We know that tonight's discussions and the ongoing national discourse around the voice has a significant impact on First Nations people. In response, we have established a quiet space specifically tailored for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, students and their allies. This is located on the ground floor. Please use this space at any point during the event if you need. Good evening. On behalf of the Australian National University, welcome to the ANU, both in person and watching from university campuses around the country, to attend tonight's dialogue on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice. My name is Brian Schmidt and I'm the Vice Chancellor of the Australian National University and I'm incredibly proud to be hosting this event along with our First Nations portfolio and with universities from across Australia. The last gathering to bring the university sector together was almost exactly 12 months ago when President Zelensky of Ukraine delivered an address for students hosted here in Canberra but bringing together students from across the country and so it is no surprise that in a year that will define Australia's history, our national student body is turning out once again in record numbers. Students have always been at the forefront of national issues, using your voices to change the world around you and the upcoming referendum will be no exception. Now before we begin our formal proceedings and meeting tonight's panel, I'd like to first involve and invite Paul and Ruben House, First Nations custodians to welcome us to this country. Paul, Ruben, over to you. Mandangu, Wura Gawiri, and thank you Brian and Jumburaburomarambang, Yaryamarang, Maranya, good evening everyone. Nadoo Maradang, Buluninginina, Yarya, it's good to be here on country. Nenmura Burumbar, better to share, just welcome the country. Injumadabala, Wuraway, Ruben, respects to my son Ruben. Yilin Galongbu, Giba Bangu, Wuga Buu, Meghe Buu, Didenil Bang, Mayin. Ladies and gentlemen, young men, young women, distinguished guests, students, Ngari Injumali, Nyambri, Gumao Walgulu, Wala Balawa, Nunawe, Nagara Gaviradri, Mujigang, Nyangangbujayandu. My respects to Nyambri, Gumao Walgulu, Wala Balawa, Nunawe, Nagara Gaviradri, Elders past and present, Ngari Injumarabu, Mujigangu, Nurembanjigul, Ninyiridu, my respects to all people and First Nation people from all parts of the country, Nyambri, Walgulu, Wala Balawa, Nunawe, Mayin, Gaenbanya, Nyinyo Ga, Nurembangu, Dara. Nyambri, Walgulu, Wala Balawa, Nunawe, people, welcome you all to country. Noya Goya Malang, Marambang Malang, it's wonderful, it's fabulous to be here to share our connection and some of our story tonight. Injumarabu, Mugam Nawa, Biyamburuwala, Ngujigagu, Gagumwarawala, Nungayalara, Dalani Mayan, respect is in the people, the university and the government embracing voice, treaty and truth-telling. Nardu, Wurugabigi, Bala Bambu, Gugubalagi, Bangugul, Gugungulila, Dunbali, now Murawai Marambu. We listen to our old people, our ancestors, our elders, and they show us the good path, the right path. Mambawara, Naminya, Wurugabinya, Wurudaregul, Winninggala, Gubaligul, looking to see, listening to hear, and learning to understand. Nyani, Injumari, Nurembangu, Balani, Walawin, Galangabangu, Yanengingu, Nyani, Malwangyao, Beligi, Gila, Hiaoman, Belgi, Yanemarambu, Bagarigar, Yanengingu. We look after country, how it is healthy for all our children, for all our people, and we teach and we learn what is right on country. Muramuginya, Injumara, Muramuru, Wurumbara, Nurembangu, living a respectful way of life, cares for country. Injumara, Wurumbara, Marandugubu, Giyirugubu, Yandugubu, respect is taking responsibility for the now, the past, the present and the future. Injumari, Giju, Injumarabu, Injumari, a powerful word, irraduary word on country, meaning many good things that go slow, be patient, be polite, be gentle, take responsibility. Injumara, Balawin, Gidumbana, Nurembalabua, Gurugambinu, Banganaranara, respect is in the warmth of the campfire and the possum skin cloak that shelters all. Gugunguliala, Magagiribiringa, Balawangu, Dinnda, Balabiridabinabinayu, Wulubu, Nurembangu, respect is in the journey of the Baugong Mosque, it's in the rivers and the creeks, quietly moving through country. Balawalawangadabu, Mutindabu, Bumbayugurugambira, it's in the grinding stones and carved trees. Now welcome the countries always made in the spirit of peace and the desire for harmony and reconciliation for all people of modern Australia. Our main aim as local custodians is always to establish an atmosphere of mutual respect through the acknowledgement of our ancestors and the recognition of our rights to declare our special place in the pre and post history of the Canberra region. The name Canberra is derived from the name of our people and country, the Nyambiri, the Canberra. Right from here, the Canberra station, Murubangabala, Winganagul, Yambuwan, Banganaranara. To know the nature of things. Murugaladal, Walanmayanmayangalang, hold fast to each other, empower the people. Walangunmala, Murugure, be brave, make change. Diriawana, Murawara, Ngawambira, get up, stand up, and show up. It's wonderful you all showed up here this evening and it's wonderful I showed up and Ruben showed up as well. Nguilang Ayalinya, for our elders, Nadoctean this year. Ayalinya, Baggerigan, Muray Ayalinya, be a voice for generations. Mara mara nia nia nia, gira maa mara nia, respect shapes us and lifts up the people. Yinjimara Balaboya nia, Nurumbango, Baggerigan, respecting language, law, people, and country. Mayambana, welcome, Mandangu, Wari Gowari, thank you very much. Thank you, Paul and Ruben, I do want to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands and airways we're meeting over today. Here in Canberra it's the Namburi Ngunawal peoples who have maintained the lands where I am standing as a meeting place for literally millennia. And I pay my deep respects to elders past and present and extend those respects to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples here tonight and joining us online. Once again I'd like to thank Paul Geroa House and Son Ruben for his inspiring welcome to country. He is a great part of the ANU community. Tonight we're also honoured to have the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, the Honourable Linda Bernie, with us and you will hear from her later how much an Indigenous voice would mean to her and her successors. I acknowledge the other parliamentarians and dignitaries from the diplomatic community and elsewhere in the audience tonight and I welcome everyone, wherever you're watching from, to this special occasion. I'm especially grateful for those here in Llewellyn Hall at the ANU and on 23 campuses around the country for coming together for a conversation that matters to us all. In a few months every Australian must vote in a referendum to decide on whether our constitution will recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as Australia's first peoples and to establish a voice to parliament on matters affecting Indigenous Australians. Voting in a referendum gives everyone real power. It's not just showing up for your democracy sausage, it's a change to our constitution. To use that power properly and with integrity, each of us need to understand the issues at stake and that's why this evening's conversation matters. We have to listen and learn before we cast our vote. And listening and learning in our fractious political environment is hard. In my own reflections, possibly as an American who sees just how toxic and polarized the politics of my homeland has become, is that sometimes we need to find ways to have a calm and evidence-based discussion around such important matters. This can get in the way of policy. But universities, especially here at the A&U, on a question of national importance, we can create what I hope is a sanctuary where we can host debates that replace the heat with light. So tonight what you will hear are expert responses to questions everyone will have the chance to ask. Now the discussion won't be free from politics, we have a labour and hopefully soon a Liberal senator who's still being excused out of Parliament and will be here soon on the panel. However, this is a respectful environment where the tough questions can be asked and honest answers are given by people who have shaped our national conversation on the voice. We're not here to avoid the questions, we're here to actually tease them out. That is the purpose of tonight. Now we don't have all perspectives represented on the panel and some people find that frustrating. But the spirit of the voice proposal is about creating dialogue and greater understanding and that is also the spirit of tonight's event. Some may disagree with that spirit or with the whole idea of a voiced Parliament. Some may think on one hand it's a risk or on the other hand that it goes nowhere near far enough. Or you may come out this evening simply wanting to know even more about the yes and no case. That last outcome to me is a great outcome. A university exists to advance knowledge and to spark curiosity. If the voice succeeds in the referendum there will be significant change and as with all change there is uncertainty. And that's why I am encouraging and want all Australians to arm themselves with the