Recording: Voice, Treaty, Truth

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: Hello, everybody. Thank you very much for joining us.? My name is Verity Firth.? I'm the Pro Vice-Chancellor of social justice and inclusion here at UTS and for today's event, we also have Joanna and Amanda here on stage with us providing Auslan interpreting.? It's a real pleasure to be coming together both in person and online.? We have over 1,000 registrants for this event, so although they may not be 1,000 people in the hall, we know there are many, many more online.? It's really wonderful to be here for National Reconciliation Week and this important discussion on First Nations justice and selfdetermination.???

?

I'd like to begin by welcoming Aunty Glendra Stubbs.? She's UTS's ElderinResidence and she will do an official Acknowledgement of Country.? (Applause).??

?

AUNTY GLENDRA STUBBS: I nearly danced with the interpreter, which is pretty cool! Wow.? I reckon there's nearly 1,000 people in the audience as well.? It's pretty much a full house, which shows the importance of reconciliation in this country. I guess I better do it properly instead of just rambling on.? Michael, just go like this if I talk too much! So... (speaks in Indigenous language). That's for you, Michael.? I've been practising. And to Lachy.? Where's Lachy? Oh, OK.? So ... so I'd like to acknowledge the land on which we meet, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation, and pay respects to Elders past, present and emerging.? When you're at UTS, you see many fabulous emerging Elders, both our Aboriginal Elders but our non-Aboriginal Elders.? You can't be at UTS very long unless you have the same values as our dear Andrew and Verity and the A team that I call them, all the social justice warriors sitting in the front row, and all the social justice warriors that are sitting in every row after that.? Diversity, inclusion and acceptance is what UTS is about.? And I'm honoured to be part of UTS.? I haven't read one word that I wrote.? That's just ridiculous, isn't it? So reconciliation? a lot of Blackfellas, Aboriginal people, go, "I've got nothing to reconcile".? I mean, people that knew my sister Lola, she was very vocal about not having anything to reconcile.? But, you know, I'm a softer version of her and I just think we just need to grab and embrace the hope of our young ones and hold hands and walk together on this journey because reconciliation is a journey.? I remember the excitement of Katoomba when the Aboriginal flag was put up for the first time.? Like someone said, Katoomba's a bit lefty.? I won't say who, but I think Verity just laughed. And it is.? It really embraces everybody's difference.? So that was a really exciting thing and the start of a movement.???

?

It's been like a bittersweet week for me with Sorry Day, and someone who was part of the little committee that Kevin Rudd chose to do the apology in Parliament, and that was a day that I never thought would happen in my lifetime.? When I talk to the young ones and I just feel the hope that they have, we are in good hands.? UTS is in good hands but this country is in good hands.? The young ones are so fabulous.? (Applause). So may you all be wrapped in Aunty's love in Reconciliation Week and may you keep fighting the good fight and loving each other and the hope of us as Aboriginal people.? No pressure.? It's on your shoulders.? (Applause).??

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: For those who didn't hear that, Harry is having a girl, but we can talk more about that when we have the panel.? So thank you very much, Aunty Glendra.? Thank you for that acknowledgement of Country.? I would also like to acknowledge we are on the land of the Gadigal people.? I have lived on Gadigal land since the age of 12 and I'm now almost 50, so the vast majority of my life on Gadigal land. My children have been born on Gadigal land.? My children have been educated on Gadigal land.? I now work on Gadigal land.? And I think it's with that deep connection to the Country that I love that I want to particularly acknowledge the Elders of Gadigal land, the traditional owners who bore the brunt of first contact, who bore the brunt of colonisation in so many ways and yet never ceded the land.? They are the Gadigal people.? Our university is built on their land and they are, of course, the traditional custodians of knowledge as well, so it's really apt that this university is built here.???

?

So wherever you are in Australia, you're on the lands and waters of Australia's Indigenous peoples.? On this vast continent, hundreds of different groups and clans have their own culture, customs, language and lores.? For our audience here today, and for those online, we'd love for you to acknowledge which Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander country you are tuning in from.? So to do this, you'll need to open up Slido and you can see the link for that on the slides and we'll share it in the chat for those of you joining online. All you need to do is click on the tab where you can let us know what First Nations lands you are joining from and where you live and work.? For all of those in the room today, we know you're all on Gadigal land, so you can either acknowledge that or add the Country that you have travelled from here today.???

?

Later this year Australia will vote on the Referendum on an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.? As a public institution, we feel UTS has a role to play in bringing people together for respectful and safe discussion and for opportunities to learn, underpinned by the university's fundamental commitment to First Nations people and their right to selfdetermination.???

?

We're delighted today to be joined by a distinguished panel of speakers, who I'll introduce you to later but we're very excited to have them, and to have the opportunity to learn more about the Uluru Statement of Heart and its principles of Voice, Treaty and Truthtelling.? UTS commits to the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full.? So I'm looking forward to welcoming the panel up to the stage and telling you all about them but I would like first to introduce UTS's ViceChancellor, Professor Andrew Parfitt, who will offer some opening remarks and welcome. (Applause).??

?

PROF. ANDREW PARFITT: Thanks, Verity, and thanks also, Aunty Glendra, for your acknowledgment and your remarks, always so welcome as we start these important events.???

?

Let me also acknowledge the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation.? It's on the lands on which the campus stand, the lands that have always been Gadigal lands and always will be, and pay respects to Elders past and present.? And just call out, as I always do on these occasions, the incredible work that our Jumbunna Institute does in research and teaching and the difference that they make in lives, not only within the university and for our students but also to the wider country in the work that they do across so many of the different disciplines that the university works in.???

?

I'm sorry I have a slightly croaky voice today.? I assure you it's not COVID.? It's off the back of two weeks on planes in North America and South America, talking to alumni and to partners at different universities.? And it was remarkable that in many of the places that I went to, the effects of colonisation are still felt.? Colonisation causing displacement, causing dislocation and death, and it being acknowledged and it being acknowledged, and it reminded me so much of the conversation that we're having today in Australia about acknowledging is one thing but what does it mean to do next???

?

Michael, my good colleague and friend Michael McDaniel often reminds me that although the coloniser is the aggressor, the hand of friendship and generosity is often held out by our Indigenous folk, and now would be a wonderful time for us to take that hand and work together to make a real difference and to make the change that's needed to be changed.? The Uluru Statement of Heart is so important.? Truth? truth, being honest about the past and creating an understanding.? Treaty? we've had many, many years of policies, and the Closing the Gap report that has been released so many times tells us how inadequate they've been.? So is it time now for a Treaty to properly set the relationship between Indigenous Australians and other Australians? And the Voice, the topic of the moment.? It's not just about being heard; it's about being listened to, and that's the debate that we're having at the moment.? In what form would that actually make a real difference? The role of universities in this debate is critical.? We have the capacity to convene.? We have the capacity to inform.? We have the capacity to engage as we're doing here today, as we have people talking about the issues that we so desperately need to find solutions for, and at the start of Reconciliation Week, what a good time to envisage the future Australia that we all want to see.? We hope that this morning's event will bring some of those progresses to front of mind for people and that we will continue to engage as we move forward in the debate.? (Applause).???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: So thank you, Andrew.? Thanks very much for that.? Now, we're now going to move on to the panel discussion and I'd like to remind everyone here in the audience as well as those online that if you want to put forward questions to the panellists you can.? So all questions again will need to be submitted through Slido.? Simply go to the link that's up here on the slides, go to the Q&A tab, which we will also be posting online for people virtually.? The good thing about Slido is you can add your own question but you can also upvote other people's questions that you want to hear answered, and we do ask obviously that you keep the questions relevant to the topics we're discussing here today, and I also say try to make them an actual question, with a question mark at the end, rather than sometimes just a statement.? It's an honour to now welcome today's speakers up to the stage.? What I'll do is I'll ask each speaker to make their way up to the stage as I talk about you and then take a seat wherever you'd like to sit.???

