Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 13 and 14), omit all the words from and including "In" to and including "Australia:".

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 17 to 20), omit paragraph 129(ii).

I move these amendments as a supporter of the 'yes' case and as someone who will campaign for a 'yes' vote in the referendum. I believe the constitutional recognition expressed through the creation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice nationally and fed through from the local and regional levels will be able to move the dial on so many of the intractable issues in Indigenous affairs. It will help ensure that federal government spending is better directed to achieving outcomes on matters that have beset Indigenous affairs for nearly 60 years. In moving these amendments, I'm mindful of the engagement of the 23 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders comprising the referendum working group in the development of the constitutional alteration before us.

My goal is not to hollow out or to weaken the alteration, as some have claimed; rather, it's to remove the central argument of the 'no' case. As I said on the day I resigned from the front bench, my goal has been and is to put the constitutional alteration on a stronger electoral footing. I want to see the 'yes' case win and win handsomely. Unfortunately, the polls indicate a downward trend, with support for the 'yes' vote in the high 40s or low 50s. As I have been talking to people in my electorate and around Australia, I know there are Australians who are keen to vote 'yes' but who are concerned about the wording of the alteration. These amendments are not about parliamentary colleagues; they're about securing the support of the Australian people—a majority of Australians and a majority of Australians in a majority of states. A successful referendum requires getting as many Australians as possible to vote 'yes'.

Constitutional changes are notoriously difficult to secure. We've changed our Constitution only eight times out of 44 attempts. Even in 1977, when three of those eight amendments were made, a fourth referendum question regarding simultaneous elections was supported by 62 per cent of the Australian population but was opposed in three states and, as such, failed. Winning a referendum is hard, and I want the Voice to win. The alternative is too dreadful to contemplate.

When I resigned, and previously at the National Press Club, I argued for three things to strengthen the proposition for change. The first was for a commitment to the rollout and funding of local and regional voices. I am pleased the government has provided $20 million in the budget to do that. The other two things are contained in the amendments to the wording of the constitutional alteration to improve the referendum's chance of success at the ballot box.

Let us return to first principles. The constitutional alteration needs to do three things: first, recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; second, give The Voice a permanent place in our constitutional architecture; and, third, provide for the supremacy of parliament.

The two amendments before this House are consistent with those aims. The amendments remove paragraph (ii) of the proposed section 129, which relates to representations to executive government about matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. I argue for it to be removed not because I don't want the Voice making recommendations to the executive government on a range of matters, because I do—I want the Voice to speak to ministers and to public servants and I have long argued for that, ever since I put forward proposals almost a decade ago, and there's nothing stopping the parliament from mandating that this should be the case—but this clause is the centrepiece of the 'no' campaign's arguments about the Constitution. I argue for the removal of paragraph (ii) because it will leave the 'no' campaign with nothing constitutionally to stand on.

My second amendment relates to the symbolic language in the chapeau. Let me be very clear, the symbolic statement in the chapeau sets out an incontrovertible fact with which I agree, that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are the First Peoples of Australia. But constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is already provided through the long title of the bill, which will form the question on the ballot paper:

A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

It will also be provided in the heading of chapter 9 itself. That heading reads: 'Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples'. These words do not raise legal issues. They support and affirm constitutional recognition, as does the creation of the Voice.

Our Constitution is a document relatively free of symbolic language. This is a strength of the Constitution and it makes it very different to the American Constitution. Australia's constitutional debates generally have not ventured down the American path with activist judges from the left and right. My concern about symbolic words includes the fact that it might even restrict what the Voice can make representations about as a Voice is established 'in recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as First Peoples'. That is, the chapeau might restrict the Voice to making representations on issues only relating to the status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as First Peoples rather than the broader range of issues that confront them today and may confront them in the future.

These amendments are offered in order to put the Voice in a stronger electoral position. They're offered in order to find common ground with more Australians by respecting the first principles on which the Voice is based. I commend the amendments to the House.

See this speech in context