Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I understand and respect the reasons the member for Berowra is putting forward these amendments. He's trying perhaps to take the sting out of the referendum debate to get more opinion leaders and decision-makers onside to improve the chances of success for this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make amends to the First Nations people, whose occupation of this continent for more than 60,000 years was not acknowledged when European settlement began. I've also listened intently to and observed his comments here and elsewhere when he has said he'll vote yes, even as he argues that the reference to 'executive government' should be dropped in this constitutional amendment.

The member for Berowra is saying that removing the term 'executive government' from the legislation will improve the referendum's prospects. As I said in my speech in the second reading debate, I fear that it will do the reverse. I understand the member's good-faith intention to alleviate the concerns of some, but I fear that such a change will undermine confidence in the point of all of this among all Australians but particularly First Nations Australians, who rightly deserve something more than symbolism.

The threshold question before us today is this: will these amendments make any difference to the attitudes expressed by the parliamentary representatives of the Liberal and National parties? Will it encourage them to reverse course and wholeheartedly campaign for a 'yes' vote? Based on the fact that the member for Berowra found it necessary to resign from shadow cabinet because he could not accept the opposition frontbench position, I don't think so. Based on the opposition leader's speech in the second reading debate, I also very much doubt it. When he declared that the Voice would re-racialise and permanently divide us by race, I cannot see how the member for Berowra's amendments will change a thing. These amendments are more about politics than they are about the law, and it is the people to my right who are seeking to divide, not those of us who support this referendum.

The opposition leader is particularly troubled that the Voice will have access to the executive, arguing that it will be able to make representations on any matter and that there's an obligation on the government to advise the Voice in advance before making any law or policy relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, not to make any law before receiving representation, to consider any representation and to give effect to representations when making any law or policy. But respected constitutional lawyer Anne Twomey says this is just not the case. As she said in her submission to the joint select committee reviewing this legislation:

There is no obligation upon Parliament or the Executive Government to respond to the representations or give effect to them. There is no obligation of prior consultation. There is no requirement to wait to receive a representation before the Executive Government of Parliament can act.

See this speech in context