?

So let's begin with Professor Robynne Quiggin. Professor Robynne Quiggin is UTS's Pro ViceChancellor in Indigenous Leadership and Engagement.? Robynne is a Wiradjuri lawyer who has worked on legal and policy issues of relevance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, including business, investment, financial services, consumer issues, human rights governance, rights to culture, heritage and the arts.? Welcome, Robynne.? (Applause).??

?

Dr Tony McAvoy is a Native Title, Treaties and TruthTelling specialist and a Wirdi man from Central Queensland area.? He's a barrister and Australia's first Indigenous Senior Counsel.? Tony is currently CoSenior Counsel Assisting the Yoorook Justice Commission in Victoria and was CoSenior Counsel Assisting the Don Dale Royal Commission in 2016/17.? Tony is part of the Referendum Working Group, was Acting Northern Territory Treaty Commissioner and Acting PartTime Commissioner of the New South Wales Land and Environment Court. Welcome Tony.? (Applause).??

?

Professor Lindon Coombes is Industry Professor and Director at Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous Education and Research at UTS.? Lindon is a descendant of the Yuallaraay people of northwest New South Wales and has worked in Aboriginal affairs in a range of positions including Director at PwC Indigenous consulting, CEO of the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples and CEO of Tranby Aboriginal College in Glebe.? Welcome, Lindon.? (Applause).??

?

Dr Harry Hobbs is an experienced constitutional and human rights lawyer working at the forefront of academic research and legal and political debate about Indigenous State TreatyMaking and constitutional recognition.? Prior to joining UTS, Harry worked in the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Human Rights, the ACT Human Rights Commission as well as Legal Research Officer at the High Court of Australia.? Welcome, Harry.? (Applause).???

?

And it's Harry who's expecting his wife? and his first child at any minute, so if he suddenly leaves the stage, that's the reason why.? And I'll come over now to ask some questions of the panel.? (Applause). So we're going to begin with you, Robynne.? Thank you.? The purpose of today's event is to help increase our understanding of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, its principles and the implications of constitutional reform.? To kick off the panel, what is the Uluru Statement from the Heart???

?

PROF. ROBYNNE QUIGGIN: Thank you, Verity.? It's so amazing to be here with my brothers and Verity here today.? It's just very exciting and really lovely to have a chance to talk to you all about this.? I want to begin answering Verity's question by framing the way we need to talk about this.? There's a lot of talk about this being a race issue and that this will create racial division. I want to begin by framing this? this is an issue about us as First Peoples. The status of peoples is recognised at international law, has been for a long time, and Indigenous peoples have been understood to have the status as First Peoples around the world, and I think? our ViceChancellor just spoke about some of the battles, the battle of colonisation, the process of colonisation, that has meant that that's had to be something that international law has thought about.? And, in fact, it thought about it at the time it was occurring and there were rules, there were international rules around the process of colonisation, so European nations, Britain as it was then, or UK as it was then, was meant to follow particular rules as they set out and colonised the world.? It seems a strange thing to talk about now but that is what it was.???

?

What we know here is that those rules were not followed.? We know that for a lot of reasons the Mabo decision attempted to wrangle with that and came to a sort of fairly pragmatic answer to that, but what we have here in this nation is people's and First People's where the status is not organised, settled or understood in any reasonable way.???

?

The Uluru statement is the most recent version really of, as a nation, our First Peoples and as a nation us trying to come to terms with that unfinished business, and it comes? and I think there's a very good list of the initiatives that were taken by Aboriginal people around the country beginning shortly after invasion in Tasmania.? If you have a look at the website, it's an really extensive? I knew a fair bit about this, I thought? there's a whole lot of initiatives I did not know about.? We are culture people, we are governance people, so when our place was invaded, when we were faced with overwhelming force, we began doing what any people will do, which is try to negotiate a petition, and we began that from the beginning, from the very, very beginning, and in that website, you'll see multiple examples of the ways that we have done that over the years: the Yirrkala bark petition, the Barunga Statement, most recently the initiatives in relation to constitutional recognition, the many joint parliamentary inquiries.? There's a lot that has gone on trying to answer that question, finding a way to answer that question, and the Uluru Statement is the most recent of those.??

?

I'm just going to? I will stop talking in a minute, Verity. I'm going to just read you? lots of you will have seen the Uluru Statement, but I'm just going to read you the part that is most relevant.? I think there's a lot in it but this is the piece that I think we're talking about today.? "We seek constitutional reforms to empower or people and take a rightful place in our own country.? When we have power over our destiny, our children will flourish.? That will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country. We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.? "Makaratta is the culmination of our agenda, the coming together after a struggle.? It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and selfdetermination.? We seek a Makaratta Commission to supervise a process of agreementmaking between governments and First Nations and truthtelling about our history".???

?

So that's part of that statement.? And, as I say? Aunty Glendra was talking about the local Council raising the flag.? We have over generations and generations in our capacity as First Peoples been negotiating with local Council, with State Governments, with earlyday colonisers, with Federal Governments, using the international human rights system, because we are cultural people, we are governance people, and so we use those mechanisms to try to come to a place where this country, this nation state and us, can recognise each other as distinct peoples in this place.? So this is the most recent version of that ongoing activity on our part.???

?

I'll say one last thing about that.? So it is not just us that need this to be? who need a remedy or a way forward with this.? It's the nation state that did not take this country according to the rules of the time.? So we need a way to come to peace, to make a peace, with that.? Not all of us think this is the ultimate answer but it is the piece on the table at the moment, and we do need to learn more about it and we do need to talk to each other about it, and there is an urgency about it now.? Thanks.???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: Thanks, Robynne.? So I'm going to ask a question now to all of you, and we might start with you, Lindon. What does Indigenous sovereignty and selfdetermination mean, what does it mean to you???

?

PROF. LINDON COOMBES: It means us acting in a way that is culturally appropriate.? It means doing the things that we want to do.? For me, I always try to think about it in practical terms of what does that look like and I think we're going to go through some of that through this process, which is how do we talk to each other, how do we relate to each other, how do we negotiate between nations, how do we set up systems of governments and the way in which we want to live really. And not be looking to the Government for permission or anything like that.? So that what it means to me.? It's a long road to go, but, yeah.???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: Tony???

?

