Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Liberal Party will be supporting the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill because we recognise the government has a mandate to put this constitutional change to the Australian people. We disagree with the change, but we respect that it is a question that the Australian people deserve to have their say on. However, I have asked to be made an authorised dissenter in order to vote against the bill. By voting against the constitutional alteration bill, I will have the opportunity to contribute on behalf of the Liberal Party and on behalf of my community to the 'no' case that will be put forward in the official referendum pamphlet.

I am opposed to the Voice proposal because I see it as a retrograde step that would work against real reconciliation and the achievement of practical results for Indigenous Australians. I am a constitutional conservative, and I'm instinctively sceptical of any changes to our founding document. The Constitution has enabled Australia to be one of the most successful and long-standing democracies in the world and should only be interfered with in the most extreme circumstances. By amending our Constitution to establish this entity, Australia would be opening the door to the possibility of significant High Court interference in our laws and our policy-making. It is important to note that, if the government believes that a voice is such a good idea, it could be created without constitutional amendment. It would be a far more sensible approach to road test the concept and establish a model that works rather than writing it straight into the Constitution.

The framers of our Constitution had the immense benefit of being able to see how the constitutional elements worked in practice within the Westminster and Washington systems. They knew the elements to take and to leave to achieve a beautifully balanced system for our Australian context. But the framers of our Constitution had this benefit, and those proposing this addition to the Constitution do not. In fact, the examples of national representative Indigenous bodies in our history leave a lot to be desired. We have seen so many failed attempts to achieve similar entities, including the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee, in the 1970s; the National Aboriginal Conference, in the late seventies and early eights; the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, which was around from 1989 to 2005; the National Indigenous Council; the National Congress of Australia's First People; and the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council.

The difference for this voice model is that it will be permanent. There will be no reforming or refining or reshaping. It will be permanently affixed to our Constitution without any real idea of how it will work or whether it will be effective. The Uluru statement called for a voice enshrined in the Constitution, but it also proposed a Makarrata commission be established to supervise a process of agreement-making and truth-telling. In essence, the Voice is not the end of the journey but the start of a new era of activism. It is only the first step for activists seeking to establish a treaty or move on to the payment of reparations for historical injustices.

I believe that most Australians are tired of the shifting goalposts of Indigenous policy. Rather than having governments focus on achieving the next big symbolic gesture, my constituents want governments to focus on achieving results and closing the gap of disadvantage. Imagine if all the effort currently being put in by our government, our corporate leaders, our sporting codes and our media outlets to promote the Voice was directed into dealing with one Closing the Gap target. Imagine the impact that could be had if this national effort was homed like a laser beam onto reducing Indigenous suicide rates or improving employment and education outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

I see moves like this as a distraction from the real work required to improve the lot of our Indigenous citizens. Empty symbolism isn't harmless. It distracts the attentions of government, the media and the public away from the real issues that affect vulnerable Australians, and it delivers a false sense of achievement which undermines efforts that get real results. A real example of this is the cashless debit card, a coalition government policy. This policy came from the communities that it sought to support. It was an idea from community leaders that could make a real difference to the health of their communities. Labor's decision to axe the CDC without any consultation with the thousands of Australians who relied on it is having devastating consequences. Community leaders have spoken out about the devastating impact that this is having on their communities, saying the CDC's removal is to blame. Is there anyone in this building who doesn't believe that a policy proposal like the cashless debit card, which came out of local wishes to fulfil a local need, would not be strongly opposed by a future voice to parliament?

Indigenous leaders in my community are telling me that they don't support the Voice as it is currently proposed. They have zero faith that activists in Canberra could look after their interests when they've had such a record of failure from those who purport to lead and represent their people closer to home. They see this model as a cop-out that will give governments more excuses to ignore the local voices that seek commonsense reform and transparency to improve their quality of life.

Beyond these concerns from locals, experts are also raising serious questions about this proposal. The report of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum makes it very clear that the government's proposal contains significant constitutional risks which could affect our system of government. Eminent lawyers and former judges cannot agree on what that risk is, but we know that if the proposal is adopted it will be left to the High Court to decide. Two former justices of the High Court have given evidence to the committee that, if the High Court found that the duty to consider and the duty to consult exist, government would become unworkable. Robert French AC, a retired Chief Justice of Australia and someone who obviously knows a lot about the High Court, gave evidence to the committee investigating this bill that if a duty to consult the Voice was 'found in proposed section 129, "this would make government unworkable"'. Kenneth Hayne AC, a retired Justice of the High Court and a member of the government's Constitutional Expert Group, gave evidence that 'a duty to consult the Voice would "disrupt the ordinary and efficient working of government" to such an extent that it would "bring government to a halt"'.

