Russell Broadbent, MP

10/9/2023

For five years I have spoken on the Voice and promoted the Voice. … I said to Mim Hook [ABC Gippsland] in an interview more than a month ago was that we must firstly listen to our local Indigenous people.

I was contacted by [Gunaikurnai elder] Cheryl Drayton immediately after the interview. Cheryl told me why she would not be supporting the Voice. It didn't matter what argument I put to Cheryl and the elders in my community, I lost the debate. It was very clear that she came and asked me not to support the Voice and to not be a voice for the Voice.

I said to her, 'Cheryl, can I walk out of these meetings and say that my Indigenous people do not support the Voice?' She said, 'You can surely say that, Russell.'

So I had to go back to Mim this morning and tell her the story of how, at the time, when talking about Indigenous people in my electorate, I said, 'You should be listening to what they have to say on the Murray-Darling Basin, fire management in our native bush and the issues that we've made mistakes on in this country,' and then tell her, 'I don't want to make another mistake by not listening to them on this issue.'

Edited transcript of speech to Parliament, September 4, 2023. Mr Broadbent is the MP for the federal seat of Monash, which encompasses Bass Coast.

20 Comments

Kevin Walsh RFD

10/9/2023 11:51:50 am

With utmost respect for Cheryl Drayton I'm sure she would agree she doesn't speak for all First Nations people. Leaders of the Bunurong Trawlwoolway on whose land I reside have expressed to me a different view.
We must be vigilant against Confirmation Bias (The tendency to only seek evidence to support our already established world view).
I am probably guilty of it also. I try to mitigate this by following the numbers as statistics can tell us what we don't know we don't know.
Statistical studies in Canada indicate that cultural autonomy as a factor in reducing indigenous suicide.
I'm following the numbers that is why I'm voting yes.

Graeme

10/9/2023 11:56:01 am

Would you not think that the Member for Monash, formerly McMillan named after Angus McMillan the butcher of Gippsland might have some empathy for the original inhabitants of this land.But no. Mr flip flop decides that his boss has the right idea and the vast majority of first nations people don’t count,once again.

Surely it’s time that the undecided and If you don’t know vote No Australians took it upon themselves to Look and Learn instead of trusting an ex Queensland plod steeped in (I was only following orders) mentality and vote to keep what Australians have been renowned for,that is ‘Give the other fella a fair go’
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/08/the-scottish-explorer-who-became-the-butcher-of-gippsland

Brian Carr bc2.jpg link

10/9/2023 12:23:22 pm

I've been following this issue since The Uluru Statement of the Heart, and can find absolutely no reason to not vote Yes in the referendum, it's about time we listened to the first nations people and acted on their advice. The 'No' campaign is dominated by party politics with no regard whatsoever for any improvement in indigenous conditions. I know of only a few people in my circle of acquaintances who I think would vote no, the vast majority emphatically support the establishment of a voice to parliament. I've followed the campaign in the media and especially via the SBS 'caravan' through the country, so many positive reasons have been expressed to support the campaign. This is the best chance we have to prove that Australia is a progressive compassionate place, if the referendum is not passed, it will show that we have learned little and retain the paternalistic regressive attitude shown by the invaders 250 years ago....."It's Time"

Linda

10/9/2023 12:57:45 pm

I think those voting NO are too scared to admit it because of being vilified for their choice. Most people I talk to do not understand it at all, so why should they vote YES to something they do not understand? And most have also never even met an Indigenous person. The main problem is we do not know any of the details until after the referendum and it will be a permanent change in the constitution.

Prabha Kutty

19/9/2023 10:21:36 am

The belief that any change in the constitution is permanent is unfounded and should certainly not be believed just because it says so in the NO campaign leaflet.

Google "Australian Constitution" and look at Section 127 and 128. The latter (under the heading Alteration of the Constitution) explains the procedures for altering the constitution and the former is an example of a section that was once there but was cancelled after the 1967 referendum.

Mick Green

10/9/2023 01:51:38 pm

What a weak response from our supposed elected representative. On any of the issues he has raised, he fails to explain how having a representative voice to parliament would be detrimental….good old Rusty stays true to his form…disappointing to see Mr Flip Flop jump around on every issue- marriage equality , immigration policy and now the Voice…just wondering when he might actually move away from the party line and stand up to his convictions?

Felicia Di Stefano

10/9/2023 02:12:02 pm

I believe that Mr Broadbent is disingenuous in his stated reason for changing his vote to no. The first issue I have with our MP's statement is that he does not mention Cheryl Drayton's overwhelming argument against the voice on which he was constantly defeated. Secondly, if Mr Broadbent was really listening to his indigenous constituents he would admit that there are many more in his electorate that support YES. I know very few indigenous people but personally know at least six in our electorate, that will vote YES. The call for the Voice was made by the Uluru Statement from the Heart, the result of the largest and longest (10 years) and most thorough survey of indigenous people ever undertaken. The result was a respectful call "from all points of the Southern Sky" to unite Australians by recognising our First Nations People in our constitution and allowing them agency over their lives which would lead to closing the gaps. I for one with all my heart, accept the invitation. And so should we all.

