Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Hansard source

I'll be voting no to the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 as well. To be Australian is one of the greatest honours. We are a people of rich history and diverse culture, beliefs and backgrounds. It sees differences that make us one of the greatest nations on Earth. Nowhere else in the world is there a success story like ours—one of Indigenous heritage, of British inheritance and of migration and multicultural success. When I look at my electorate of Petrie I see this richness demonstrated in the diversity of the peoples I represent. Some of the many nations represented in my electorate are India, South Africa, Britain, the Philippines, Nepal, New Zealand and South-East Asia, and people who were born in this country and Indigenous Australians, all in Petrie. It makes us stronger. I feel this way about our Indigenous heritage as well—the Dreamtime stories, the land, the sea, the environment, the peoples. I appreciate everything that makes us Australian, and I was brought up to treat everyone as equal, and have maintained those values in everything that I do.

The coalition have a position of 'no' to a Voice in this Constitution. But we do say yes to a number of things. We are facing a critical moment in our country's future, a time when Australians will be asked to vote on a change to the Constitution without adequate detail of risk, process, safeguards or tangible outcomes. Where are the KPIs? There are no KPIs. This is where we stand as a coalition: yes to making a tangible and real change to the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, who deserve better; yes to constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians; and yes to empowering grassroots local and regional advisory bodies to improve safety, health, and educational outcomes and for vulnerable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, including women and children.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are Australian, and we believe that the Constitution should recognise this. Our values as a coalition have always and will always be in small government and for change to affect the lives of everyday people—Indigenous people as well, particularly those in remote communities. We must not tie up real action in more bureaucratic Canberra based power, which a Voice in the Constitution will do. The Albanese Labor government's Canberra based Voice bureaucracy model is just that: a bureaucratic model that many grassroots Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and leaders have told us they do not want.

We believe that the most powerful place that Indigenous voices can make a difference is on the ground and in the places that need it the most: the regional and remote communities. It is these voices, with their insight, real-life experience and moral authority, that should be listened to, rather than being spoken to from the Canberra bubble. This is why we are saying yes to constitutional recognition and yes to local and regional advisory bodies, in accordance with the framework provided by the Calma-Langton final report. Our approach ensures that grassroots, local and regional voices are heard and empowered to deliver real and tangible improvements for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including making women and children safer, improving education and health outcomes and allowing Indigenous communities to speak to their own stories.

What I and many Australians do not agree with is the undisclosed powers and authorities that the introduction of a Canberra based Voice will inflict on our constitutional system and on the set of rules that have led us to equality and unity since the Constitution was first drafted in 1890—a Constitution that has upheld the stability and sanctity of our nation for over a century. This is why I stand with the coalition and vote no to Labor's race based Voice in the Constitution that will divide Australia and is already dividing Australians; no to a constitutional change without detail and clarity; no to more Canberra based bureaucratic power; and no to politically charged constitutional change based on divide and without transparency and clarity to the Australian people.

Later this year Australians will be asked to vote to change our Constitution. This is no small thing, and a permanent change to the Constitution such as this should not be taken lightly. Yet there is an appalling lack of detail and clarity from the Prime Minister, who obviously misjudges the weight of what he is asking Australians by declaring this to be a 'modest proposal'. He is asking Australia to vote on a feeling; he is pleading to the good nature and consciousness of people. Australians deserve better. All Australians deserve to have full and detailed information about exactly what the Voice is and how it will work.

Prime Minister Albanese is misrepresenting the vote, and the 'yes' campaign is misrepresenting the vote by failing to mention the constitutional change of the Voice. The bill says it: Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice). But there's nothing in the advertising about a voice in the Constitution. It's all about recognition. That's the only thing they say: 'We deserve recognition.' The Liberal Party also supports recognition. If the Prime Minister split this into two questions and if there was one on recognition, most Australians would just say yes, and it would probably have over 80 per cent support. Instead he wants a constitutionally enshrined Voice in the Constitution, which we're dead against. Right now he could put in a voice to parliament through a legislative process in this House.

We're voting no to delays and no to red tape regarding legislation and bigger government. You can imagine how many bills go through this House every year, and those bills will have to put to the Voice. Pretty well every bill that goes through this House affects Indigenous people because we're legislating for people. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about cutting taxes, health care or defence, it impacts Indigenous people as well. So a voice in the Constitution will absolutely make government bigger. It will slow down the legislation process even further. Recognition should be a separate question in this referendum, and people like me would support that. We would vote yes to recognition. Instead, they're tying it up into one question and only talking about recognition. They're not talking about the Voice at all. Why is the Prime Minister hiding that? Why is the 'yes' campaign hiding that? This is why the Leader of the Opposition has put forward 15 questions that could potentially help Australians to make a better and more informed decision when it comes time to cast their vote in the referendum later this year.

The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General can't agree on what the scope of the Voice will be. The current wording of the Voice could open a legal can of worms and distract the moment in political wokeness, rather than making a tangible and lasting difference to the Australians who deserve it and need it. Under the current wording, the government can't guarantee that its powers won't lead to intervention by an activist High Court, nor that it won't significantly disrupt or delay effective decision-making by governments. MP Hogan who spoke before me mentioned the New South Wales Supreme Court judge who wrote to a member of this House with disgusting language, saying that he was basically racist. He didn't even live in the MP's electorate. This judge just decided, after listening to the MP's speech, that he would intervene, jump in and have a go at the member. Was it the member for Parkes? No, it wasn't the member for Parkes. Anyway, it was a disgrace. This is what we'll see more of if a 'yes' vote is put up in the Constitution. We don't support that at all.

In my own due diligence as the federal member for Petrie, I have listened to feedback from both sides of the campaign, but I must say that the overwhelming response I get is more questions and confusion about what the Voice really means. This is what a few of my constituents have said. John Dempsey from Kippa-Ring said: 'How can we support the 'yes' vote when it won't represent all Aboriginals? Having spent time in remote communities, I know that this will just be another waste of time with high-profile city based First Nations people being elected. As an Australian, all I see is money being spent on Aboriginal this and that. When are non-Indigenous Australians going to be treated the same as them? It's just another divisive measure.' Kerry Walsh, from Redcliffe, said: 'While all of us agree with some sort of recognition of Indigenous people in our Constitution, this version of the Voice will only serve to divide us by race, and it will not stop there.

See this speech in context