DR TONY McAVOY SC: Thank you, Verity. Hi, everybody.? I acknowledge too that we're on Gadigal Country.? I acknowledge my people back at home in Central Queensland as well. Indigenous sovereignty is a vexed issue in Australia at the moment.? We have many people suggesting that the Voice to Parliament will interfere with Indigenous sovereignty, but my experience in Treaty work and in Native Title work tells me that my people, the Wirdispeaking people? of Wanggan and Yagalinggu Country, we're the only people that can speak for our Country.? I am only obliged under lore to my people.? If I've stepped wrong, I'm accountable to my Elders.? Anybody wants to speak about my Country, they have to come to us.? That's what our sovereignty means, and everybody I've worked with around the country in every state and territory, except Tasmania, says the same thing.? You've got to come through us.? We're the bosses here.? That's how our First Peoples express sovereignty.? And you can see that that expression of sovereignty comes into a direct conflict with the sovereignty that's asserted by the British, which Robynne has properly said is a flawed assertion of sovereignty.???

?

How then do we deal with this ongoing and proper assertion of continuing Indigenous sovereignty in the face of an overwhelming force that says we now make the rules here? How do we do that? We can approach it from a very principled position but, in the end, there's going to have to be some adjustment on our part and on the Government's part to accommodate both systems. One way in which that is done, which I often talk about? and I'll just briefly draw your attention to? is through changing the legal system.? I've been watching closely the work that's being done in New Zealand, Aotearoa, where they have a process of indigenisation of their law degree, where they teach young lawyers and propose to teach the profession how to understand Maori law and how the two fit together. Their equivalent of the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Law Commission, is doing a study right now on how those law systems can fit together in what they say is a bijural system.???

?

Now, we're a long way from that, but that's what recognition and observance and respect for Indigenous sovereignty means.? It means understanding we've got law systems of our own.? We operate according to our ancient lore and there needs to be an accommodation in this country of our sovereignty if the country is to live and act and go forward in a respectful manner.???

?

A lot of people see that as the Australian nation having to give something away.? I say you should be grateful.? We're giving something to you.? We're inviting you to see the world through a lens that is very deeply connected to the Country and something that you to date have really not grasped.??

?

So that's how I see Indigenous sovereignty and we'll have some discussion about how we might be able to deal with that in the Constitution later, I suspect.???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: That's correct.? So Harry, Indigenous sovereignty and selfdetermination???

?

DR HARRY HOBBS: I think they were really great answers, all of them.? I'm a nonIndigenous Australian and so a lot of the way that I think about this is guided by listening to people obviously and reading and having conversations with people who are experts in this.? I think if I can just pull out two things that I think are connected between the answers.? The first one is that Indigenous sovereignty is a starting point for discussion and engagement.? It's sort of saying that this is two authorities as such that might claim some ground, some land, essentially.? One is based on 65,000 years of continuing connection and governance and that complex system that has developed that to live on this country for so long and care for this country.? And the other one is based on an invasion just over 200 years ago, which as Robynne was saying was set up illegally under the rules that the British themselves developed, so they didn't even follow their own legal system, right? But the starting point there is engagement and it's about dialogue and discussion, and so it shouldn't seem to be scary but a lot of nonIndigenous Australians think of it as scary, and we see things like people saying, "Sovereignty never ceded" and nonIndigenous Australians think, "Well, what does that mean? How does that relate to what I'm dealing with in my own life right now?".? But I really do think it's an invitation for dialogue and discussion, and again that is what the Voice is about.? It's about trying to start conversations, start discussions.???

?

The other key thing I would say is that we're very familiar in Australia with forms of divided sovereignty.? We're right here now at UTS, which is governed by rules set out by? the UTS Council sets out rules; the NSW Government passes rules for this place, and so does the Australian Government.? So there are three forms of authority that just on the settler state side right now.? This is not a complex or difficult thing to work out.? We are a Federation.? We're used to divided forms of sovereignty and authority.? So I don't see why Indigenous sovereignty is challenging for us on that basis.? It's another layer.? It's another conversation, discussion point, about how to engage on this country.???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: Yes, that's really well put.? Robynne???

?

PROF. ROBYNNE QUIGGIN: I don't know that I need to add much more.? I think there's been a really well? I really? all the answers? the way other people have responded really resonates.? For me, I think the one thing I might say is that our selfdetermination? it is recognised as a human right and as it recognised as a right of First Peoples, and in the last century, or maybe it was? I don't know? but in the days of ATSIC, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, what you will hear about ATSIC? it was a Department, a Government Department essentially? you'll hear the line "ATSIC was a failure; it was terrible; can't go back to the days of ATSIC", and like any of our Government Departments that we might complain a bit about or go, "They're not solving things" or "They didn't give me that grant that I applied for" or whatever, it wasn't perfect but it was an amazing example of us being selfdetermining and setting the course within the Government framework.? So nothing is purely selfdetermining when we operate in that framework, but we were able to be really selfdetermining.? The Jumbunna Research Institute is doing a big history project on the history of ATSIC and Pat Turner was saying it was the largest employer of Aboriginal people, really active in international human rights.? All our reparations work, except where it started in small collecting institutions? the reparations of our human remains absolutely driven by ATSIC.? Housing, business, all these amazing programs that was an expression within the framework, within the bureaucracy, of us being selfdetermining.? Nothing is perfect.? Nothing is without valid criticism.? As I said, no Government Department, no program, is without its critics, and that's part of a vibrant democracy, that we critique things.? But don't believe this rhetoric that the one example of our selfdetermination in the form of ATSIC was a failure.? Not perfect, but there are many fabulous lessons.???

?

I think this generation sitting here? certainly Lindon, Tony and myself, we grew up really supported by the fact that there was this amazing institution.? I worked for the Human Rights Commission.? We worked really closely with ATSIC.? It was an amazing place.? It grew a lot of our First Nations lawyers, leaders, and if you didn't work for them, you worked with them.? So I just want to say that this myth that ATSIC was a failure, don't buy that.? We have been here before.? We have established something previously.? As I say, not perfect but it did a lot of good things since it was dismantled that have been whittled away.? A lot of those initiatives were sent out to Government Departments where people didn't know what they were doing, and we lost a lot of ground with the loss of it.? Again, not perfect but don't believe it was a complete failure.? Thanks.???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: So, Tony, you're on the Referendum Working Group.? So I'm wanting to come to you to talk to you about the Indigenous Voice to Parliament and what it seeks to achieve.???

?

DR TONY McAVOY SC: Yes, thank you. It's an interesting question.? I think about the Voice to Parliament at really three levels.? There's the mechanical aspect of it.? It's the creation of a body that can make representations to Parliament and the executive government. So what that means, if there's a Bill that's tabled in relation to superannuation, that body might be able to say, "Well, if you're going to amend the superannuation legislation, you should lower the age of access to pension for Aboriginal people to 65 or to 55" to take into account what we know about our mortality rates and our life expectancy.? I know Lindon was campaigning on this for a long time, but for those of you that don't know, most of our people don't get to retire.? They work until they die because we don't live long enough to reach the retirement age.? So that's a really important thing.???

?

But there might be alternatively an application to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs over seeking a protection of a site under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, and so the Voice could make a representation to that Minister, and that would be Minister exercising their role in the Executive Government under that legislation to determine whether that site ought to be protected.???

?