information they need to make an informed choice when they vote later this year. Polls show the outcome of the referendum is likely to be close. The fact that you are all here tonight means you want to understand and I thank you for that. And I encourage each of you to encourage your friends and family to go out and learn the detail behind the referendum so that everyone can pass a considered personal judgment when voting later on in the year. With that it's time to listen to and learn from our eminent panel. I want to thank Professor Mark Kenny, our moderator, as well as our panelists. Your wisdom will help us all. Mark, over to you. Well thank you very much Brian and thank you to Paul, your house as well. Can I thank the Minister also for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney who as Brian said will rise to make some concluding remarks after our panel discussion. I'm Mark Kenny, I'm Professor here at the ANU. I'm formerly of the Press Gallery for many years. I host a podcast called Democracy Saucid which I'm going to take the shameless advantage of this fantastic group here to plug the podcast. So get on that if you can, a great episode out just in the last couple of days about climate change. But we're here to talk about another big issue tonight of course. And so we have a terrific panel which I now am very glad to say has fully constituted itself before your very eyes. So let's meet them. Professor Megan Davis, who I understand is with us. Is that correct? She's meant to be with us as it were online rather than in person. She is meant to be there. The first hitch and it's come up in about first 30 seconds. We'll go straight past that for the time being and get some advice on that. Dean Parkin on the end is a proud Kwandamuka man of Merringaba, which is North Stradbroke Island. He's the director of the Yes campaign Alliance, which aims to achieve a successful referendum on Indigenous constitutional recognition through a voice. So he's very much to the face of the voice and moving around the country. Would you welcome Dean Parkin. On his right, I believe. Yes, got to get my list and right. Correct. On his right is Senator Andrew Bragg, is a Liberal Senator for New South Wales and an ANU alum, I should just add. His 2021 book was titled Burajah, the Liberal Case for National Reconciliation. Yet he's also had some things to say. I suppose it's a critical of the political framing of the voice. We'll probably hear a bit of this from him, but in relation to whether enough work has been done to build the political consensus, I guess, the middle ground support for the voice prior to it being put to a referendum. So his perspective will be very interesting as well. Would you welcome Senator Andrew Bragg. Coming this way is Senator Janice Stewart, is a Labor Senator for Victoria. She is a proud Mutti Mutti and Wamba Wamba woman from Northwest Victoria. And Janice Stewart is both the first Aboriginal Labor Senator for Victoria and the youngest First Nations woman to be elected in the Federal Parliament. Would you welcome her. And finally, on my left here, Sally Scales, who as well as being the Partnership Manager of the Uluru Dialogue, is a... I can't say it correctly. Bidangara? Bidangara woman from the APY lands in the far west of my own home state, South Australia. Sally is an artist and she's been part of the leadership team for the Uluru Statement Reform. So welcome, Sally. Dean, I might just start with you. We're going to go to some questions, but I'll just have a couple of little frame-up questions, I suppose, just to give a sense of the perspectives that each brings to the panel. You've been travelling around the country as part of your responsibilities leading the Yes 23 campaign. What are you picking up from the grassroots in the communities? I'm not talking just about First Nations communities, I'm talking about the communities where... Because this is a vote for the whole of the Australian people, of course. So what are you picking up in terms of the enthusiasm and the level of engagement and understanding? Are people engaged yet with this issue? Yeah, thanks, Mark. And thank you, Paul, for the very warm welcome to country this evening. Pay my respects to your old people. And thank you for having us here on your land. And I've said this for a while now. There's two distinct conversations happening. And when I say Canberra, I don't necessarily mean this place. I mean that place up on the hill. That is one type of conversation that has been had around this, and it has been very much driven by the media and politicians going at this with kind of really old-school political tactics in creating a lot of diversions and trying to distract Australians from what's actually at stake here. And so that's been one conversation. But the conversation at the community level is just completely different. I mean, we've built the campaign very quickly over the last few months to the point. Now, we've got 20,000 active volunteers on the ground that are door-knocking now on a daily basis. More than half of those volunteers, by the way, have never participated in the political process before. They're not members of a political party. They're just Australians getting behind this yes vote. I've been out there on the ground with them. I've been travelling around the communities. Last night I was in the Hewanville Town Hall just south of Hobart in Tasmania, talking to a room full of 100 people there. And there's a tremendous amount of curiosity about this issue, because Australians really know that referendums, they're about us. They're not actually about politicians who are part of this process, but ultimately, when it comes down to the referendum, it's about us as citizens casting our vote. And I think we'll cast our vote for the yes. So there's curiosity. There's generosity. There's real openness to the idea. There's a sort of sense of wanting to know about what this is about. And there's a tremendous amount of support there. They're literally, and it's not being told, there are millions of Australians that are out there ready to vote yes now. It's an extraordinary thing to be part of, knowing that that group of people are starting to get active and starting to get really visible in the communities. And yes, I'll admit there are people with questions as well. But the difference with the conversation around those questions is that they're actually seeking information. They're not seeking to leverage this as an argument or as a conflict or as something that divides us. They're genuinely trying to inform themselves on what this is about so they can cast their vote in a really informed way. So I know there's a lot of conversation around the polls and they probably will be tonight even. But they're not telling the story of how Australians in communities across the country are approaching this. I think they're missing a very big part of the picture. We know 35 to 40% of the population haven't made their mind up on this. There are some other really big issues facing them at the moment. So we're super encouraged. It's why we've focused our campaign at that ground level. It's why we've put so much effort in making sure that we can build that army of volunteers, get the people out there having the conversations at the Saturday stalls because that's where this campaign is going to be won and that's why we're really enthused about what we're seeing and continuing your drive between now and the vote. Thank you very much. Senator Andrew Bragg, you have I think a different perspective on this in the sense of reading those polls, being aware of what the debate appears to be, how the debate appears to be being understood by the broader electorate. And you've made some remarks about whether this referendum has been timed correctly and whether the sort of work has been done to build that support across. There are people in your party, yourself, Bridget Archer, Julie and Lisa, of course, who stepped down from the front bench, who have been supporters of the yes cause but have not been persuasive within your party in turning that around. Perhaps if I could just invite you to just say something about that, what you think could have been done by way of building a stronger middle ground consensus. Yeah, well, it's great to be back at ANU. I probably spent too much time at the Johns Bar in balancing out the time spent at the Menzies Library, but it is great to be back at my old uni. Look, it's been a very difficult issue over the last 12 months since the election because I think it is important that this agenda is front and center for the country. It's something that I believe in. I guess I've tried to be careful and judicious with my commentary over the last 12 months. When I thought that the government was mismanaging things, I guess I didn't really want to say too much because I didn't want to injure the debate. I'm probably kicking myself now that I wasn't more forthright, which probably goes against my general approach because I think that there is a lack of what I would call center ground at this juncture that would be desirable for this to be successful. A particular approach was adopted by the government and we are where we are. I still think it's possible that it could be successful, but I think it's going to be so much harder than it could have been. And I guess what I'm