Peta Murphy (Dunkley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—This legislation seeks to insert a new chapter in Australia's Constitution. It is part of starting a new chapter in Australia's history. The new chapter in the Constitution includes, solely, proposed section 129, which recognises First Nations people, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, as the First Peoples of this country; which establishes the Voice and the right to make representations; and which gives the parliament ultimate power over the way that Voice will be structured and will operate, and the way its representations will be made and what will be done with them.

Noel Pearson said to the committee during the inquiry with respect to section 129:

These are beautiful words. The proposed provision will adorn the Constitution. I've listened to many submissions, I've read all of them and I've listened to people present, and I haven't found a really compelling reason to change the words that the government has introduced into the House. I think children of the future will look back on these words and really be proud of the Constitution. I think this is a good provision. It has a real sense of history. It honours Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It's a safe provision. It's a provision that meets the needs of Australia and the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

No matter what those on the other side of the chamber may say, those words, those positive words from Mr Pearson, accurately summarise the absolutely overwhelming majority of submissions to the committee inquiry and evidence the committee received.

There's been talk—it's in the dissenting report—about this process somehow being rushed and this legislation being rushed. It is difficult to identify a prereferendum process since Federation that can hold a candle to the processes that have led us to this point on the proposal. No referendum has been preceded by more debate or more engagement by parliamentarians, legal experts and community members than this one. There was an expert panel on the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution established in 2010 which conducted community consultation and produced a report in 2012. There was the 2015 report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. There was the First Nations constitutional dialogues conducted by the Referendum Council in 2016 and 2017 to discuss options for constitutional reform led by Aboriginal peoples. There was the First Nations Constitutional Convention at Uluru held by the Referendum Council in 2017 to ratify the decision-making of the constitutional dialogues. There was the final report of the Referendum Council in June 2017 which endorsed the Uluru Statement from the Heart and called for voice, treaty and truth. There was the 2018 report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. There was the codesign interim report in 2020 and final report in 2021.

And then the Labor Party, this government, went to the 2022 federal election with a clear commitment to hold a referendum in this term of parliament. The Australian people elected a government committed to holding a referendum. The draft constitutional amendment was announced by the Prime Minister in July 2022. That draft text was subject to robust scrutiny and testing from the Referendum Working Group, the Constitutional Expert Group and other legal experts. As a result of that process, the government made changes to the draft text, including to put beyond doubt the broad scope of the parliament's power to make laws relating to the Voice. And then we had the joint committee process.

We completed our inquiry on 12 May 2023. There were hundreds of submissions, thousands of comments and scores of people who gave evidence. The joint select committee made a single recommendation—that the bill be passed without amendment. The evidence we heard during that committee process—from Canberra to Orange, Cairns, Perth and back to Canberra—was powerful and moving. It was from people who were engaged in the Uluru dialogue and the process that led to the Statement from the Heart. It was evidence about the importance of constitutional recognition and about the importance of being able to have a consultative role in the development of policies that impact directly on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It was evidence about Australia's history, why we are where we are now and why this is so important. Aunty Pat Anderson told the committee:

What they asked for was a voice to Canberra, not a Canberra voice. What we heard in the dialogues was that—and this is why reserved seats and designated parliamentary seats weren't prominent—people don't want to be politicians. In the dialogues they said they did not want to be politicians. They don't belong to political parties. They don't want to be going to Canberra to be politicians. They want to serve their community. They want to live in their communities and serve their mobs and their families. They're extraordinary men and women. They've lived their whole lives in their communities helping their own mobs. … They have no intention of leaving their communities. That's at the heart of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the Voice to Parliament. It is about getting grassroots voices amplified and feeding into Canberra, representing the views and voices of their communities.

It is about people and this country. It is about Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. It is also an amendment to our Constitution, which means that we did hear from a range of constitutional experts. It is sophistry to say that, when you have an overwhelming majority of legal experts of one opinion, the outlying opinion of just a few people somehow can balance that. It can't and it doesn't.

The idea of legal risk was addressed fairly during this committee inquiry. Bret Walker SC, who appears in the High Court more than any barrister in Australia, told the committee that the idea of the Voice 'somehow jamming the courts from here to kingdom come as a result of this enactment, is really too silly for words'. The dissenting report from the Liberal members of this committee tried to rely on evidence of former High Court judges and chief justices to say that even they acknowledge there is some risk. It takes it out of the context of what those witnesses' evidence was, which is that this is a sound proposal that will benefit our community and will not lead to the sorts of fantastical outcomes that those on the other side have proposed.

The Solicitor-General said the proposal to enshrine a Voice in the Constitution is not only compatible with Australia's system of representative and responsible government but would enhance that system. Why are people so concerned about enhancing our system and instead pay tribute in the dissenting report to, let's face it, the white men who drafted Australia's Constitution—

See this speech in context