And, in the main, it's going to be those sorts of representations that will be made and what will happen is, depending on the strength of the credibility of the Voice? so on how much value the community places on the Voice and social licence, I suppose? those submissions, those representations may be very powerful, very effective and it may be that a government may not want to cross the Voice on a particular issue, or if the Voice is not able to manage its credibility, it may have very low value and may be disregarded.? And that's the risk that we all take in this.? There's no guarantees.? When they included in the Constitution that you couldn't be a dual citizen, they didn't know that section 44 was going to strike out all these parliamentarians who held dual citizenship. So it's that mechanical process.???

?

What is proposed is that? and I encourage you all to have a look at the Voice design principles.? If you just search? Google "Voice design principles", you will see them.? Those principles have been approved by the Federal Cabinet.? They have been referred to in the AttorneyGeneral's Second Reading speech for the Constitution Alternation Bill, the Voice Bill.? What that means is the High Court can have regard to those materials as extrinsic materials in terms of interpreting the legislation that is brought into existence to create the Voice.? So it's a fairly strong requirement that is included in the Voice design principles that the representatives be selected by Aboriginal people and that they be selected by local communities and that the representatives be Aboriginal people.? So you'll hear a lot of people saying, "Oh, well, they can just appoint themselves.? Tony Abbott can be the Special Envoy to Blackfellas" or it could be Jacinta Price expressing her views, and that would satisfy the representative nature of it.???

?

Well, if you look at the Voice design principles, the only way that Senator Price would get appointed is if she were put there by Warlpiri people or the mob at Yuendumu.? And you can make your own assessment about what the likelihood of that happening is.? So there's that mechanical process.???

?

Then there's the parliamentary structural element of it.? We're adding another element to the parliamentary structure.? It's not a third chamber but it's a part of the process that needs to be built in.? So the legislation might provide that the Voice has two weeks to respond to a Bill once tabled and first read in the Parliament, or there might be special provisions for urgent matters where there's a requirement to respond within 24 hours or 72 hours.? And there might be special provisions about how notice is to be given in respect of certain matters, so matters that affect the rights of Indigenous peoples, matters in which the Racial Discrimination Act is likely to be suspended, matters in which there are impacts on Indigenous land or waters or sites might have a mandatory requirement.???

?

Other matters such as the Superannuation Act, which are indirect, may be something that we have the capacity to make representations with respect to, but government might not be required to consult with us over those things.???

?

In general, that's how it's going to work.? It's not a veto of Parliament, though, but the parliamentary process and the executive government processes need to find a space for the Voice to make it work.? I have every evidence that can be done.? None of the? well, sorry, most of the legal experts that gave evidence in the Joint Select Committee hearings just recently didn't see any problem with how it was going to work.? It can be done.??

?

The third aspect of the Voice is a much bigger structural change.? It's the first step in a change for this country whereby we find some harmonious accommodation of Indigenous Nations, and I say this to people not by way of threat but we are here and we are not going away.? The Irish maintained their resistance against the British for over 800 years.? In Chile, the Mapuche people have been in armed conflict with the Chilean government for decades.? What the authors of the Uluru Statement, and now those of us who are saying, "Look, this Voice is something that we've got to take forward", we're saying: well, this is the first step towards some fairer, more equitable arrangement where we, as First Peoples, First Nations, can have a say about our own existence without upsetting the whole apple cart.? As I say, this is the first step.? There's got to be a TruthTelling process and there's got to be Treaties, but we are at a broad structural level offering an olive branch.? We're saying, "We don't want to keep fighting with you and seeing our kids locked up and seeing our people die in gaol.? We want to find a better way", and this is the olive branch.? This is the first part. So they're the various ways I see it.? Thank you.???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: Thank you for that.? That was really, really useful.? (Applause). So Harry, I'm going to come to you because when we were planning this event today, we know that there are some people out there with really high levels of knowledge about constitutional process and Referendums and colonial law and colonisation law and all of that sort of thing, and there are others that really don't know a lot, and so we're not going to assume there's this very high level of knowledge, particularly around constitutional law.???

?

DR TONY McAVOY SC: Doesn't stop them from speaking about it, though, Verity, I should add!??

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: So true! But Harry does know a bit about constitutional law so I am going to ask him.? So can you give us a bit of an explainer on the role of the Constitution and how our laws are made, why it's important that this is enshrined in the Constitution, and the role of a Referendum in altering the Constitution.? Why are we going down this path???

?

DR HARRY HOBBS: It's a great question.? I agree with you, Verity.? I don't want to speak out of school.? I see my former Dean here, Leslie, but I've been teaching Introduction to Law, Foundations of Law this semester and when the students arrive, they don't know much about the Constitution.? If I ask them much about it, they will say, "I know that I can plead the Fifth Amendment if the police come talk to me" and they told me, "Esther Yu? told me I can do this".? And, unfortunately, we don't have that, right?? Most of our knowledge about the Constitution is picked up from popular media, which is generally American.? When I ask them to look at the Constitution and tell me what's in it, they're surprised that we don't have a Bill of Rights. I always enjoy pointing them to Section 3 of the Constitution.? It's right at the top. You would think it's a really important provision.? If anyone knows it off the top of the head, it's the salary of the GovernorGeneral.? That's set out really early.? You want to get that right up the top, right?! It's very important we reach agreement on that.? It was obviously drafted at a particular time? in the 1890s.? It was drafted by colonialera politicians.? No women, no Indigenous peoples were involved.? Just white colonialera politicians and it reflected their aspirations and their views of what they thought would be important in the country.???

?

It's important today because it's the preeminent law of the country.? It's the founding document.? All law in Australia must be consistent with the Constitution.? All law in Australia must be consistent with what a group of colonialera politicians thought was important in the 1890s.? That is why it is important today. As you might suggest, it doesn't include any recognition of Indigenous laws.? It doesn't actually at the moment even mention Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.? They're not mentioned in the Constitution.? So that's the document we have.? And we can work with it.? It makes sense still today in many respects.? We have a thriving society and everything seems to work pretty well, and I think it's quite good that we don't live in a country or a society where we have to keep pointing to our Constitution to get through the day.? It's good that we have a low knowledge, but it becomes harder when we need to change it. They also set out a particular procedure to change the Constitution if you want to amend it.? Ordinarily, Parliament can amend any law it likes.? That's what Parliamentary procedure says. But to amend the Constitution, you have to go through a particular procedure and you need what's called a Referendum.? So you need to get a majority of people across the country voting, so 50% plus one of the nation needs to vote in favour, and you need to get a majority of states as well, which is four out of six states.? If we had seven states, it would still be four states. But with six as an even number, it's a bit harder. That means if three states vote No, it doesn't matter if 70% of Australians vote Yes.? It's not passing.? They did it this way because again they were colonialera politicians and one of the things they were really worried about was making sure that Tasmania and South Australia and Western Australia were protected and that the bargain that they had struck couldn't be changed.? But again Aboriginal people weren't part of that bargain, so their interests were never reflected in the Constitution and they're still not today.???

?