really talking about here is establishing a process where everyone could have bought in. And what we had was a process where effectively the government developed an approach. They introduced a bill into the parliament and that was the government's policy. It wasn't an approach where there was a long-running committee of the parliament that made bipartisan recommendations ideally, and then we went from there. So I felt that the process was mismanaged, but as I say, Mark, I guess I'm in reflection kicking myself now that I didn't make these points at the time, but I bit my tongue largely because I thought that it wasn't going to be all that helpful. So I think it is salvageable at this point, but it is very hard. I mean, this is about trying to capture as much middle ground as possible. There's some way to go, of course, and so we'll see the extent to which the campaigns, when they're up and running at full energy, the extent to which they shape public opinion as well on top of the ground campaign that Dean was talking about. Senator Jana Stewart. Lydia Thorpe in Your State is a fellow Indigenous senator but has taken a different perspective on the voice. Her complaint is different from the complaint coming from the coalition broadly and her complaint is it doesn't do enough. What's your sense of the way the debate or support for the voices is within your community, within Victoria in particular? Thank you. I just want to say thanks for the welcome to country, and I want to acknowledge the Minister for Indigenous Australians to Minister Bernie in the room. I think there's this, I don't know, misnomer out there that somehow First Nations communities just by some exception that we share the same identity all agree. And you've actually just seen a really good example of on stage here where not even everybody in the Liberal Party agrees about what we should do, but somehow First Nations communities are supposed to be homogeneous and all agree to something. We are like every other community. There will be people who disagree with anything. I'm sure that on any topic in this room right now, if we were to do a survey, you would not get 100% consensus. But the most recent surveys show that 83% or 84% of First Nations people across the country support enshrining a First Nations voice in our constitution. That is a thumping majority by anybody's standards, but somehow First Nations communities are getting held to a higher standard than 83%. Can you imagine anybody in this room being held to a higher standard than that, than we are right now? So I think that there's that, like that just needs to be put to bed that somehow we are all gonna agree on the same issue. I think while we've got different views about how we might get there, I think we can all agree that where we are right now as a nation and the outcomes of First Nations people are unacceptable. I think we all agree on that. We all agree that we need change. We might have different ideas about how we're gonna get there, but something needs to shift and this is the opportunity before us enshrining a voice in our constitution. Thank you. Sally Scales.  You work with communities in the API lands. Do you have a sense, as I've seen reported, but I have no way of knowing, I'm very interested to hear what your on the ground view of this is. A sense of there being a difference, but I mean, because one of the conservative arguments is, this is being promoted by urban First Nations peoples, elites, you know, that kind of argument. Sorry. No, no, sure enough. What is your sense of the understanding of the Uluru process and the voice to parliament that comes from it between the country and the city? So I was a part of the Uluru dialogues. I went to the Ross River one and Ross River's out of Alice Springs and the process that Professor Davis and Pat Anderson and old Pearson did was incredible. The referendum council, what they did was incredible. You know, they wanted it, they wanted the local community and the local community organization to hold it. They sent the invitations out. They wanted community representatives, but they didn't want people who were already in power positions like the chair of, you know, the land council or all of that sort of stuff. So they wanted everyday people. And I remember getting the email and going, at least yes, I don't know what it's about. God, and I was just ignored it because that's my tactic, I just ignored it. And then I get a phone call from a family friend who was like, Sally, you have to go to this. I'm forcing you to come along to this. I was like, all right, trudged along. What they had done is Professor Davis and her team at UNSW at the Indigenous Law Center had spent the whole week working with translators in Central Australia to make sure that the translators knew what we were going to be speaking about. They had the comprehension of Rada so that the elders and everyday people that were in the room were comfortable in their own language. And the conversations, being at Ross River, that dialogue was incredible because the conversations, and Dean was there. Dean had, Dean was taking all the notes.  I had to correct him a couple of times. You took the pen off me in the middle of the room. I remember that, yeah. Gotta do what you gotta do. But what was incredible was the leadership sitting there going, well, don't they want to know us? That was one of the things that kept coming up. Like, we've got this history and the Australian public know a small version of it and one lends through it. You know, there is the good, the bad and the ugly of the representations of First Nations community and colonization. But it was also like, how many times we have spoken up in different ways to Canberra, to Darwin, to Melbourne, to Adelaide, all the capital cities and spoken about the issues on the ground. And it was like we were yelling in a vacuum going, listen to us. And this was an opportunity where everyone was saying, oh, far out, if they could hear us, if we could be at that table, if we can make some changes, how incredible. And what's happening now, like it took six years. I mean, like the conversation that, oh, you know, we would have done it differently or the change or we could have done a bit like that. You know, the process could have been done better. It's actually taken six years to get here. Six years of turning every no or a maybe into, okay, let's do it. Like, think about that. Six years of having to sit in going, it is, we have to do this. We have to be heard. We need to sit at the table because our communities are suffering. And politicians are saying, no, no, no, not now. No, it's gonna be a third chamber. No, this is not gonna work. You know, and our communities on the ground saying, well, we want our communities to better. We want the basic rights and necessities that should be afforded to us. We talk a lot about closing the gaps in those targets. But I can tell you right now in South Australia, when I have someone from the executive government on the state level and someone from the federal level and the executive government, and when you're talking to them, Anisha on the ground, they do the tic-tac-toe. Oh, no, that's your business. Oh, no, that's yours one. Like, hey guys, isn't it both of yours? Don't you need to be doing it more? And that's where communities are saying that that road to Canberra is gonna be easier. Sammy Wilson, who's the traditional owner of Uluru who gave the permission for the use of the Uluru name on the Uluru St. from the heart said, every year we constantly give two, and hopefully you guys actually know what these are, but two phone books, yellow pages of information. Phone book, what's that? And he said that it seems like they don't ever read more than the top sheet. Think about that, how much information we give and that's from all the reports that we have to justify our spending. That's from all the Royal Commissions, all that sort of information that we've ever partaken in. And they're only reading the top sheet. And that's what we want to, this is what communities saying, we get to say, we get to be there, our communities can be better. And also the argument around the fiscal responsibilities and the amount of times I've met and minister state and federal who want an idea for themselves and they have, oh my God, I've got this brilliant idea, we're gonna do it. Our communities are sitting there going, that's not gonna work here. We know what we need, listen to us. And imagine that if you actually listen to communities on the ground and they were part of the conversation at the start of it, not at the end when you're having to say, here it is, take it or leave it. And Aboriginal communities for decades have said, okay, we'll try and make that work. And when we fail, we're at fault. So on the community ground, on that local level as Dean was saying, everyone's excited, everyone is wanting this and hoping for this change. Thank you. Now, as you will have seen, Professor Megan Davis happily has now joined us. No one's more relieved than me, actually. Professor Megan Davis, the Bownaves chair in constitutional law at University of New South Wales and the director of the Indigenous Law Center at the same university. She's the author of several books and a recent quarterly essay, excellent quarterly essay, I might say, and countless articles. And she was