Rob Parsons

10/9/2023 04:12:46 pm

From Todays News: Aunty Cheryl Drayton will be voting NO.
Kurnai elder Aunty Cheryl Drayton is on a mission to make clear to her local community in the Victorian electorate of Monash that she will be voting No in the Voice referendum and that they should do the same.
Drayton is not affiliated with the No campaign, nor is she a member of a political party. But she is fiercely opposed to the Voice, unconvinced by the arguments of Yes advocates that it will empower grassroots communities when there is little detail about how it will operate.
“While there’s no meat on the bone of how this is going to work, I can’t see how any normal person with a brain could vote for it,” Drayton, 71, said.
One person persuaded by Drayton is Monash MP Russell Broadbent. The veteran Liberal MP had long been an outspoken supporter of the Voice, and even contributed to a book published earlier this year in which he argued a rejection of the proposal would “impoverish” the country.
“It’s a matter of me keeping my integrity. I can’t say one thing – that I’m listening to Indigenous people – and then go and do another,” Broadbent said, explaining why he would now vote No.
“The basis for me changing my position was this woman sitting there and saying to me: ‘we are the Indigenous people in your community. You said you wanted to hear from us. You said you would listen to us’.”

Peter Bogg

10/9/2023 04:55:13 pm

It is pretty simple.

1. recognizing that the indigenous were here before white settlement. Hard to argue against that. Big tick YES.
2. The government should listen to the indigenous advice on matters that effect First Nation people. Good move, better decisions will be made. Big Tick YES.

If you don't know, now you do, so no reason to vote NO.

Felicia Di Stefano

10/9/2023 05:17:11 pm

The 'meat on the bone', Ms Drayton, is that, if YES prevails, the Indigenous people will, gain agency over their own lives. Will be able to make decisions about their future rather then being told theo shalt by the people who usurped their land. May I ask 'what meat on the bone' there is currently with a 10 year gap in life expectancy, unprecedented number of children being removed from families, youth suicide dangerously increasing? This new way has not been tried before, the Indigenous people have been surveyed for 10 years culminating in the Uluru Statement from the Heart which ask us for a YES. When Indigenous people managed their own Covid 19 pandemic, it was the only time in white settlement's history, that the gap reversed in favour of Indigenous people. This is only an advisory body to the parliament on Indigenous people's affairs. If one committee is inadequate in closing the gaps, the Indigenous people can elect another committee. Vote YES!

Rob Parsons

10/9/2023 05:38:45 pm

Peter, 1. I think that everyone recognises that the aboriginals were here before white settlement. That does not make it right to vote yes on a divisive referendum. The referendum itself will not acknowledge this, so the point is invalid.
2. Yes the government should listen to aboriginal advice. Why have they not done so already? They have eleven aboriginal people in Parliament to listen to, but just are not doing so. For instance why will the government not support Yipirina school for extra funding which they desperately need in the Northern Territory right now to build extra dormitories for their school children? It's simply not a good move as you claim and better decisions will not be made that could not be made right now... And should be made right now
Sorry but your reasoning just does not stack up.
So if you don't know, Vote NO.

Bron Dahlstrom

10/9/2023 06:16:24 pm

It’s interesting that Russell Broadbent listened to Aunty Cheryl Drayton and decided he had to vote no, yet he doesn’t pay her the respect of calling her ‘Aunty.’ It’s true that Aunty Cheryl Drayton and a number of other Aboriginal people say to vote no. But why does he listen to Aunty, but not those Aboriginal people who say to vote ‘Yes’. Aunty acknowledged that there are other Kurnai elders who are voting Yes, including her sister. Does listening to one person who approached him mean that he is listening to Aboriginal people? Actually, one of the arguments that some Aboriginal people have raised against the voice is that the government will only listen to some voices. Mr Broadbent is displaying that at least he will do that. Another argument made by a number of First Nations people is that the government can’t be trusted. I wonder if Mr Broadband endorses this view.
I will be voting’Yes’ as if the referendum results in ‘No’ there is only going to be more of the same where the government doesn’t listen and First Nations people continue to be unable to better their circumstances by taking control of their lives. I don’t completely trust that The Voice will be acted on by governments, but it will be more difficult not to act on what communities know they need. Hopefully it will improve lives. If the result is no, it is almost certain that things will not change.