So the Constitution is important because all law flows from it.? And if the Parliament in Canberra or New South Wales does something that's inconsistent with the Constitution, the High Court overrules it, overturns it.? But you have a document that hasn't been changed much since 1901.? It only changed eight times.? The last time in 1977.? It runs out of steam a little bit, right, and things need to be fixed up.? And so the Voice needs to be put in the Constitution, in my view, because number one it will give it the institutional presence that Tony talks about it.? It gives that opportunity to be able to speak and have that significance there.? It also fixes up or rectifies that glaring omission that Aboriginal people weren't involved in the Constitution in 1901 and they live in a country that they have never given their assent to essentially.? They were never involved in any of these debates.? But, most importantly, the practical sense of why the Voice needs to be in the Constitution? as Tony said, the Voice has no legal mandate.? There's no legal obligation on Government or Parliament to listen to the Voice or engage with the Voice or respond to the Voice, let alone do what the Voice says.? The Voice will only work if it has political and moral strength, and the only way it will get that from the getgo is if we as the Australian people tell the Government and tell the Parliament it should be treated? they should treat it with the seriousness it deserves, and the only way that happens is if we vote Yes in the Referendum.? It's a simple as that really in my mind.???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: Thank you.? Can you pass me that iPad because I want to make sure I'm asking some of your questions too so I'm not forgetting about the audience.? While I look at these audience questions, I'm going to come to you, Lindon, and ask: do you think constitutional change will advance reconciliation???

?

PROF. LINDON COOMBES: I don't know. I come on the panel and I don't know.? If it doesn't, I think it will have an impact, a negative one.? I think from the start I shared the view that if this is how it's going to be, if this is what's going to be on the table, we need to get it done.? I think I heard Tony say something along those lines as well, to be successful because, if it's not, where to from here? We were talking before this about consistently humble asks from Indigenous people, from bark treaties to ATSIC work, recognition rights and reform from 1995 that's still really relevant today, and it's been along those consistent lines.? So when people say there's not enough information or that this is new or it's a radical undertaking, it's bullshit.? This has been a consistent view.? You just cannot argue that we have not been consistent in these requests, and they've been respectful and they've been humble and they've been torn apart.? Like Tony said, you can only keep offering the olive branch in the hope that something will turn, that this country will recognise justice and equity.? One of the fundamental principles we lie to ourselves about is equity, and when you look at the experiences of Black people in this country, they are not equitable. You know, the idea of a fair go? you cannot argue that Indigenous people have had a fair go.? So it needs this level of introspection that I think the country has been incapable of to date, and that's been demonstrated.? But here's another opportunity to have a go at this.? It is a moment in time and I think it's a really important one.???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: So I'm going to come to some of the questions from the audience because they're really good and there's been really great engagement.? Thank you, everyone, who's been asking questions and thank you to people who've been voting questions up. By far the most popular question, which is sort of the question of the hour really, is: what is the crux of the argument both for and against having the Voice to Parliament? Do you want to have a stab at it first, Tony???

?

DR TONY McAVOY SC: I will give my view on it.???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: Yes.???

?

DR TONY McAVOY SC: The reasons for having a Voice to Parliament, from my perspective, really centre upon the ability to change the way government interacts with us.? During my day job, I am involved in Native Title matters, negotiations with government, all of the time, and I know? I know from the work that I've done? that government is created to maintain its own existence and its own power.? It's not a beast that shares power.? It's not designed to share power.? And no matter where I've worked, everybody has said, "We want to make the decisions for ourselves.? We want to be able to look after our country ourselves", and government just can't bring itself to do it. So where it's most stark for me is in this idea of jointly managed national parks.? What happens is that the National Parks and Wildlife services all around the country refuse to hand over the decisionmaking power to the traditional owners, and the traditional owners end up being on an advisory panel and have no budgetary control and have no control over the national park, even though they desperately say, "We can manage this better than you".???

?

Government cannot on its own do that because it's not designed to do that, but if we've got a Voice that can monitor and make comment and hold to account the Government and say, "You have to learn how to divest power to our communities", then I think we've got a real chance of seeing that happen because the way it's going at the moment, it can't go on.? It just can't go on.? The rates of the removal of our children are increasing, notwithstanding the Apology.? The rates of our people being incarcerated are increasing, notwithstanding the Closing the Gap process, notwithstanding the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.? We can't keep doing down this path.? We have to get to a position where we're in some control.???

?

So I think for me, the capacity of the Voice to be able to fill that role is critical.? Yes, it will have a function in ensuring that the Treaty process is right but every Indigenous land use agreement with government which settles a Native Title claim, the Native Title group has to be armed with lawyers the whole time from that day forward because they've got to battle against the Government to maintain the rights that they've been able to secure in the agreement.??

?

That's the reality of it and, unless you've got a body in government saying, "You can't keep doing it this way; you've got to change; you've got to learn how to divest power", without that I don't think we're going to see any change because government has consistently demonstrated that it cannot make decisions for us which are to our benefit, and the way it plays out? and I'll finish on this? is that government has to make a whole range of decisions and usually those with the loudest voice and the squeakiest wheel and the most power and connected end up getting their preferred outcome.? I've been in government? Lindon and I worked in government for six years together? well, he wasn't there for six with me, but anyway? but what happens is somewhere along that path the Indigenous people's view gets pushed out of the way and everybody else's concerns make the final decision.? And we see it in the negotiations around amendment of the Native Title Act.? We have our say, but, in the end, it's a negotiation between the Government and the mining companies about what the Native Title Act looks like.? So this absence of clout, this absence of political access, I think will in part? it's not going to be a panacea? but will, in part, be remedied by a Voice to Parliament.???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: Does anyone? thanks, Tony.? (Applause).? Does anyone want to give the crux of the No argument? Because there's a second question that also takes about why are some Indigenous Australians against the Voice to Parliament? Does anyone at least want to explain some of that.???

?

PROF. LINDON COOMBES: I'll have a go.? So one of the arguments I've heard from the No campaign is Treaty first, and I am sympathetic to that.? We work on Treaty in Jumbunna and it sort of goes? and the reason that I'm sympathetic is it goes to Tony's point of no matter how smart we are, how strategic we are, how well organised, how passionate we are, we're disempowered, and I'm just sick of getting beat.? Sick of getting beat.? Not because they're better than us but because they have more power than us.? And so I really get the No vote from that perspective.? I think it's also important to note that there's two camps, at least to my view, that within the No camp? and there's Indigenous people who have genuine concerns; they do not trust this Government; they don't trust any government to give full effect to what people are saying? and then there are the racists, you know.? I think I heard someone say, "It's not racist to say No but all racists will vote No". (Applause).???

?

DR HARRY HOBBS: I think Tony gave a really strong answer for the Yes case, of course, and I agree with what Lindon is saying about the maybe more progressive left progress the No case, about Treaty first.? I think on the other side of the No case, I would say, taking it at its highest? and I don't agree with it, I think it's wrong, but I think it's to what Robynne was talking about at the start? taking it as high as the other No case would be: does this divide us on the basis of race? And the answer is clearly no, and I'll explain why in a moment.? But I think that is the concern a lot of people have.? We're very lucky to live in a country where equality is prized.? We are all equal.? That wasn't the case for many, many years, as Robynne, Tony and Lindon can attest.? This is certainly not the case of what it has been. And so people might concerned this gives special rights to one group of Australians.???

?