the first person to read out the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017 and repeated that, I think, just recently on the sixth anniversary of that. Welcome, Professor Megan Davis. Renewa, but it's going over the next week. I might just start by asking you, as I have gone along the panel, Megan, to very briefly, if you could, because we want to get to the student questions, but just address the point about how much consultation was in that early process that led up to the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Because, you know, this goes to this narrative about it, that some people have pushed that it's some sort of elite preoccupation. Well, I'm sure Dean and Sally, who are there, have prosecuted a pretty good argument on this. It was really exhaustive. And as Dean knows, he was on that whole journey with me, exhausting. But, you know, when we had the opportunity to do this, that the opportunity of constitutional recognition arrived. And there were a few hiccups, and then by 2015, we were able to argue for a mob-only process under the auspices of the Referendum Council. We sat down and set out a pretty ambitious consultation process that involved an entire year of prep. So when I say preparation, I mean that we designed it over a number of months. And then we rolled it out and met with different cohorts of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, running by them what we were going to do in terms of these regional dialogues. That was really important, because it was a kind of process that had never been run before, and that it wasn't a town hall, it wasn't an unstructured free-for-all, but it was a really important, structured, deliberative process that engaged with the principle of free, prime and informed consent. And so to enable our people to participate in that, it required a number of dimensions that we had to put in place to ensure that everybody received the same information. And we had enough expertise on site and enough controls to ensure that the outcome at the end of the day was a robust outcome, which is what was one of our driving, I suppose, one of the driving dimensions of the work that we were doing. So for the first year, and I don't want to track over what Dean or Sally might have said, we ran three major conferences where we brought in traditional owners in Broome. And also our national peaks and Aboriginal organisations on Thursday Island, and then a major meeting in Melbourne with key leaders. And in those meetings, we ran through what we designed in terms of the deliberative dialogue. So that meant the structure, the three-day structure of what the First Nations dialogues would look like to ascertain from our people, to ascertain from a sample of our people, what constitutional or what meaningful constitutional recognition was to them. At that point, both parties were coalescing around an idea of constitutional recognition being only symbolic, but we knew that that would not be acceptable to First Nations communities. And so we designed a process where they would be able to freely decide in a very bottom-up process what their region thought was meaningful constitutional recognition. As Dean and Sally would have alluded to, there was nothing elitist about the process. I think that's a very simple way for the no campaign and others to dismiss what went on here. But in that process in 2016 and the lead-up to us rolling out the dialogues, we got that feedback from our mob. We built it into the dialogue about what we should be doing and not doing and their critical feedback and their support. And then we ran a trial dialogue at Melbourne Law School. And at that trial dialogue, we brought in all of the people that would facilitate the conversations in the dialogues, although we banned the word facilitation because facilitators aren't really great in the Indigenous Affairs Policy area. So we had all local people. So it had to be someone who was local to the region who knew people and knew the issues. So it was a really carefully crafted process. And it needed to be one that engaged people who don't normally have a voice. That was a really critical, I guess, part of the process was that if you just allowed people who always get a voice to participate, the outcome may have been different. But what we wanted was local communities to choose leaders in their region. And those leaders are not ones well-known by journalists or by media. They're the ones that don't get to talk. They don't have the fancy passes to fly to Canberra. Every sitting week to lobby politicians, they're just ordinary mob in communities who have devoted their lives to the service of their communities. And that's what's so critical about the work that we did do. And then after the trial dialogue, we kicked off in Hobart in December and then rolled out, you know, up until May a series of First Nations regional dialogues and then the national dialogue. I mean, it's true. It's important to say that there are key leaders who believe that they should dominate, that their ideas should dominate, and that they shouldn't have to sit there and go through processes that enable ordinary mob to participate in something like this. But one of the key driving forces of the design was to break down group think and to ensure that people couldn't gain the process, but rather individuals and collectives were having that opportunity to hear about the legal reforms, to participate in a process of civics education and legal education, to participate in breakout groups and then the plenary groups, which Dean led. And then at the end of the day, come out with a decision that they all participated in. So the record of meeting for every dialogue captured the dissent, the tension, the disagreement and the agreement. Everything is in there. Everything is there. And then people came to a consensus at the end of that document and part of the triumph of all the rules that we captured that dissent and the agreement and the disagreement. And by no definition or analysis could it be regarded as an elitist process at all. I think that that diminishes the role of the men and women who participated in that process. And it disappoints me to hear people when they do say that, because I think it robs our people on the ground of agency. And a lot of that has happened in the kind of wash-up now with the no campaign and others suggesting that these people, you know, were just puppets of other people. I think that that's a deeply disappointing way for something that was a great Australian innovation to be reduced to. Thank you very much, because I think it's really important for everyone to hear and I understand that some people on Zoom may not have been able to hear that as clearly as would have been ideal. But it is very good, I think, in a forum like this, to be able to hear the extent to which that was a highly structured process. I particularly like your use of the term civic education process in the undertaking of this task, the process of drawing people in and educating them in the ways in which power can be exercised, debate can be had and issues weighed up and a consensus reached. And that's, I think, really important in understanding where this comes from, rather than just the glib suggestion that some might have that it was the preoccupation of a few privileged urban leaders. Let's move now quickly into our questions. And I'm going to put these essentially as bluntly as they are provided. In some cases that will be more blunt than others. Claudia from University of New South Wales asks, in the scenario that the referendum does not pass, what does that say about our contemporary national identity, particularly in light of our colonial history and the move towards a more inclusive Australia? Janna, perhaps I could ask you to address that. Do you think there is... Does this have implications for the way Australia sees itself and the way Australia will be seen? For me, I actually prefer to think about it and frame it as the opportunity that's ahead of Australians. What it looks like when we say yes. What it looks like when we wake up the day after referendum and the nation has said to First Nations people, we see you and we want to hear what you've got to say. We wake up a more united country than we were the day before. That's what this whole conversation is about. It is about recognising the oldest continuous culture in the world, in our constitution. An absolute indictment on our country that that has not happened already. It is about acknowledging that the place where First Nations people are now with respect to health, education, jobs, housing is unacceptable and should be unacceptable to every Australian. It's saying we want to hear what you've got to say about how we as a parliament and as a country address the challenges that you uniquely face in this country. It's about saying we see you, we hear you, we want to be a better nation than we are today. And I think that's actually something that we should be striving for every day. We should always be striving to be better than we were the day before. And that represents the very best of who we are as a country, want to leave our country in a better place than it was today, than it is today for the next generation after us. It's something that I constantly think about in the job that I'm in. Who is this for? Why are we