Posts

Impartiality Under Question at Human Rights Commission

,

I raised some concerns — matters that I was asking about for the first time — with the Human Rights Commission on the topic of the Voice referendum. Commissioner Finlay of the Human Rights Commission made several statements criticising the Voice and raising potential human rights implications. You’ll see in this video that Professor Croucher is unwilling to revisit any line of questioning she has answered to other senators in previous estimates.

Despite Commissioner Finlay’s concerns being shared by the majority of Australians, who voted down the referendum, the Commission published a statement on 30th of March that rejected Commissioner Finlay’s human rights concerns. I’ve requested on notice all internal email correspondence in relation to drafting that statement and Commissioner Finlay’s remarks.

The Australian public expects true impartiality and independence of the Human Rights Commission. We haven’t seen this on COVID and now the Voice except for Commissioner Finlay.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. As the chair said, my questions are fairly short and straight to the point. What is the latest guidance from the commission on COVID vaccine mandates? Where was that published?

Ms Finlay: I would refer you to the answer we gave you in relation to this at the previous estimates. The advice remains the same in terms of the general human rights principles that we rely on in our approach to both vaccine mandates and all other restrictions that were imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Senator ROBERTS: I must compliment you here and express my appreciation and admiration for your stand on being so clear on the Voice and on misinformation and disinformation. I also want to thank everyone for being here tonight so I could do that. Are you aware of the evidence from the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care, Professor Brendan Murphy, at the previous estimates in regard to COVID mandates?

Ms Finlay: In a general sense.

Senator ROBERTS: On 1 June, Professor Brendan Murphy said: At this stage in the pandemic there is little justification for vaccine mandates. That is the most senior health bureaucrat in the country who said that. There doesn’t seem to be any updated guidance from the commission on vaccine mandates despite the fact they are still in effect at employers and are clearly a breach of human rights that’s not proportionate to any supposed benefit. Why haven’t you come out clearly on this issue?

Ms Finlay: I would answer that in two respects. The first is that the guidance in terms of the general human rights principles remains the same. We are not medical experts. I think we discussed that at the previous estimates. Our advice is based on those general human rights principles where in emergency situations governments can restrict human rights but those restrictions need to be proportionate, nondiscriminatory and targeted to risk. So the advice remains the same because of the general principles of international human rights law that we rely on in informing our views about these things and those don’t change.

Senator ROBERTS: So you as a commission essentially follow blindly? The Chief Medical Officer advised me in March 2021 that the severity of COVID was low to moderate, not severe. So it was not a crisis.

Ms Finlay: No, our advice doesn’t follow blindly. Again, I would refer back to the evidence we gave previously and note that, for example, the most recent TGA advice in relation to their vaccination safety report repeated the same advice that we discussed at the previous estimates in terms of the benefits of the vaccination outweighing the risks. It’s on the basis of that that the general principles of human rights law then apply.

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate that you probably haven’t got any latitude to investigate, but the TGA told me at Senate estimates in February, I think, that they did not test the injections. They relied on the FDA in America, which did not test injections. It relied on Pfizer, which shut down the trial because of the horrendous results.

Ms Finlay: I can’t provide any information on that—

Senator ROBERTS: No, I wasn’t expecting that. I’m just—

Ms Finlay: but I would refer to the second aspect of the answer that I was meaning to get to, which is that we welcome the opportunity for these issues to be explored at the COVID-19 inquiry that’s been announced. Certainly we have made public comments in relation to that inquiry about the need to not only look at the economic and scientific impacts of advice that was given throughout the pandemic but at the human cost of the pandemic as well.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s refreshing to hear. Thank you.

/by

The Cost of Living with Labor

PM Albanese has failed Australia. His failed Voice referendum cost the Australian Electoral Commission a hefty $450 million alone. That’s $100 million over budget.

Added to this, the official Yes campaign was bankrolled by major corporate interests including the Big4 banks, the 3 major supermarkets, Qantas, Wesfarmers, Rio Tinto and BHP. Many of these companies made donations in the millions when they have been laying off staff to cut costs. Their donations to the Yes camp show how out of touch they are with the Australians they provide goods and services to.

The PM has swiftly moved on from his failure to warn that Australia is heading for economic and financial trauma. This is not news to Australians. In fact, it was made abundantly clear during the Voice campaign that Australians were more worried about the cost of living and felt it was inappropriate to hold the referendum.

