Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

In my first speech to this place, when I spoke about the First Australians, I made the comment that they are the guardians of this nation's soul, with a wonderful, rich history, and we are the beneficiaries of the tens of thousands of years of connection they have with this land, this country, this continent. It gives us a rich tapestry and a spiritual connection—and, as I say, they are the guardians of the spiritual connection that we have with this continent.

The disruption of colonisation, as we know, was huge, and the stats unfortunately support that. If we look at the statistics for length of life, attendance at school or whatever, our First Australians are either at the top of a list you don't want to be top of or at the bottom of a list you don't want to be at the bottom of. This is especially so in the regional and more remote communities that people live in. Over many decades now, we have been trying to correct that through Closing the Gap and other things. We have a department of Indigenous affairs, which spends much money targeted at different programs and different services trying to close those gaps. We have over 1,100 Indigenous advocacy groups—who are working with communities, trying to get support and money—and different support networks trying to close this gap.

Very proudly, we have a record number of Indigenous MPs in this place, who are speaking for those communities and their wider community. But, again, probably the biggest blight on our country is the statistics under Closing the Gap, which, despite many of these programs, still has not done the work that we would want it to do.

As a starting point for what the Voice is looking to do, I think there are two distinct points. One is putting the Voice into the Constitution, and many speakers—speakers on both sides, I think—have said this is important because it's about recognition. There would be very few people in this place or outside this place in the wider community that would have any issue with recognition of our First Australians in the Constitution. It's a fact that Terra nullius was not a fact. Recognition of First Australians is not an issue. It's also a fact—and the statistics still say—that as a section of our community they are disadvantaged. No-one is disagreeing with that either. There is disadvantage in the communities, and there's recognition of that. It's factual.

But we need to now talk about what the Voice is proposing. The Voice is not just about recognition; it's about forming an entity that has the ability and the right to give advice to executive government. Now, this has raised many questions, and I compliment the member for Canning, who went through some of these earlier: Who is on the Voice? How many people are on the Voice? How are these people chosen to be on the Voice? Again, these people will not be elected by the Australian people. They will not be publicly elected. So how do we choose them? What powers do they have? If they give advice to federal parliament, who are elected officials, and that advice is not taken up by parliament, there is contention around what that means. I don't think it could be negated by anyone that there would be a High Court challenge on that type of stuff. How will the High Court interpret what the Voice's recommendation is on something, relative to what federal parliament says or does? That brings into question many things which we need to have a discussion about before this referendum goes ahead. As a number of speakers on our side have said, there should have been a Constitutional convention on this. We did have a parliamentary committee that looked into it, and that parliamentary committee process was one of the shortest I've ever seen. On a topic as important as this, that particular committee process should have been much longer and much more involved, and a lot of these questions should have been answered, talked out, and a position arrived at before the referendum was put.

What this is suggesting, unfortunately, is that because there hasn't been a good convention process or a healthy parliamentary committee process, this is becoming exactly what we don't want it to be. It's okay to disagree on something, but this is now becoming divisive on an issue that we really wouldn't like to be divided on. There are faults on both sides here, but so often now I have heard that if you're saying no, the other side—even last week, in this chamber, I read my colleague the member for Cowper's speech on this issue last week. I thought it was quite a gracious speech. He spoke with great grace about the minister for Indigenous affairs. He spoke quite touchingly about his own father, a GP in Kempsey who was the first GP to start to see Aboriginal people at his clinic. I read the speech because a New South Wales Supreme Court judge called him a racist, simply because he had an opinion that was different. That type of language is completely unacceptable. If you disagree with the Voice and you are voting no on the Voice, you are not a racist. It means you have real concerns that you don't believe have been answered or the process hasn't given you the data that you need to vote yes. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the people who are supporting the no case are scaremongering or being Chicken Littles. That is not leadership. That is not statesmanship. That is dividing us. That type of language from our leader is causing division on this issue because, rather than going to the heart of the debate, it's name-calling people who have real interest, real passion and real concern about it and are asking questions. Some of them are Constitutional experts who are arriving at a place where they are going to say no, and I think a lot of that is because of the process this government has undertaken and, more importantly, a lot of it is because of the process that this government won't undertake as far as this referendum is concerned. That has been very disappointing.

The great thing about a referendum is everyone will have their say. That's encouraging. Again, I'm disappointed with the way the government has run and led this process. I say to the people of my community: make your decision in good faith. I respect people of both opinions. For those who are voting no, I respect that opinion, and for those who are voting yes, I respect their opinion. I know many people on both sides of this debate. I will be voting no. In some ways it gives me sadness to vote no. I'm voting no because I think it is a poorly worded Constitutional question. I think it has been really poorly explained—I have questions that I don't have answers to. I think it risks the process of government. I think the power of the Voice, who is on it and how it will work is completely undecided an unresolved, which I think could cause great disruption to a federally elected parliament and raise questions of good governance in this country. It's a disappointing process that has been led by this government, but as this process continues the one thing I ask the government, and especially Prime Minister, is to please not call people names. Please don't call out people who are voting no in any derogatory way, because that helps nobody.

See this speech in context