But as Robynne was saying right at the start, it's not a racial question. This is a question about peoples.? It's not a recognition that there are different races or one group with special rights. It's a recognition that there is a group of Australians, the first Australians, First Peoples, who have a 65,000year continuing connection to Country here, and they are not part of our Constitution, they are not part of our country at the moment.? As Tony and Lindon were saying, it's a demographic minority of 3% of the population who will routinely lose in democratic debates and votes because of their demographics.? So this goes some way to try to fix up that process, the impossibility of a democratic society when you have one group of Australians who are very different for very unique and distinctive reasons who will routinely lose in political battles.? So that's one part of it.? The other part I would say is that there's no? the Voice doesn't grant special rights to anyone.? The Voice, as Tony was saying right at the start, it's an opportunity to speak to Parliament and to government to make representations.? We can all do that.? I made a submission to the parliamentary committee report into this.? I made a representation to Parliament.? We can do this routinely.? We all do this at different times so this is not any special right.? This doesn't take away my right to do that.? At its highest, there's a concern about equality but I think it misunderstands the argument.? It's about peoples and it doesn't take away anyone's rights.? (Applause).???

?

DR TONY McAVOY SC: Can I just add on the No question.? From purely a position of trying to analyse the electorate, it's clear that there's probably 15 to 20% who are just straightout No, who have a particular view about life in Australia and that any rights we had disappeared when the British arrived, and they're not going to change their view.? And then there's 30 or 40% who are undecided.? And what the No campaigns have been doing is playing to the fears of those people and putting out as many different arguments as they can to try and hook individuals and tap into their fear. We know? we know that in Australia, nonFirst Nations people have a bias towards First Nations people.? There was a very good study that came out of ANU in 2019 to the effect that three out of four Australians have a negative unconscious or implicit bias against Aboriginal people, and that is a product of the way in which this country was settled, that we were subjected to violence and there's a conspiracy of silence about that, and we were treated as second class in order to facilitate our dispossession.? And that's really deeply embedded in the society.? And many people are able to rationalise that and move beyond it and act appropriately, but what the hard right is doing is just tapping into those very deep, latent fears.? And people say, "Well, I don't know what will happen", and it's like that movie 'Wake In Fright' where the Blackfella is standing outside the window.? They're all going, "What's happening?".? When I saw that movie when I was a kid, I went "Hey, who's that fella out there?".? I felt like I was outside looking in, you know.???

?

So that's what's going on.? That's what's going on.? And what it's going to take is good people, good people who are able to harness and logically overcome those irrational fears to speak to those around them to say, "Look, the sky is not going to fall in".? They all said the world was going to end in Australia when the Mabo decision was handed down.? The sky's not going to cave in.? We're finding a place for Aboriginal people in this country and we should all get behind it and hopefully we'll learn something along the way, and it's all of you who are here speaking to your friends and your family and not allowing the misinformation that's purposely designed to trigger fear to grab hold.? Thank you. (Applause).???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: I'm about to come to you, Robynne, but you should add to that point.???

?

PROF. ROBYNNE QUIGGIN: I just wanted to add that the fact that when we listen to the things that are being outlined about? particularly I'm reflecting on Tony's comments on government's inability to accommodate our voice, our ways of seeing the world, and to really hear and honour that, that there's always that "you'll be right, thank you for that, we'll just do it our way, thanks for that".? I think that where our colleagues, our brothers and sisters, are sceptical, not trusting, I think the community just needs to be able to hold that space with us and know that this is a proposition.? We don't know exactly what it's going to look like, and many of us will be standing there going, "We don't believe you, we don't trust you".? So I think it's OK, and that is our right and that is OK for people to hold for everyone? well, it's not OK for what I feel is like this position that Tony has just described too of this racist position that is largely mobilised for power and is in some ways I think just a way to step forward into power on our backs, as is not uncommon, but where we are worried and holding some scepticism, I think the rest of the community just has to say, "That's OK and I'm going to make up my own mind and I will know that some of my Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters are worried".? So let's be the complex society that we are and just be OK with holding that, the different views.? Thanks.? (Applause).??

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: Thanks, Robynne. Which is related to a question? again another very popular question within the audience, which I was always going to put to you, which is young LGBTQIA+ people were impacted by the samesex marriage debate.? How do we protect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children during the Referendum debate, and the reason I was going to go to you on that was because that's something we've also been talking about at the university, about cultural load and about just creating a safe space so that it doesn't? well, I am sure Tony can already tell us about the nasty social media environment but that it doesn't just really have an unfair and horrific toll on people.???

?

PROF. ROBYNNE QUIGGIN: I think the truth is it just will.? My dear cousin is joining us today.? She got an invitation to go to lunch? can I tell this story? with an emailed list of questions that the host would like to ask her about, including her family's view on the Voice, her view on the Voice, what other Aboriginal people? like, this list of questions as part of a lunch invitation.? (Laughter). And that's not the question about children.? But it is impacting on us.? I think one of the? we need to be good allies, watch out for our people.? Don't standby while someone just drills someone with questions if they don't want to answer them. We might want to talk about how we're going today, not necessarily what our view on the Voice is or what our family's view on the Voice is, and maybe we will but we will make that clear. We will tell you if we want to talk about it. We won't be backward in coming forward if we want to talk about it.? But not everybody wants to talk about it all the time. Our kids don't necessarily know what the answers are. And we need to be mindful of that and careful about that.???

?

I was at lunch yesterday with two women who've since married and they said, "It was just hellish for us. We'd walk into the local golf club and they'd go: oh, here's our lesbians that are getting married".? So it's just this kind of constant scrutiny.? So I think while it's really important for us to talk about this, to educate ourselves, to watch what's going on, we also do need to be mindful and careful of each other in this time and watch out for our young ones who will perhaps be just not in a position to answer.? Thanks.???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: Does anyone else want to talk about that???

?

DR TONY McAVOY SC: At a personal level, it's very difficult for all of us who are in this space where we are constantly asked to speak.?? I'm a Director on the Aboriginal Legal Service NSW. I was at a Board meeting Thursday and Friday.? We passed a resolution and had a lengthy discussion about support of the Voice.? We passed a resolution in support of the Voice at the Board meeting.? On Saturday, I spoke via Zoom at an event in Darwin on the Voice and I'm here today.? And the next few months looks pretty much the same.? So there's a big toll on all of us but it's something that has to be done and I'm up for it and I'll continue to do it.? But us here in the city, we only see a muted form of what's going on.? My people are all in Queensland and people I know in country Queensland are being abused in public places by rednecks in a way that hasn't happened in the past.? And what I think it says to me is that we've got a fair way to go yet and it's going to get uglier before it gets better, and to the extent that we have allies, those allies need to stand up at the appropriate times.? So if you see that sort of behaviour, be brave.? Thank you.? (Applause).???

?

PROF. LINDON COOMBES: I might just add to that.? We recently did a truth telling project with the Ebony Institute, interviewed a number of people about that, and the idea of care was consistent in that, when you're asking Indigenous people to stand up, brush themselves off, tell their story for the 20th time? you know, there has to be some payoff to that, and at the same time people are doing that to care for each other because I've had conversations with other Black people and they're just tired of the Voice.? They don't want to talk about it anymore.? And it's a difficult one because I think we need disruption and the Voice is doing that in a number of ways.? We need a disruption to the system, which Tony sort of articulated is incredibly difficult to fix and to manoeuvre in for us, but there's a price that comes with that and it is often exhausting doing that.???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: Harry, do you have anything???

