Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset, what I'd like to say is the question of whether to support the Voice or not in the upcoming referendum is an issue on which reasonable minds will differ, so I was very disappointed at the exposition that the member for Moreton has just given—a series of character assassinations of people who had a different view to him. If that's not divisive, I don't know what is. I respect the fact that the member for Moreton might have a different view to me, but I'm not going to assassinate his character or anybody else on the other side. So I would just remind those opposite that you are not going to unite Australians by pulling those who have a different view to you under. That is not the way we operate in this country.

What Australians are being asked to vote on at a referendum later this year is very serious. It's a question which goes to the character of our country, the function of our government and the future of Australia in what I think most of us in this place would agree is an unstable world. The Australian Constitution—I agree with the member for Moreton's view on this point—is our most important legal document. It is a fluid document. It is a document that was drafted over a decade or so more than 120 years ago by our constitutional forefathers. It hasn't been changed by a referendum since 1977, nearly 50 years ago. How old does that make you feel, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas? In one fell swoop, we could potentially see 122 years of continuous democratic tradition permanently altered.

I visited three schools last week, not so much to talk on the Voice, but just to talk about civics. It's something I often do. I love talking to schools. I always remind students at schools that Australia is one of the longest-serving continuous forms of democracy in the world. Most people prick their ears up when I say that because they don't understand it. They think about France, they think about the United States, but very rarely do we, as a country that has only been federated for 122 years, look upon ourselves as one of the longest-serving, continuous forms of democracy. But we are. That is a fact.

The importance of this vote for this referendum and this moment should not be understated. At the beginning of April, in my own electorate, I asked about 30,000 electors in Fisher, subscribers or anybody who has contacted my office, what they thought of the Voice. I have come in for some criticism on this point because some people think that everybody who has contacted my office is a supporter of mine. Anybody who's been an MP would know that many people who contact your office don't ring you up or email you to say you're doing a great job, unless, of course, it's you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I know all your constituents would love you and think you're doing a wonderful job.

The reality is that many people contact you because they don't like what you're doing or they don't like what your party is doing, so I don't accept that those 30,000 people that I have emails for are necessarily lovers of Andrew Wallace. When I sent those 30,000 emails out about the Voice, in less than 36 hours I got 3,000 responses—a 10 per cent response—and 72 per cent of voters indicated that they intended to vote no later this year. Their feedback overwhelmingly related to the divisive nature of the proposal and the risk that the proposal would hold Australia back, not propel us forward. The No. 1 concern, however, is the lack of information available to the public about the Voice: What is it? Who will it comprise? What will it actually do? It is the vast unknown that is worrying aspirational Australians the country over.

I've made it clear to the people of Fisher that I will be voting no to Canberra's the Voice and yes to a better way forward. I will continue to consult my electorate as to their views because that's what people expect of those that they've elected. Australians expect their representatives to consult, to be representative, and they expect their MPs to have the courage to do what is right, not what activists demand or what is, necessarily, politically correct.

In considering the bill before us today, I share the concerns of my electorate about what the Voice will do and, just as importantly, what it won't do. As I have mentioned, there are serious questions about this great unknown that we cannot leave unanswered. Every word of our Constitution can be and, in fact, is open to interpretation by the High Court. That's one of the reasons that the threshold for changing it is so high. We've only had eight successful referendums out of 44.

Australians are very conservative, in the true sense of the term, when it comes to changing the constitution. Why? Because what you enshrine in the Constitution will become a permanent fixture. It's not just a piece of legislation where, if we try something and we don't like it, we can just legislate to go back to the way it was or amend it to try and improve it. Once we enshrine something in the Constitution, it is there forever and would require another referendum to change it.

The Voice, in my view, will open a legal can of worms, allowing the High Court to affect the function of an elected government without remedy. Legal experts are already at loggerheads about how the Voice will work. Even the government's own constitutional expert group could not reach agreement on what this constitutional change would do. How will it impact parliament? How will it impact the executive?

