‘no’ campaign material will be unfairly censored. The panel will include people who were part of the working groups in favour of the ‘yes’ campaign: academics and other ministerial appointments. So the panel will be weighted in favour of a ‘yes’ vote. 

Secondly, why is this panel not comprised of persons with an independent background?

Thirdly, why is the panel not designed to represent all the varied views from across all the parties and Independents in parliament, and, especially, from all across our nation? This is a terrible amendment, designed to appoint a pamphlet review panel whose purpose is to produce a biased pamphlet with taxpayer funding. It’s an abuse of taxpayer funds. This seems to be yet another example of teal Senator Pocock working for and serving the Labor Party.

While I will support this bill at the moment, and I will support most amendments, if the teal Pocock amendment is successful, I will oppose the bill. I cannot support such a dodgy amendment. I will wait, though, and listen to opposition speakers raising specific concerns regarding funding, tax deductibility, audits of campaigns, and security from international interference. 

The Labor-Greens-teal campaign for the Voice is becoming a train wreck for Labor. The Voice is a racist proposal that will divide the nation on race. It’s based on race. What happened to the fundamental principle of democracy that started with ancient Greece 3,000 years ago—namely, that every person has an equal voice and equal vote?

As we have seen with the Labor-Greens-teal-Pocock behaviour in the Senate, guillotining and ramming through damaging bills with horrific future consequences for our nation in just the few months this government has been in power, the abolition and bypassing of democracy is yet another trait of this Albanese government that is a reincarnation of a Soviet style politburo.

History shows what happened to that after the people endured decades of needless, inhuman pain and suffering. 

In Australia we have one flag, we have one community, we are one nation. We must stay as one nation made of people from many backgrounds, all with an equal voice. 

/by