doing this? For me, the fire in my belly is about having left something better for our next generation. I don't want my sons to grow up inheriting the same statistics that every other mob that's sitting up here and in the audience have inherited. Right now, mob up here are going to die seven to eight years younger than people in the audience, just because we were born black in this place. If that doesn't put the fire in your belly, I don't know what will. We do not want our kids to inherit the same things that we have today. And you actually have the power to do something about that. With three letters, you can change the trajectory of each of our families' lives with three simple letters. How incredible would it be to wake up in a country that says yes to that? Thank you very much. My sort of least working instruction to the panel is to essentially stick to one person answering each question. Unless you feel a burning desire, there is absolutely no prohibition on... I feel like that's directed at politicians not to cut in. Well, some people are professional talkers, but I'm in no position to moralise on that. But it's just so we can get through some of these questions. But if you do feel like you wish to either contest something that's been said or whatever, then by all means, of course, do so. The next question, which I think probably might be well-directed that you, Megan, is from Zoe, also from the University of New South Wales. Can you comment on the argument that a voice will legally prevent a treaty in the future? So there's nothing in a constitutional recognition provision that can prevent a treaty. I mean, partly because the actual provision doesn't expressly exclude a treaty, but also because treaty is already being done at a state and territory level by states and territories, Northern Territory, South Australia, Queensland, Victoria, Commitment in New South Wales, Commitment in WA, Commitment in Tasmania. So there's a lot of treaty activity going on around the Federation. We know that a treaty can already be created through the head of power, Section 51 and 26, the race power. So there's nothing in a constitutional recognition provision such as the voice provision that can prevent the Commonwealth participating in that treaty activity. Now that it's starting to be settled that First Nations have gone with state and territory treaties, those treaties will be ordinary acts of parliament, so legislation, ordinary legislation, under state parliaments and territory parliaments. In the course of negotiating that document, there is no prohibition on the Commonwealth becoming party to that. And certainly I know in relation to the work of Victoria that a particular chapter, it'll be the same as every state and territory, will be left for the time that the Commonwealth chooses to come on board. But legally, there's nothing in the recognition provision that would prevent the negotiation of treaties anywhere within the Commonwealth. Thank you. A question from Claudia from University of New South Wales. Do you think the toxic debate in the media surrounding the voice to parliament is affecting the well-being of indigenous Australians? Yes. Well, Sally? Yes. Tell us how. Look, we can see it from all levels of it where everyone's getting attacked in different ways. It's really hurtful and also the conversations, the racist conversations that are happening. It hurts our communities. When people who are also in power positions, they forget that. They forget what it means for communities on the grounds and the things that we've had to suffer through already. But yeah, definitely. I won't go in. I'm getting all emotional. I don't know why. I'm not very emotional. I'm not really an emotional person. But it's really hard and it's really difficult. And when you've been doing it, the thing that people forget with this, the ask from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities isn't just been the past six years. It hasn't been since Labor said we're going to do a referendum. It's been a long time coming. We've constantly been asking to have a change, be a part of the conversation, change it up. You know, we've stuck with the status quo for so many years. You know, like in South Australia, we started a treaty process, next government comes in, gets rid of it, we're trying again. Our communities have constantly been failed by everybody, and then we're having to then justify it. I mean, the brilliancy of those elders at Uluru, the incredible heart and the hope and the aspirations they had were saying, well, actually, we need to give this invitation of an opportunity to the everyday Australian people. They didn't give it to the politicians. They gave it to everyday Aussies to walk alongside us. And to see the full-on attacks in different way, like social media is the most horrible beast you can ever think of. But it's, yeah, it's been horrible all around, all around. Yes, I think it's something that's easy to forget that it's quite a process we saw in the same-sex marriage survey in 2017. A narrative around this, an understanding, I think, that section of the community was essentially having a judgment passed on their nature by the rest. And some people felt that was unreasonable. Others were less exercised about it. But if it was true, then it's certainly true now as well in terms of this debate. And it's, as you say, I think far too easily forgotten in what is a pretty robust sort of public discourse all of the time. Yeah, the other thing that I was saying, that there was, like we've seen a negative impact on LGBTQ plus communities. And we had a successful outcome in that instance. The other thing that I would say is that words and language have been used as a powerful weapon against First Nations communities since colonization. This is not a new thing for us. It's actually re-triggering. It re-triggers a whole lot of trauma for our mob, how words are used against us in so many forms and particularly in places like our parliament. And we're seeing those same, you know, weaponized words being used now against us. Shamefully so. But the main point that I wanted to make really is that you can actually play a part in lightning the load for First Nations communities this year. You can actually do something about it. And that is really about being loud and proud about your support for enshrining a voice in our constitution. Because there's gonna be a weight of responsibility on lots of First Nations people. We're gonna bear the brunt of lots of it. But you can share the load with us. You can be talking about how great this is. You can talk about black excellence. And I think it's gonna be really important for mob to see because lots of negative things are gonna be said about us. And we need something and good forces to counter that. And that's where you come into play. The louder and prouder you can be, the better it'll be for all of us. Can I just add this? Absolutely, Eco, Sally's and Jana's comments here. I give a slightly different perspective also, as well as being in the rooms and knowing that tens of thousands now, right now as we speak, Australians are mobilizing in support of this gives me a lot of hope as well. And it gives me hope because it is what the old people, when they were advising us on how we should present the Uluru Statement, that we should make it about the Australian people, not about the politicians. They knew that it was the hard road. Let's be very frank here. They had a very, very clear-eyed view. They understood the history of how difficult it is to win a referendum in this country. But they knew it was also the right one. This time in our history, what we had achieved through Uluru, the Uluru Statement from the heart, it had to go to the Australian people. The hard way was the right way. So while they knew that we were going to go down this hard road and they knew that some of what Sally and Jana have talked about and all of us have witnessed and experienced, they knew that that would happen. When we're seeing the tens of thousands of people mobilizing in support of this campaign, they also imagine that as well. They imagine this movement of the Australian people, and it is growing. And so that is the other thing that gives me hope in this, that through these difficulties, we are also seeing the very best of Australians that are getting behind us from all walks of life across the country in places we wouldn't imagine coming out very strongly in support of yes. So that gives us a deep level of encouragement for the work that we've got over the next couple of months. Thank you. Thank you very much. Andrew, I think I might buy this question at you. This is from Rebecca at the University of Tasmania. In creating only an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parliamentary voice, does Australia risk disenfranchising other minority groups? Moreover, given that we have a system of representative government, does Australia really need the voice? What's your response to that with those sorts of sentiments that have been put to you presumably even by people in your own party? Well, I mean, I've never, I mean, obviously there are parallels with the same-sex marriage debate. This is about a minority group in our country. There are differences between how this campaign has been developed and how that campaign was developed and run. But the