?

DR HARRY HOBBS: I agree with everything that's been said.? The first thing is that the same sex marriage postal survey was not legally necessary.? We didn't need to do that.? We do need to vote for the Referendum to make the change.? So it's not something that people want to do in government necessarily but they have to do if we want to get this up.? So it is going to be really difficult.? And I totally agree with everyone that Aboriginal people need the support of allies to help in this space.? So educate yourself and take on the burden a little bit, share that.? The other point I wanted to make, which I think Lindon mentioned right at the start, the psychological distress that Tony is talking about, that he knows his family and friends are experiencing in different parts of the country, I would say that would be magnified if the vote goes down.? A nationwide vote that goes down I think will be devastating for many, many people.? People say that Australia will feel shame in the international affairs.? I don't really care about that, to be frank.? I think about what it will feel at an individual and community level, psychologically.? So for that reason alone, I think you have to vote Yes.???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: That's an interesting point because one of the other questions that's? so basically I'm reading the questions in version of the upvotes.? That's my democratic way of choosing which question to use. But the one that's got the nextbest number of votes was: what happens if the Referendum doesn't get up?? And the question goes on to say: do we continue into Treaty and Truth, and does that change our approach? Who wants to take a stab at what happens if the Referendum doesn't get up???

?

PROF. ROBYNNE QUIGGIN: I just have a quick answer to that.? We do what we do what we always do when we're disappointed.? We keep going and we don't stop the works that we're doing, and all the initiatives, all the services, all the work that we do in this university, all the work that you might be doing, we don't miss a beat.? We keep going.? And that is what we'll do.? And that's not to say? and I am sure that others will talk about the hit that the nation will take and the hit that we will take? but really importantly I think we have to remember that our children will still need us, our people in custody will still need us and they will still need you and whatever you're doing to support that.? So whatever happens, we need to pick ourselves up as we always do and keep going, no matter what happens.? I know that might sound a harsh? and it's not speaking to the impact, and I know others will speak to the impact, but I do think it's really important that we keep going and that we keep going with the truth telling and the Treaty making and the services and the looking after people that we don't miss too much of a beat if that's what happens.? (Applause).???

?

DR TONY McAVOY SC: Just following on from that point, you only have to look at how staunch and proud and strong our brothers and sisters in the Northern Territory are, even after 13 years, 15 years of the intervention.? They're not laying down.???

?

At a political level, I have very grave fears that if the Referendum goes down, even though the Labor Party election policy was for the establishment of a Makaratta Commission for truth telling and treaties, that that could still be established but the Liberal Party, the Coalition, when it gets back into power? so I can't see them getting into power at the next election, no matter which way the Referendum goes; I think that they don't have the capacity because of their stance to take back the seats from the Teals that they lost at the last election, and so they've committed themselves to a path which sees them losing the next general election, but the one after that, they might win.? And so at that stage, a Makaratta Commission might be three or four years old.? It might have some arrangements in place with the state Treaty processes.? On past form, I would expect that the Coalition will come into government and will say: the nation has voted against selfdetermination for Aboriginal people and we are abolishing the Treaty process. The Referendum spoke and we will abide by the people's wishes", and if it's not so embedded that it can't be unravelled by the time they get back into government, I expect that that's what they're going to do, and I'm really fearful of that.? Because, like Lindon, even though the Voice is a very important structural element, the way in which my people secure our future is through some set of agreed rules about how we all operate on my country, and that's the Treaty process.??

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: That's interesting.? So you're really saying that? the hub of the question is do we then proceed with Treaty and Truth, and you're saying it actually puts Treaty and Truth at risk.???

?

DR TONY McAVOY SC: It does.? It absolutely puts the longterm political viability of Treaty and Truth at risk.? I have every belief that the Federal Government will proceed with the Makaratta Commission, whether they commence that before the Referendum or after the Referendum, I don't know, but there's money in the budget for it.? It's part of their election platform.? I'm certain that they will do it.? But the problem will be how a No vote will be used by future Coalition governments and it's a very real, very real issue.? If we think about the vehemence with which they've approached their response to this Referendum, we know that they will do all sorts of things in order to avoid having to be answerable to Aboriginal people.???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: Robynne???

?

PROF. ROBYNNE QUIGGIN: Can I just jump in before Lindon? I think my observation? and I could be wrong? but my observation is that, as I said before, we are a really good platform for them to jump on to get back into political relevance, to harness the hatred and the fear that's out there for their own purposes.? Ideologically aligned or not? I don't know whether they actually believe it? but we know it works for them to harness the people who are frightened of us and who think they have something to lose.? So I don't think we can ever underestimate that.? Whether they believe it or not, it's a power play, so that has consequences forever really.??

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: Lindon???

?

PROF. LINDON COOMBES: I was just going to say quickly that I think, as Black people, we need to try to find value in the process, regardless of the outcome.? So we've been disappointed many, many times, along these and other lines.? So one of the key things for me and what I was talking about before is how we, as Black people, as Black nations, talk and negotiate with each other.? And the Voice is something that there's disagreement about.? People pretty much agree with everything. My views are very consistent but they are saying No.? I think that can be a really valuable thing about how we respect each other during that process, and it's good practice for Treaty because that's where we want to get to.???

?

And so with all these processes that are going on, if we find that value in the process and the outcome will be what it will be, and I would agree with Robynne that it will be business as usual.? We will get back to doing the things that we do, still working towards Treaty and other things, but there's an opportunity in the process so that we're not just left at the whim of the majority of people for a decision on the Referendum.???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: Harry???

?

DR HARRY HOBBS: Just to add one extra thing.? I agree with that as well.? One thing I think people aren't really aware of is that every government in Australia, except Western Australia, has committed to a Treaty process.? So every single State and Territory and Commonwealth Government except for WA has committed to a Treaty process.? My fear, drawing on from what Tony was saying, is that because it's going to be a statewide vote, there will be some governments where a No vote might succeed, and the impetus for Treaty in those states will dissipate immediately because the Government will say, "Well, there's no votes in this and we need votes to get into power next time".? So even if the Federal Government is still committed and even if things continue for a little bit longer at that stage? and they will have a lot of momentum themselves in driving the process? I think the momentum and the energy in certain places around the country will fall apart.???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: So we're nearing time but there's another question from the audience which is similar to one that I wanted to ask, and this really is about the nature of all of Australia voting in a constitutional Referendum when, as we have already described, a lot of people don't even know what the Constitution is and whether or not we've got the right to bear arms, as Harry said before.? So the question from the audience is: how can we better cut through the complexities of this such that the average Australian can understand and make an educated vote in the Referendum? Who wants to have a go at that first???

?

PROF. ROBYNNE QUIGGIN: I'll go first.? One of the things I've said to people is wouldn't you like a Parliament and an executive that has the best advice possible when they're making laws and policies for this country? Wouldn't you like to have something, some body, that gives them the absolute best advice possible, from the people on the ground, from the people at community level, to the people who are our doctors, lawyers, architects, social policy people, all the people that we have who can give really expert advice? Wouldn't you like that? Wouldn't that be a better way to do business in government? The thing I do say also that is sometimes maybe complex for people is that we do have a human right, it is a human right of all peoples, of effective participation in matters that affect us.? It's just the implementation of a human right.? Thank you. (Applause).???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: Tony???