Alison Vincent

10/9/2023 08:09:07 pm

Voice. Implies human generated sound, words mostly. Voice to parliament implies there will be listening. Are we able to listen? Alexander Downers views on ABC RN last night suggest underlying assumptions are preventing listening. It is a generous offer by indigenous peoples to Voice in our direction. Can we be gracious enough to learn to listen?

Peter Bogg

11/9/2023 08:29:04 am

Hi Rob, thanks for your reply. It made me think a lot about my commitment to the YES cause.

I concluded it is my opportunity to show respect to our First Nation people. The official mention in the constitution of recognising them as the first inhabitants of this country shows respect. That is all.

As to the second point. In my corporate life, I found talking to people who are directly affected by a particular issue, provided me with perspectives I had not considered and were valuable in finding a solution. The application of the solutions were better because of their involvement, not only because we found a better solution, but also because the people involved, felt part of the solution. In effect, I was showing respect for their contribution.

Unfortunately, the First Nation politicians are more or less bound by party discipline. Also, even when the policies are sound, the politicians are not close enough to consider alternatives to their implementation that would make them more effective.

Prabha Kutty

11/9/2023 08:40:36 am

While I understand Cheryl Drayton’s frustration with the slow pace of progress in addressing aboriginal disadvantage, the fact remains that if one wants to improve this situation one needs a seat at the table with those who wield power, which is what the Voice offers.
Of itself the Voice does not change the disadvantage, but viewed as the channel through which community led solutions to reduce disadvantage can be successfully implemented, it can be powerful.
I too, like Russell Broadbent, will be largely guided by what the indigenous community wants when casting my vote at the referendum. The Uluru Statement was supported by 80% of those present and polls in aboriginal communities confirm that level of support for the Voice.
To put this in context for Russell, the maximum two-party preferred vote that the winning party gets at a federal election is generally not more than 52%. So, my vote is YES and if you are really listening to the indigenous voice Russell, so too should be yours.

Pete Granger

11/9/2023 09:06:03 am

Aboriginal recognition must be in our constitution, but how should this be represented? With a referendum, ‘Yes’ is always more challenging than ‘No’. However, change will be adopted if there is clarity, unanimity amongst proponents, fears are allayed, and certainty chaperones goodwill. In this instance, aboriginals are not unanimous in their support. Voice opponents accuse proponents of over-simplification of the issue, whilst supporters accuse opponents of over-complication. Both are partially true, which engenders a lack of clarity. None of this bodes well for the referendum. What is missing from the equation is a trusted peak Aboriginal body which could make the constitutional transition in a way most Australians would be perfectly comfortable with. As it currently stands, there is an uncomfortable gap between the rich symbolism of the ‘Voice’, and the practical outcomes it aspires to. Arguably, there is nothing to fear but fear itself. Nonetheless, this process may need to occur in steps, not leaps and bounds.

david arnault

11/9/2023 10:07:04 am

Lobbyists from the real estate industry, from fossil fuel organisations, surgeons, miners and who knows what other vested interests all have a voice in parliament; they can wander around to their heart's content and talk to any official they like. It's true their voice isn't enshrined in the constitution and to me that's a good reason to have a close look at this privilege … this licence, if you prefer, and consider the wisdom of such exclusivity, but it's certainly not the reason I'll vote YES in October for an enshrined voice.
I don't suppose we'll ever know the exact length of time our original people have been here on this ancient landscape, and truly I doubt that we even have a real notion of such a span of history, one that reaches back three or four times longer than ancient people who painted the caves at Altamira. Nor can we even imagine what our Original people have experienced during the vast time of their occupancy. Personally, it does fill me with wonder, but that's not the reason I'm voting YES.
Nor does my decision rest on the cruelty of the occupation by the British and their flagrant disregard for even British law.
I'm voting YES because I read the beautiful poetry in Uluru Statement of the Heart; in these kind and gentle words, and the generosity that was on offer, I was invited to open my own heart. I have been welcomed to walk this path with the indigenous people and I am both honoured and proud to do so.

Tanya Nolan link

11/9/2023 12:59:30 pm

Sadly Russell you get it wrong again!!! Firstly you do not own anyone and ought not refer to First Nations peoples as "my" and "our". Secondly, obviously not all members of any group of people are in agreement which does not let you off the hook on now saying you will vote no! You stuffed up on the same sex marriage vote!!! Try and get something right...this is a first step not the total solution.

Peter Bogg

18/9/2023 07:18:51 pm

https://twitter.com/i/status/1703545871970050384

Graeme

19/9/2023 08:05:34 pm

Thanks Peter.
This post by Lauren Dubois is one of the best VOICE explainers so far. If you have confused, reluctant or skeptical family or friends, spend three minutes watching it with them. Pity Russel Broadbent didn't take the trouble to absorb it.After all if you don't know stick your head in the sand seems to be the No mantra.

Russell Broadbent, MP

Leave a Reply.

Your voice