main point here is that Indigenous people are the only group of Australians that have a whole slew of laws made for them at state and territory levels. Based on their race. And so in Canberra, where we are tonight, we have, I think it's 18 or 19 different race-based laws made for Indigenous people. So my view as a Liberal has always been that it's very and deeply illiberal to deny people a say over the deployment of special laws. I mean, the idea that this is the introduction of race completely ignores the last 250 years. I've referred to race-based laws, which we run at a Commonwealth level, but the states run the bulk of race-based policy. If you go into any regional town in New South Wales, you'll discover an Aboriginal medical service. That's a race-based policy. Even the discussion about the closing the gap agenda is a race-based initiative. So that is the main answer. Thank you. Sam from University of New England asks, how is the voice to Parliament going to genuinely enhance the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are some of the most vulnerable Australians? What changes will we see or will they see in their lives with this proposal? Will it improve their overall quality of life? Now, I think this is that sort of, very much that kind of direct instrumental question about the voice. Janna, you're nodding. Yeah. So you should nod because I take that as you're itching to go. I feel like in any of the mobs sitting up here, we'll have similar examples as well. But there is bucket loads of evidence out there. It's really a no-brainer that when mob have a seat at the table, our families are healthier and our children are healthier. That's not rocket science, actually. Because if you think about it, if you think about a challenge that you've experienced in your life, in your family, who is the best person to come up with a solution to the challenges that you might face? It is you. Just the same is true for us. When there's a challenge for us, we are best placed to be in the driver's seat coming up with those solutions. I've seen it on the ground. I'm a family therapist by trade. I've done the clinical work in the room with families, supporting families to come up with their own solutions to their challenges, both mainstream families and Aboriginal families. It is not rocket science at all. We heard evidence through the referendum inquiry. The process that happens through the parliament, legislation gets sent off to an inquiry before it comes back to the parliament to be either passed or not. There were Aboriginal organisations who presented through that process in maternal services, in child protection, who gave evidence after evidence that spoke to the fact that when our mob are at the table, our communities, our families and our children are healthier. I just don't feel like that should be a controversial thing at all. The obverse is also true, isn't it, that if you deny people that access to make decisions about themselves, then it actually adds to the problem. Well, it's the same. It's the same that we're sitting in. You know, if we don't change it, it's going to be the same old, same old. You know, Aboriginal people continually getting the blame for the mismanagement of governments, whether it's federal or state or the executive governments. You know, like talking about realistic changes in a community, like I was 19 when our communities asked for food security changes in our regional remote communities. Now, the APY land is 18 hours from Adelaide. It's nine hours from our springs. Our food comes from Adelaide. You know, 14 years ago, an iceberg lettuce was costing $14. A box of nappies was $48, and I'm talking black and gold. And that I'm talking 20. And we asked to subsidise the cost of freight. And a minister chose to do a market garden in the remote communities. Now, I'm from a desert-arid community. We advised this minister this is not gonna work. Her Aboriginal Affairs Commissioner said this will not work. She chose to do it anyway. She wasted a million dollars that we were asking for 500,000 over five years. That's one example from 14 years ago. Think about if you look at the Productivity Commission that came out recently and all that sort of information that's in there, how many times the money that is earmarked for Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander communities, how much actually hits the floor? How much actually hits the floor? That's going to be the change.  I don't care about the nuts and the bolts of the submarines, but what do I care about?  If we're gonna build new ports for these submarines, where are those ports gonna be? How is those Aboriginal communities going to be consulted and worked with? You talked about climate change before.  It impacts our communities. Where are the Torres Strait Islander communities coming here and being part of these conversations about climate change? How has the fire services changed how they do back-burning since the significant fires we've had and everyone talked about, we need to go back to how Aboriginal people were looking after country? I don't think that's changed. We're good at talking about change, but we actually aren't about implementing it. We aren't actually sitting there going, be a part of this conversation, be at this seat, be at this table. Think about the circles that you're in and how many times you've done a welcome to country or there's a reconciliation plan in those spaces. But who's in the room? Who's having those conversations? How are you doing a change in your communities? Because I know a voice would change my communities. I know us having a seat at the table will change it because we can sit there and go, this will not work. We've already got something similar that actually needs to be funded properly. Stop treating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities like they're the same. You've got four Aboriginal people up here. Our communities are not the same. Our lived experiences in our communities are not the same. But there's a weirdness that happens that Aboriginal communities, you said it at the start, there's a weirdness where people talk about regional, remote and urban communities. We're very different. People have treated us that there's a sameness, oh, one size fits all. But I can absolutely guarantee you that if we get this up, when we have this opportunity and communities can sit at the table and they can have representations there who can make meaningful change that is going to change the lives of our babies, of our old people. Of not spending $48 on a pack of $10 nappies. Thank you. Dean, Jamma from University of New South Wales asks, what are some of the tips now? You're the expert on this, right? So what are some of the ways or tips that you may offer by way of assistance when talking about the voice to our friends, when trying to, I guess, get them across the line? What are the sorts of best arguments that they should be putting forward? Yeah, let's not overcomplicate it. Let's just start having the conversation with our families and friends and the simple act of expressing why you support this will give your family and friends confidence that they can, too. We actually just need more and more people talking in very simple terms why you support this. Some people will like these panels and like hearing from us. Most people want to hear from people like themselves. They want to hear from people in their communities and their families and their streets and their workplaces. Clearly, looking from the heart about why this is important to you. Now, we can talk about a campaign and this will be the biggest campaign the country has ever seen.  But actually, it's really, really simple. And we've got some pretty smart folk in our organization that have done the numbers. If every single one of our supporters talks to two people who are currently unaware or undecided and gives them enough information that they say they're going to vote yes, we win. If every single one of our supporters brings two of their family or friends from unsure, undecided, unaware over to yes, we will win this referendum. So, yeah. So, I would say to all of our supporters now the Prime Minister hasn't announced the date yet. We've got an idea or a guess where we're aiming. We think somewhere around maybe the middle of October but that is the best guesses. So, we don't have a lot of time left. If this is something that you believe in don't wait for any more invitations. Don't seek further permission from anybody else not from Sally or Megan or Yana or myself or Minister Bernie or anybody else. Don't look around. Just start engaging and talking with your people because as I say, every single conversation counts. But I think, Dean, what the question is asking and I accept all of that and that's perfectly valid but I think what flows then is that in those conversations things come back to an advocate that they hear in the media that, for example, it's going to create two classes of people in the constitution or the term re-racialised was used at one stage. So, I suppose people are looking for ways in which they can address those arguments they can dispatch those arguments if those arguments are invalid. Yeah, well there's a couple of really steady resources Sally and Megan have done some incredible work with the Uluru Dialogues on dispelling a lot of those