We may find ourselves in a situation where the Voice reaches into the Reserve Bank, Centrelink, Defence or our schools. It is undeniable that the 'yes' campaign are at loggerheads with each other. The Prime Minister says that this is a modest change that will only impact upon laws affecting Indigenous Australians. Professor Megan Davis, however, says that it will cover the field. There is not one law that passes or is considered by this place that does not impact upon Indigenous Australians. That is a fact. When we pass laws in this place we do not pass laws for Indigenous Australians on the one hand and non-Indigenous Australians on the other. We pass laws for Australians. Every single law that we pass in this place impacts upon all Australians.

An Indigenous representative group with unlimited scope means a bigger government, more bureaucrats and, in my view, worse outcomes. We risk a long-term legal logjam in dysfunction right across the public sector. As Ian Callinan AC KC, a former High Court judge, said:

… I would foresee a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation arising out of the Voice.

Whilst I am certainly not anywhere near Justice Callinan's experience, as a barrister of 22 years I absolutely agree with Justice Callinan's views on this. Canberra doesn't need to get busier, bigger, richer or louder. People want government to step back, shut up and butt out of their lives, not have greater control. They want to get on with building, creating, working, innovating, caring, raising, leading and transforming. They want to be productive. Bureaucracy only slows things down.

Equality of citizenship is at the core of our egalitarian nation. A person's sex, religion, race or political affiliation should not impact on their ability to determine their own future or to vote in accordance with their conscience. By creating a constitutionally enshrined body elected by and for a particular ethnic group, we are permanently dividing our country along racial lines. We are destroying the equality of citizenship in one fell swoop, and it will be everyday Australians of all ethnicities who pay the price.

Australia is contending with the most geopolitically unstable period since the end of World War II. China poses an enormous economic, military and national security threat. Russia backs it. Theocracies, tyrants and terrorists from the Middle East through to South-East Asia want nothing more than to bring down our nation and the West more broadly. In facing these multifaceted challenges, governments and legislators of all shapes and sizes should be bringing Australians together. Now is the time for national unity, not government funded racial division. The Voice will be a permanent publicly funded body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders that has additional rights embedded in our Constitution. Those rights will be procedural rights to make representations to the parliament and the executive government in relation to everything. Those rights will be afforded not because of fairness or equality or justice but because of someone's race. At its core, the Voice is divisive.

The simple proposition of whether we are willing to divide our country along the lines of race is something we should all examine closely. The coalition does not believe that is what Australians want. This top down, elite Canberra voice does nothing to help Indigenous communities on the ground in rural and regional Australia, who want to build better lives for themselves and their families. There would not be a person in this place who does not want better outcomes for our Indigenous Australians. But when it comes to closing the gaps in health case, education, employment and justice, the solution is local development, not more politics.

While the so-called woke elites call for another layer of bureaucracy, Indigenous children face the most inconceivable abuse. How will the Voice keep kids safe? While Canberra talks about bureaucracy, more public spending and duplicated services, Australian families and their businesses are crumpling under the weight of Labor's cost-of-living crisis. How will the Voice help Australians make ends meet? Our nation faces existential threats from those who would do us harm in and beyond the Indo-Pacific. How will the Voice help us secure or borders, boost sovereign defence capability or protect Australians and their interests online? It won't. We don't know what it will do. But we know what it won't do. The Voice won't help Australians. In particular, in my view, it will not help Indigenous Australians living in rural, remote Australia a single bit. It won't help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians a single iota. More bureaucracy in Canberra means less investment in Aboriginal communities. It means more elites at decision-making tables and less decisions being made on the ground.

There is a better way forward. All parties of government recognise the need for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. But instead of constitutional recognition, Labor have chosen to make this referendum an opportunity to radically and irreconcilably damage our democracy. After six years of Labor's platitudes, we delivered nine years of targeted investment into closing the gap, supporting Indigenous communities and creating opportunities for meaningful representation.

We recognise there is a place in this country for bodies to serve as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices, but we don't want to see another Canberra based voice. We need local and regional voices—the same kinds of voices recommended by the co-design process by Professors Tom Calma and Marcia Langton. They are bodies embedded in local communities and regions established at the grassroots level.

Our position is clear. We support the Australian people having their say but we do not support this risky, divisive— (Time expired)

See this speech in context