Why was dangerous virtue signalling the government’s top priority? Why? I’m saddened to be the one to break the answer to you: this government does not care about you.

Will the government listen to the people now? It’s committed to Net Zero by 2050 but may as well be committed to driving us all off a cliff.

Every other country that’s tried to force their power grid onto wind and solar has had their power prices go up by a proportionate amount. When plotted on a graph, it’s nearly a straight line heading upwards, and it’s all for nothing.

The hard data shows that Australians’ carbon dioxide production cannot affect the climate above natural variability. The lie that wind and solar are cheaper is easily debunked by the fact that with more wind, solar, batteries and hydro on the grid than ever in our history, power bills have never been higher. It’s all a crock designed to fill the pockets of parasitic billionaire wind and solar proponents, fraudulently taking subsidies and donating to people in this Senate who support wind and solar.

Australians have already paid billions in subsidies to these billionaire predators and pay again as their power bills skyrocket. Yet both Labor and the opposition are committed to the UN’s net zero by 2050. The cost-of-living crisis cannot end until we ditch the United Nations’ Net Zero agenda.

Transcript

The failed Albanese Voice referendum is the latest spit in the face Australians have had to cop from the government. At a time when bills are going up and bank accounts are going backwards, Australians are going to be furious when they hear how much Anthony Albanese’s Labor government just wasted on a referendum. All I can say is: brace yourself for the answer. Four hundred and fifty million dollars—that’s how much the Australian Electoral Commission is estimating last week’s referendum cost. If you woke up with a hangover after some celebrations on the weekend and were scared to check your bank account, spare a moment to think about the Australian Electoral Commission. If their estimates are correct, the AEC have blown their budget for the referendum by nearly $100 million. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, Anthony Albanese has blown $450 million, almost half a billion dollars, on his personal vanity project. 

What did Australians get for this? Australians rightly rejected inserting racial division into the Constitution, with a thumping victory for the ‘no’ case. Not a single state reached a majority yes. Only the small Canberra territory, the bubble, recorded a ‘yes’ majority. The ‘yes’ side spewed divisive, racial, abusive rhetoric while claiming the high moral ground. The country is worse off for being put through this divisiveness, at a huge cost and for a proposal that should never have been put forward. Australia rightly asks: why is this Voice issue distracting government as mortgage payments skyrocket, grocery bills shock budgets and life continues to get tougher? Why was dangerous virtue signalling the government’s top priority? Why? I’m saddened to be the one to break the answer to you: this government does not care about you. 

While I thank the Liberals for bringing on this matter of importance and allowing us to discuss it, they weren’t any better in government. Honestly, the Liberals put a wrecking ball through the economy and handed it over to the Labor government in one of the greatest hospital passes in political history, yet Labor doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of navigating us out of this one. Neither the Liberal Party nor the Labor Party can fix the cost-of-living crisis because they’re both committed to the UN’s net zero pipedream that caused the cost-of-living crisis. 

This government is committed to net zero by 2050. They may as well be committed to driving us all off a cliff. If we keep going down this path, the number of Australians who can pay their power bills will be next to zero. 

Australia doesn’t have to do this by ourself and find out the hard way. We can learn from many other countries further down this pipedream path than we are. Every other country that’s tried to force their power grid onto wind and solar has had their power prices go up by a proportionate amount. When plotted on a graph, it’s nearly a straight line heading upwards, and it’s all for nothing. 

The hard data shows that Australians’ carbon dioxide production cannot affect the climate above natural variability. The lie that wind and solar are cheaper is easily debunked by fact—this fact: with more wind, solar, batteries and hydro on the grid than ever in our history, power bills have never been higher. It’s all a crock designed to fill the pockets of parasitic billionaire wind and solar proponents, fraudulently taking subsidies and donating to people in this Senate who support wind and solar. Australians have already paid billions in subsidies to these billionaire predators and pay again as their power bills skyrocket. Yet Labor, the Liberals and even the fake farmer friends, the Nationals, are all committed to the UN’s net zero by 2050. 

After all the talk about truth telling, here’s some cold hard truth: the cost-of-living crisis cannot end until we ditch the United Nations’ net zero plans. One Nation is the only party that accepts those facts and can deliver cheaper power bills for Australia, turn the coal fired power generators back on, cut all the subsidies with the parasitic wind and solar industry and just get back to common sense, hard data and truth. 

/5 Comments/by

Australians are the Masters of the Government, NOT Servants to the Government!

On Saturday over 60% of Australians realised that the people are parliament’s masters, not their servants.

I spoke this morning on the Voice to Parliament, which saw 5 electorates with the largest Aboriginal population give the Voice a thrashing.

Australia voted NO to feelings-based governance and NO to elevating one group within our community over all others based only on skin colour.

Saturday’s result clearly shows Canberra no longer represents the values and beliefs of everyday Australians.

It’s time to dismantle the Canberra Aboriginal industry and deliver resources directly to those in need in the bush. It’s time to stop preventing rural Aboriginals from owning their own homes and running their own affairs.

I asked the Senate a simple question – who is better to run Aboriginal affairs: the Canberra Aboriginal industry, or local Government who are in the bush ready to build the roads, utilities and community facilities rural Aboriginals need so badly.

Transcript

Last Saturday was the day Australians said no — no to feelings based governance, no to elevating one group within our community over another based only on race, no to a Prime Minister whose chief skill is to cry on cue and no to spending more tax dollars than our taxpayers can afford. Australians are already struggling with a cost-of-living crisis as a result of shoddy governance from successive parliaments. People need to keep more of their own money, not less. On Saturday, Australians realised that the people are the parliament’s masters, not its servants. The irony is that the referendum did give Aboriginals a voice, and they used it. The five electorates with the largest Aboriginal population gave the Voice a thrashing. It was a result which clearly shows that Canberra no longer represents the values and beliefs of everyday Australians.

For those in this place who supported racism and apartheid—and you were the majority—now is the time to ask yourself, ‘What the hell was I thinking?’ How could you think it was okay to take a system that has failed Aboriginal people for 120 years and embed, enshrine and perpetuate that system in the Constitution? We don’t need to preserve a broken system that’s failed Aboriginals in the bush; we need to tear it down. It’s time to dismantle the Canberra Aboriginal industry and deliver resources directly to those in need in the bush. It’s time to stop preventing rural Aboriginals from owning their own homes and running their own affairs. It’s time for city grifters in comfortable offices thousands of kilometres from rural communities to stop keeping money meant for the bush—money that’s used to fund their own empires and line their own pockets. Enough money goes into the funnel to make things right. A drip comes out the bottom. It’s time to turn the damn funnel around.

Today is a new day for Australia’s Aboriginals. Let’s not waste the chance to ask ourselves this question: who’s best to run Australian Aboriginal affairs? Is it Canberra bureaucrats and the Aboriginal industry, or is it best run from local communities and councils right there in the bush, ready to get cracking on housing, roads, power and community facilities?

/8 Comments/by

Event: Why it’s important to Vote No!

I will be joining Hon. Gary Johns and Dave Pellowe to share my views on why it is so important we vote no in the upcoming Voice Referendum.

Bookings are essential due to limited seating: https://www.trybooking.com/CKPJX

Wednesday, 27 September 2023

6 pm to 8 pm

Caboolture Sports Central

Cnr Hasking Street & Beerburrum Road

Caboolture QLD 4510

/1 Comment/by

You Cannot Have a Treaty With Yourself

We’ve been hearing a lot about reconciliation and self-determination recently. On 20 June 2023, Senator Thorpe called for a treaty to end a “war declared on First Nations people 230 years ago” as a Matter of Urgency.

A treaty is a legal arrangement between parties, each authorised to represent their side. Treaties are a two-way street. In simple terms, treaties are agreements between nations. They’re used to end wars, land disputes and even establish new countries.

Senator Thorpe called for a treaty to address historic systematic injustices and remove systemic racism. How does she see this as a uniting process? It’s not reasonable nor logical to try to punish later generations for perceived historical injustices to the ancestors of Aboriginal people.

Without a doubt, injustices occurred on both sides during the opening up of inland Australia, as settlers pushed into the interior. Australia was not won as the spoils of a war, and there was never a united aboriginal nation to treaty with.

A treaty binding Australia with First Nations people is not viable. It is not based on law and is divisive. We need to unite as one country.

Transcript

Senator Thorpe is calling for a treaty as a matter of urgency. A treaty between which parties? Who would represent Aboriginal people? What would be in the treaty? Billions in compensation and reparations, perhaps? The white and black Aboriginal industry already receives billions of dollars in grants and projects. Even if a treaty had been considered in the early days of settlement, it could not have been completed as there was no representative Aboriginal leader. There was no means of establishing representation of widely distributed tribes of Aboriginal people across the vast continent of Australia. It was impossible. Some tribal groups were simply unknown to others. There was no universal legal system in place when Europeans settled Australia. A treaty is a legal arrangement between parties authorised to represent their side. Treaties are a two-way street. Each party would agree to do or refrain from doing certain things. The process is essentially contractual.

Senator Thorpe has indicated that a treaty should address historic systematic injustices. How does she see this as a uniting process? It’s not reasonable nor logical to try to punish later generations for perceived historical injustices to the ancestors of Aboriginal people. There’s no doubt that injustices occurred on both sides during the opening up of the inland as settlers pushed into the interior and developed Australia. Australia was not won as the spoils of a war.

Is this treaty to be part of the blak sovereignty agenda that Senator Thorpe has been pushing since leaving the Greens or is this part of the Greens’s globalist agenda? According to some reports, a treaty is stage 2 of a three-stage process linked to getting the Voice up and then the rewriting of Australian history from the radical socialist point of view. Most Aboriginals have never heard of blak sovereignty, and the concept of a treaty is only the language of the socialist far-left elite and academics pushing for the Voice.

Aboriginal people never formally united in exercising exclusive possession of the entirety of Australia and Aboriginal sovereignty cannot be ceded as it did not exist after 1788. The High Court held in Love v Commonwealth in 2020 that First Nations sovereignty did not persist after the British Crown’s assertion of sovereignty in 1788. This confirmed the decision made in Mabo No. 2 in the High Court.

Treaties in other countries were possible because the indigenous party was a united nation. That has never been the case for Aboriginals in Australia. A treaty binding Australia with First Nations people is not viable. It is not based on law. It is divisive. Instead, we need to unite as one country.

/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

Why the racist “Voice” will tear Australia apart

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.

Transcript

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.  

/14 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

Sovereignty? Why has the government appointed a First Nations AMBASSADOR?

Has the government appointed a First Nations Ambassador because they are pushing for a separate sovereign nation to be established for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders?

That’s what many of you have asked. It’s just another example of the push by Government to divide us on race which One Nation will continue to oppose.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and thus today to Senator Farrell. An ambassador is a person sent as the chief representative of his or her own government in another country. Given that you have appointed a First Nations ambassador, does the government believe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are a separate, sovereign nation?

Senator FARRELL: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for your question and your earlier advice about the fact that you were going to ask that question of me. The Albanese government is committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full and embedding Indigenous perspectives, experiences and interests in our foreign policy. Australia’s foreign policy should reflect who we are: home to more than 300 ancestries and the oldest continuous culture on earth.

We have, as you have rightly said, appointed Mr Justin Mohamed as Australia’s first, inaugural, Ambassador for First Nations People. He will lead an office for First Nations engagement within DFAT to listen to and work in genuine partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Mr Mohamed has worked for decades in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, social justice and reconciliation, in roles spanning the Aboriginal community, government and corporate sectors. Our First Nations foreign policy will help grow First Nations trade and investment. Having had the opportunity to discuss an Indigenous role in trade and investment, it is a significant issue of interest for other countries—and, I might add in that area, tourism as well. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Will you guarantee that the First Nations ambassador, Mr Mohamed, will not make any representations to foreign countries or bodies on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty? A yes or no is sufficient.

Senator FARRELL: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for very helpfully suggesting how I might answer your question! With due respect, I’ll answer it in the way that I would like to and that I think addresses your point quite directly. This appointment is about making sure that Australian foreign policy tells our full story: home to peoples of more than 300 ancestries and the oldest continuous culture on earth. Our projecting this reality
of modern Australia to the world enables us to find common ground and alignment with other countries so we can work together towards the region we want—open, peaceful, prosperous and respectful of sovereignty. First Nations’ connection to the countries of our region goes back thousands of years. They were the continent’s first diplomats and the first traders. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: City based, white-skinned activists imported the term ‘First Nations’ from Canada and installed it in our universities. The term has nothing to do with our Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Given these facts, do you agree that it is insulting to call our Australian Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders ‘First Nations’ and to appoint an ambassador using that term?

Senator FARRELL: I thank Senator Roberts for his question. No.

/2 Comments/by