The truth is that no-one knows what the High Court would do. It is uncertain. That is the very nature of the High Court. It isn't as predictable as the lower courts, and anyone who wants to claim that they know for certain what the High Court will do is kidding themselves. But it is safe to say that there is a risk here. When you've got two former High Court judges saying there's a risk, there's a risk. The government needs to explain specifically why that clause is worth the risk. Australians should not be asked to sign up to this risk without a proper explanation.

The big problem with this risk is that it would be permanent. It can't be taken back once this becomes part of our Constitution. The laws we pass in this chamber cannot out-legislate the Constitution. But there is a better way. The coalition supports constitutional recognition and the development of local and regional voices, legislated by the parliament, which would make a difference on the ground. This is a way to get the advice we need while avoiding the risk and uncertainty of a big constitutional change.

Beyond that, I think we're missing something big here in this discussion of constitutional changes. I want to see section 25 of the Constitution repealed. The Constitution's provisions as to races disqualified from voting are a relic of a past time, when it was envisaged that states might have contemplated disenfranchising voters of different ethnic groups. This section is jarring when you read it in the modern context, and, while it was well meaning at the time, it is clearly a remnant of a bygone period. It is a section that could easily be removed as part of this referendum and would have near-unanimous support, yet this constitutional change has remained in the too-hard basket. In this headlong pursuit of a political outcome on this referendum, the government seems to have put the cart before the horse. Section 25 could have been considered, amongst many other considerations, in a proper constitutional convention. This could have been the opportunity to delve into the complex areas of constitutional law that I've outlined today and come to a consensus position that would have had a much higher chance of success. Unfortunately, Australians have been denied the benefit of a constitutional convention and are still being denied information on critical details of this proposal.

The government is committed to designing the Voice after the referendum and asking Australians to vote on this sight unseen. The lack of detail from the government on the proposal leaves me extremely uneasy. We still do not know: Who will be eligible to serve on the body? What the are the prerequisites for nomination? What definition of Aboriginality will determine who can serve on the body? How will members be elected, chosen or appointed? How many people will make up the body? How much will it cost taxpayers? Who will oversee the body and ensure it is accountable? All these questions and many others remain unanswered. The Prime Minister says that the detail is in the Langton-Calma inquiry report, but he hasn't actually adopted that report. There are different options available in that report, but the Prime Minister hasn't said to the people which parts of that report would be adopted and which ones would be implemented.

Also, the failure of the government to release all the Solicitor-General's advice highlights the lack of transparency that the Labor government has regarding their Canberra voice proposal. If the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General are going to be true to their word and be fair, open and transparent to the Australian people, they should immediately release all of the Solicitor-General's advice about the Voice.

But, beyond the finer details, I'm opposed to the Voice concept in principle. I am extremely reluctant to add something to our Constitution which entrenches race as a concept. In 500 years time, I hope that our Constitution will continue to preside as our supreme law in this country. By that stage, regarding Indigenous or non-Indigenous Australians as separate communities would be as ridiculous as regarding modern-day Englishmen as Normans, Saxons, Angles or Jutes. We need to think long term about creating a united and successful country, not letting our past get in the way of our future.

The government has put us on a journey of national division with this referendum. Rather than seeking a compromise that would secure recognition, they have sought to deliberately pursue a path that will divide public opinion. If this referendum is successful, it will be nowhere near the near-unanimous verdict in the 1967 referendum. If the JSC process is anything to go by, it will be a vitriolic debate that pits Australians against each other rather than bringing us together. It may pass, but at what cost and for what benefit?

The Liberal Party members' dissenting report on this bill makes three recommendations:

Recommendation 1

1.124 The proposal for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice should not be adopted in its current form.

Recommendation 2

1.125 Noting the Coalition will not stand in the way of Australians having their say on the proposal, the Government should amend the drafting of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 to address the significant risks identified through the Committee process.

Recommendation 3

1.126 The People should never again be asked to vote on constitutional amendments that do not have the benefit of detailed public debate, in the form constitutional conventions or similar.

The government's refusal to compromise on these fronts significantly compromises the chances of success in this referendum.

As outlined, while the Liberal Party supports the referendum being put to the Australian people, I'll be voting against the bill, as an authorised dissenter, in order to contribute to the formal 'no' case that will be distributed to Australian households. I ask Australians to review that material carefully, and I ask Australians to vote against this risky and permanent proposal.

See this speech in context