or answering those questions and so forth and giving a lot of information. You can go to s23.com.au there's an incredible amount of information there that can talk you through the frequently asked questions to give you these answers and responses to these questions. I mean, I'm not going to go through line by line now and give the speaking points to every one of the issues that are raised. We'll be here a while. But I encourage you to use those resources. If you don't know, find out is the actual slogan. If you don't know, find out and go to s23.com.au get that information and I would highly encourage you there's more than 200 community groups now for yes across the country, yeah? Communities across the nation organising themselves into yes, coalitions. As I say, they're bringing people together that I haven't been involved in politics before. They're multi-partisan. They're multi-cultural. Like-minded folk who are also great sources of wisdom and support and expertise get involved in the campaign. This is the time to do it now. So there are those resources at hand but I will come back just don't over complicate it because a lot of, and this is my experience like actually when you're out in community having these yarns a lot of these questions are posed in the media as these great big technical very hard I've got to be a constitutional lawyer I've got to be a politician I've got to be an Indigenous person to be able to answer them. Again, that's not the kind of conversations that are happening at the ground simply by expressing and showing your support talking about why it's meaningful to you don't underestimate how far that will go in giving other people confidence that this is something that they can support get the merchandise, wear the shirt put the core foods up, put the bumper stickers on the more that we can show that more Australians are getting on board with this it will generate and it already is starting to generate more of that momentum in support of this. Andrew Bragg, the dean mentioned it there or sort of alluded to it there the sort of sense of risk that is sometimes mounted in the argument about the change how do you go about addressing that in terms of the perhaps weighing it with the risk of not changing the risk of continued failed programs continued failed policy can you give us an insight into what works because I suppose you're talking often about constituency that is perhaps certainly the internal party constituency anyway that is perhaps less inclined to this yeah well I think there's a couple of groups of risks there Mark the first set of risks is related to the over egging of some of the rhetoric and if you go back and you've got a VHS or a beta or some sort of similar technology you'll be able to get a tape and look at what was said around the same-sex marriage debate from 2017 and I mean that was going to be I mean the fact that we're still here now is unbelievable I mean it's been obviously a tough few years to have rebuilt planet Earth but obviously I really appreciate all the free labour but I mean that was basically the end of the world back then and so I would urge you to look at what some people said back then so I think you've got to take some of these comments about risk with a grain of salt and look really carefully at them the second risk though which I think you're mainly referring to is the risk of the status quo prevailing and I think the reality is that it is very difficult to imagine that we would be back looking at this concept in detail if it is defeated in the immediate short term and we know that from the Republic referendum so I think people can try and argue the status quo is acceptable I think that's a I've not heard anyone ever say that so I think you can dismiss both of those risks actually quite easily but look I mean Yes but let's be frank it is a pretty core set of arguments that have been put up if you don't know vote know that it's permanent that it will have unknown consequences these sorts of things are essentially about establishing some level of fear about making a change abstracted from the notion of continued ongoing failure I understand that but I mean that's because the politicians are involved Thank you, alright well let's move on Sorry Dean I'll give you a final word on that Yeah we've seen this and heard this before a couple of times we heard it through Marbeau-Native-Towelack and the WIC amendment remember back then every single backyard was at risk we were coming for your backyards non-indigenous people would only have front yards not backyards because they would be populated by the mob that had just gained these extraordinary powers well that never happened and then the same argument was made about not giving the apology firstly it wasn't going to do anything we're starting to hear that again now and secondly these ambit claims that oh but if we did that we risk billions of dollars in compensation now some of the actors that were involved in that debate are mounting the same debate now on the voice and I think it is on us as Australians we talk about misinformation we talk about all of these things and it's a real thing but only if we allow it to be and I think we can choose better when we hear these things that are obviously designed to invoke fear and division we should also stand up a little bit stronger and a bit straighter in our defence against those things and say actually you've been wrong every time before you've run these scare campaigns none of which you have ever said would happen has happened you're wrong again now let's be very simple this is about recognition through a voice it'll be a very simple question for the Australian people and I think we can cut through that noise and that nonsense and I think we will vote yes later on this year now due to the fact that we're getting short of time I'm going to combine a couple of questions here I think these might be good for you Megan you've essentially covered the same sort of territory Christopher asks from ANU asks are there any contemporaneous examples of similar mechanisms that exist in democratic systems around the world and India also from our ANU asks does a structure like the voice of parliament exist in other countries with an indigenous population if so how effective have they been there's a number of examples around the world I think part of the work towards the voice was drawing on some of the international examples around political representation and the work that had been done at the United Nations in relation to those kinds of representative voices so as most people know the voice to parliament that has or succeeds a number of mechanisms that have already been set up in Australia and abolished and it's important to note that those people who were participants in those prior mechanisms also participated in the drafting of the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples so that particular declaration is imbued with a framework, a normative framework that says that First Nations people indigenous peoples are entitled to participate in the democratic decision making of the state that is what this voice to parliament is about and so many examples internationally have fed into that international law and after that particular declaration was passed by the General Assembly so some of the examples people often point to will be the examples of the Sami obviously in Scandinavia so the Swedish Sami parliament and the Norwegian Sami parliament and the Finnish Sami parliament each of those parliaments are very different in that they have particular legislation that allows them to not just participate or be consulted but in some areas the Sami parliament takes full carriage of particular issues such as Sweden in relation to children's the education of young Sami so that's quite a not a comparative example because I think Australia is very different to most countries so comparative law isn't great when we're looking at Australia because we are so we are retrofitting a kind of constitutional reform that most countries have already done so it's quite apples and oranges there's other examples say for example the Russian Federation in relation to particular autonomous indigenous areas that have representatives that feed into the Juma there's other examples such as in South Africa where there is a particular voice that the South African parliament and government draws upon in relation to indigenous matters and traditional owners and traditional knowledge there's many many examples particularly in the Latin American constitutions with respect to the duty to consult which aligns very much with this voice to parliament it's important to keep in mind though many of those constitutions can be amended via a majority of the parliament changing that constitution as opposed to Australia's which is one of the most rigid constitutions in the world that it requires Australians to change it so it's not a politician led thing although they're trying to lead this process so there are many many examples of this around the world thank you very much John I'm going to give the last word to you and just ask you about the question that's come up a number of times I can't find the exact examples of it now but I've read it a number of times in the plethora of questions we received and it's the one about representation about well if there are