National Members' Dissenting Report

The Nationals do not support the Report of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum or its recommendations.

The Nationals, including members of the Liberal National Party and Country Liberal Party, have represented regional, rural and remote Australia for more than century.Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are the founding part of the cultural and social fabric of our communities, and we acknowledge their essential and ongoing contribution to our nation.

The Nationals believe in the principle that all people are to be considered equal, and this value should extend within the doctrine of our Constitution.

Instead of being one and equal, this change encourages Australians to become divided along the lines of ‘us’ and ‘them’, a notion that the Nationals do not believe has a place within our constitution.

We recognise the entrenched, systemic and historical challenges faced in many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, particularly those in remote Australia. These issues must be addressed and in our view the delivery of evidenced-based, community-led initiatives will better address these challenges and improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.This can be done immediately.

This dissenting report acknowledges the constructive dissenting report of Mr Keith WolahanMP, Deputy Chair. We do not adopt or agree with any recommendations or options provided in that report.

The Bill

This bill conflates two entirely separate issues. These are-

• Firstly, recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Australian constitution.
• Secondly, support for a constitutionally enshrined Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander advisory body.

These two distinct and separate issues have not been made clear to the Australian public throughout this inquiry and would appear to have been designed with that intent.

All Australians want guidance as to the true intention of this bill.The deliberate blending of these two separate issues will undoubtedly divide Australians and this goes against the intent of genuine reconciliation which aspires to secure unity.

Inquiry Process

The time afforded for consideration of the provisions of the Bill has been inadequate and does not acknowledge the magnitude of changing our constitution. The Committee has held a total of five public hearings over 15 consecutive days, in which an unreasonably tight deadline was dictated to explore the evidence and provide a report.

In comparison, other Joint Select Committees that have been dedicated towards less consequential pieces of legislation have taken place over many months, while having less inherent, immovable and longstanding impacts than that of Constitutional change. The Committee process should have conformed to the complexity and impact of the issue at hand, rather than any party, or individual group’s politically motivated timeline.

Significantly, much of the evidence that was received did not address the provisions of the bill, or the stated intention of the inquiry to ‘amend the Australian Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.’ Whilst no objection was taken to receiving the evidence, much of it related to personal, and quite often tragic life stories, however this did not address any of the four elements of the legislation.

Of most concern was the Government Committee members’ ready acceptance that the Bill was ‘constitutionally sound’, and its willingness to prefer the evidence of those who formed the view that the Bill posed no or little risk to the process of Executive Government or the broader legal system, over equally qualified witnesses who took a more cautious view that appeals to the High Court were not simply possible, but real. No reasoning was provided as to why this evidence was simply rejected.

Under any circumstance, when considering expertise in any field a balanced view should be given to both sides and a rejection of evidence should only be considered where independent evidence proves otherwise. No such evidence was given during the enquiry that met this threshold.

Absence of Detail

A recurring theme throughout the inquiry was a consensus on the lack of detail of the Voice to Parliament.During the course of the committee’s hearings, witnesses for both the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ case agreed that there was a need for considerably more detail with respect to the design of the Voice to Parliament.

Those who did not support the bill highlighted the lack of specific detail of the Voice design as an impediment to allow for their informed consideration of the proposal.

In contrast, despite agreeing to the lack of detail, the witnesses giving evidence in favour of the bill were prepared to proceed blindly in the absence of specifics of the voice to Parliament, with a view to ‘work it out as we go along’. From any reasonable point of view, this would be considered reckless.

While the Committee’s report lauds the Voice’s role to improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the essential and fundamental questions on how the Voice will function, and how it will deliver positive, meaningful, and evidence-based results in Indigenous communities remain unanswered.

It is not unreasonable that details to crucial questions be answered such as those proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in January 2023

1Who will be eligible to serve on the proposed body?

2What are the prerequisites for nomination?

3Will the Government clarify the definition of aboriginality to determine who can serve on the body?

4How will members be elected, chosen or appointed?

5How many people will make up the body?

6How much will it cost taxpayers annually?

7What are its functions and powers?

8Is it purely advisory, or will it have decision-making capabilities?

9Who will oversee the body and ensure it is accountable?

10If needed, can the body be dissolved and reconstituted in extraordinary circumstances?

11How will the Government ensure that the body includes those who still need to get a platform in Australian public life?

12How will it interact with the Closing the Gap process?

13Will the Government rule out using the Voice to negotiate any national treaty?

A lack of diverse views

Of particular concern was a consistent lack of any reasonable diversity of opinion amongst the witnesses who were selected to appear before the Committee. It is arguable that the witness selection was skewed in favour of the yes proposition, in that a clear majority of the witnesses who took part in the consultations were unequivocal in their support for the provisions of the bill establishing the Voice.

This does not take into account those voices who are reluctant to be heard publicly either in a private or commercial capacity to not support the proposition.It is not unreasonable to assume that average Australians, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, do not wish to enter into a divisive or potentially inflammatory discussion or be subjected to public shame or judgement.

Summary

The Federal Nationals recognise the immense challenges impacting many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, including domestic and family violence, healthcare, substance abuse, child safety, education, housing and unemployment. Each community has vastly different needs.

The Nationals want to address the serious issues impacting Indigenous Australians by delivering frontline, evidence-based and place-based solutions which will help lift Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people out of poverty. By stimulating economic participation, improving access to education, enhancing the provision of health services, and eliminating domestic and family violence. By doing this together we can address the 17 Closing the Gap Targets.

Ultimately, The Nationals believe that adding another layer of bureaucracy in Canberra will not genuinely close the gap for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.

It is essential that all politicians should leave Canberra and visit those indigenous communities and sit in town halls, missions and at campfires instead of relying on the advice of Canberra-based bureaucrats.

In closing, many would remember Faith Bandler, a prominent indigenous civil rights activist and campaigner, who said leading up to the 1967 referendum, “there is only one Australian, and his colour doesn’t matter at all.”

We in The Nationals agree.

Accordingly, The Nationals do not support the Committee Report’s recommendations.

Mr Pat Conaghan MPMember for Cowper