?

DR TONY McAVOY SC: I think for the majority of the public, it's too complicated and what that means is that they will look to the people that they rely upon to guide them and there are vocal people on social media who put forward different positions, some of them informed and a lot of them uninformed, but what will be really important is how the Liberal backbenchers deal with their ability to vote whichever way they want.? So the Liberal Party know mandate is only binding on the Cabinet.? There are all those backbenchers, including now Julian Leeser in the electorate of Berowra, who can vote whichever way they want, and it's those people in the cities who are going to lead their community, and if Julian Leeser is saying we should support this, well, that will be very important in terms of the votes.???

?

In the Northern Beaches, where I live, we've got Zali Steggall and Sophie Scamps.? They're both supporting the Voice.? The Northern Beaches Council, which covers the whole of the Northern Beaches, has a population of 250,000 people.? The population of the Northern Territory is 250,000.? So the battle for the majority of states, overall majority, will be won and lost in the urban centres, in my view, and so that's why it is important that all of you, all of us, speak to the people we know.? It's something that will be won and lost on a ground game and so I think it can be won but there's a long way to go yet.???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: That's a really interesting point, Tony.? I was thinking it myself.? I live in Glebe, on Gadigal land, as I said before. I live in one of the safest Federal Labor seats in the country, and normally it really doesn't matter what I do at election time, the vote is obvious.? But actually it's a totally different dynamic because every vote that you bring out, even if you are in these totally blue ribbon safe Liberal or Labor seats, actually will count to the overall majority, and that's quite different to a normal electoral context and something that's worth remembering.? Lindon???

?

PROF. LINDON COOMBES: I don't want to end on a cynical note but I think there's a lot of people out there looking for a palatable reason to vote No.? It's been demonstrated I think with previous referenda and certainly a progressive issue like this is a really hard one to get over.? I remember many years ago I was speaking to a woman who was involved in the No case for the Republic and the takeaway message from her was running a No case on a Referendum in Australia is money for jam.? She said it's the easiest job I ever had.? And so without getting too cynical about it, it is a difficult thing to do, and like Tony said, the way on that is the full court press, talking to people, getting organisations, industries, sectors, sports, it's a full court press to overcome that because it really is difficult.???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: Harry???

?

DR HARRY HOBBS: I agree with that again.? If you have limited knowledge about what is in the Constitution, let alone what it means and what it is, it's much easier to say, "Well, I don't know so I'm just going to vote No".? So a compulsory Referendum vote? and it is compulsory; we're all going to have to vote? does makes it easier for the No case.? The history in Australia says there have been eight successful Referendums out of 44 attempts.? So it is hard.? The Labor Party has put up 25 Referendums and has got one out of the 25.? So it is very difficult to win a Referendum, and so we do need people to educate themselves, to find out information, and then talk to friends and family and people you might not talk to about these things more generally.? I've been doing a lot of these things recently.? I gave one to my hockey club the other day just because I thought these people who I play hockey with, I don't know anything about them but I see them every week. I should tell them about this stuff and they will tell their friends.? So just little bits like that.? I know a lot of people say, "I want more detail".? There is detail out there, but I do think, as Robynne says, it is important to stick to the principle.? This is just a question about whether we think Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should have a say over laws and policies that affect them.? I think it's pretty straightforward.???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: So we have three minutes left.? I'll go back up the line, starting with you, Harry.? Really you can say whatever you want to say at the end of the moment.? Tell your truth to the audience.? But if you do have some good recommendations for materials people could pursue to get to know things more or how to sign up if they're interested in volunteering,? whatever, could you provide that information too?? And Before we close, I'll also say that Koori Kinnections are here with us in the Student Learning Hub in Building 2 and you can drop in and have a chat and ask any questions about the upcoming Voice to Parliament, how to be a voice for reconciliation, or if you want to learn more about local Indigenous culture.? So that's Koori Kinnections and you can continue the conversation after this event in Building 2 in the student hub.? Starting with you, Harry???

?

DR HARRY HOBBS: There's a lot out there.? I know the Uluru Dialogues team, which is based out of UNSW, they have a yarning session every week and it's open to every single people in Australia. The Zoom link is available.? Type in 'Uluru Dialogues Yarning Session' and you've got people like Megan Davis and Pat Anderson who will talk to you about what the Voice means and how it will work.? That's a pretty easy and pretty useful way to get some information about it. There's also lots of university websites that do things like this.? I know UTS are doing things.? We're putting a video together. The ANU First Nations portfolio has 11 or 12 questions/responses to common concerns about the Voice, and so this I think is particularly useful to talk to people who might be generally interested in it but not really know anything about it.? It's questions and answers to questions like why do we need a Voice if there are 11 Indigenous peoples in Parliament already, why do we need a Voice if Indigenous peoples can already speak to government in different ways, questions like this, will this be special rights for one group of people.? The answers are straightforward.? They are just about a paragraph and a half. They give you really helpful information if you want to talk to friends and family about this.???

?

PROF. LINDON COOMBES: I'll just steal Robynne's, of holding the space, and what I said before about respectful conversations, particularly between Black people and learning how to disagree with each other on some things but moving forward on so many other work that's left to be done.? That would be mine.???

?

DR TONY McAVOY SC: In terms of material that I think is essential reading, I direct you again to the Voice design principles.? You can get those off of the Uluru Dialogue website or the Voice website that NIAA has.? Read them because they answer most of the questions about the structure or the detail, and when people throw up issues about lack of representation or the various challenges people say about the model or the absence of a model, they're answered in that document.???

?

I don't know what else to say.? Watch 'Charlie's Country'.? I watched that movie the other day.? Gulpilil. Awesome movie.? Speaks to many of the things that we're talking about here. Thank you.??

?

PROF. ROBYNNE QUIGGIN: Final words are a bit hard.? I think we need to really stay kind to each other, hold this space, that we don't all necessarily see things the same way.? For me I think there are many? this does come? it's one in many ways that we have tried to and have held a conversation with the nation, with the Commonwealth Government, State Governments.? This is one of the things in the long road and it won't be the last and I just think we might as well give it a run.? We might as well give it the best run we can because maybe it is just one in the step towards Makaratta, towards truth telling.? So might as well give it a run, but we need to be really kind and patient and considerate of all the views that we have.? Thank you.???

?

THE HON. PROF. VERITY FIRTH: And thank you to my panel.? My panel? the panel.? (Applause). I think you can hear from the applause and a couple of people standing in the audience, that was a really magnificent panel.? Thank you so much for giving your time today. I found it absolutely illuminating for me in so many ways, so thank you.???

?

The most important thing from my point of view is that people vote.? This is a democratic right to have a say in your country and the future you want for your country, a recognition of the past.? For students that are watching us, make sure you're enrolled to vote and you're enrolled to vote at the right address.? So get onto the AEC website as soon as you can and make sure your actual enrolment is uptodate.? It is a compulsory vote but you should also be seizing the right to have a say in the future of your country and seizing this historical moment.? So vote.? Stay connected.? Keep finding out more and more.? The more you learn about your country and your history, the more important it is for the way forward.? So thank you, everyone, for joining us today and thank you again to our really fantastic panel.? (Applause).???

?