First Nations people in parliament at the moment why does they need to be a voice it's a good question and the first is for me as a senator for Victoria I actually represent all Victorians I don't just represent First Nations people in Victoria so that's the first thing that I would say and the other thing that I would say is that while we're very fortunate right now to have a record number of First Nations people in our federal parliament after the next election that actually might not be the case the Australian people might vote differently and we might find ourselves again with no First Nations people in our federal parliament so the number of First Nations MPs in our federal parliament will constantly change the other thing is that Aboriginal people in parliament often constrained by party political lines and that doesn't work for our mob necessarily and I think the biggest difference with having something like the voice is that our mob will get to choose who they want to speak to parliament our mob will get to decide who's there one of the biggest barriers for our communities has been that parliament and governments have chosen who they want to provide them advice about things this is going to change that our mob get to decide who the voices we want to be at the table with government and with parliament and I think that's a well overdue change to how the parliament does its business Dean just quickly as a proscript to that how often does it come up with the understanding about parliament designing the voice the referendum installing the power in the constitution but the parliament having the design of the actual voice mechanism itself yeah and there has been some interest in that and I think again that's been as a result of some confusion that's been sowed in this debate unfortunately very early on which distracted a lot of people attracted the conversation away from the fact that this is actually a very very simple proposition and it is the way that the constitution is changed in this country the Australian people are asked to vote on a point of principle that is how we change the constitution and then it is the duty of politicians the elected representatives of our country to do their job to legislate for the details of the voice so we know that the question now is going to be very simple should we recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of this country and should there be an Indigenous voice before we get to the design before we get to all the nuts and the bolts and the mechanisms and the representative structures we've got to answer a very simple question first should there be one very economically put thank you very much now could you please thank our panel Professor Meaghan Davis, Sally Scales Ben Parkin, Ben Wilkana Stewart and Andrew Bale thank you also for all of you for coming out and for all of the people watching online as as Brian said the Vice Chancellor said at the start 23 universities involve many many other people watching on zoom and so forth it's now my pleasure to invite the minister and more Indigenous Australians Linda Burnie to make a few quick observations thank you Minister well I have an incredibly easy job tonight which is unusual and it's my role tonight to give a vote of thanks and I'd like to say that firstly from my people the people of the Three Rivers and the Great Western Plains I pay my respects to the nonimal and Nambri people and I thank you Paul for your welcome to country and I want to acknowledge the contributions of your mum Matilda who is a proud matriarch who is a good friend to this university and I'd like to also recognize Professor Brian Smith whom I've known for a very long time to as I said Paul to you Mark Professor to also Professor Peter Yu and also Professor Ann Martin thank you to you all and a particular thank you to our panel who I think have been incredibly generous I know everyone on the panel and they work hard to be with you tonight here in the ACT is incredibly generous and I thank you all very very much now let me begin by saying this tonight has filled me with so much hope and optimism for constitutional recognition through a voice indeed for our shared future we're all connected to this ancient continent in both spirit and story we are each a part of one another's lives and we heard that come through the panel this evening this referendum is about coming together of our stories a coming together of Australians old and new, young and old as I have listened to this discussion this evening I am reminded of the true essence of this referendum from all points of the southern sky we have come together tonight to consider the future we want for ourselves and for our children we are much united in a movement of the Australian people for a better future which also came through so powerfully from our panel an Australia that recognises the ancient roots of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our nation's history and an Australian people that want to make a meaningful and practical difference to the lives of their Indigenous people through a voice I want to say a few words to young people and everyone who has been online tonight in lecture halls throughout this country and to you I want to say thank you you are our future and some of our strongest allies this is your moment as the late great Charles Perkins show us with the freedom rides it takes only a handful of motivated students to change a nation so do not miss this bus step right on board because we have a once in a generation chance to move Australia forward we can vote yes to be part of a great unifying moment that will bring about a better future we can vote yes to do the right thing by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to people to say to people to say on issues that affect us to make a practical difference that improves lives friends let us vote yes for recognition listening and better results and those listening and watching on tonight I urge you to campaign for a future you want to see Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have asked us to walk with them so do not wait for a flare to rise from Canberra and as Dean said that place up on the hill until you get started the referendum campaign has begun and as Jana has said it is all within our capacity to do something about it Megan and Sally have spoken at length about the process that led up to this and the request is not from politicians it is from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and there are people like Andrew Bragg and others who are yes liberals for yes and we draw heart from that and go forward with it so the campaign has truly begun get out there talk to your friends talk to your family talk to your fellow students and talk at your workplaces like the ANU has done by pulling this together and producing that fabulous document that you've all been given start a conversation about why the voice is important and how it will make a practical difference and improve lives we will win this referendum conversation by conversation by history people make history and this is our time thank you for all of you for being involved and let's make history together thank you thank you


That I don't think that I should have anything to say, and I've asked my staff to, uh, anything to the, uh, to this whole regrettable situation, or this bad situation.


The current outgoing Spokesperson of the Knight House of Representatives at Bank of Padden, Honourable Benjamin Kalu, has thrown his art into the ring for the speckish praise of the 10th Legislative House. He says he is modern ready and properly equipped to occupy the converted city presently occupied by Honourable Femi Bacha Biamile, who has held sway since 2019. Honourable Kalu says Nigerians need a diversity-sensitive leader who understands the different sentiments of the people of the country and also uses it to build a great country where everyone will have a sense of belonging. The energy of the new people coming on board is that energy that says we want to see freshness in governance and that is what I'm bringing on board transformative legislative interventions you know that is based on innovations and it is only people like us who have been equipped to be able to bridge that. Speaking for the the lawmaker said that for 40 years the South Eastern part of the country has not produced a speaker since the tenure of Honourable Edwin Umezoke as such now is time for the South East and he's prepared to lead his colleagues. From 1983 to date we're talking about 40 years of my people not sitting on that seat. The question is why? Is it that we don't have competent people? Is it that there is no capacity to be there and it is high time we you know introduce our capacity to Nigerians our competence to Nigerians that 40 years four decade was long enough for us to hold the gavel for the House of Representative. We know we will do well when we occupy that position because of what we are thinking of bringing on board that will strengthen our democracy knowing that this is the fulcrum of our democracy. Over seven aspirants have so far emerged for the number on seats in the great chamber in the past weeks but as I often said only one will finally wear the crown. Hello hope you enjoyed the news please do subscribe to our youtube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates