Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

With the Attorney-General being here, I want to compliment him on his second reading speech for the bill. I actually thought that speech addressed a lot of the risks that many of us think exist in that drafting. The problem is, it doesn't solve the problem of those risks because of the wording that you have used, and we've heard it in answers to many of the questions this week on scope, words like 'specifically affect' or 'treats people differently'. If that was so important that you put it in your second reading speech, why aren't those words in the actual draft? They're so important because you know that risk exists on scope, yet it's not present in the actual wording.

And you don't need to be an experienced lawyer or a former High Court judge to know that your second reading speech can only be used in specific circumstances, and those circumstances are where there is ambiguity. So the question I would like to put you, Attorney General, is: where is the ambiguity in the drafting? If the ambiguity exists, fix it. If the ambiguity doesn't exist, then your second reading speech has no effect and no work to do, so the constant reference to it throughout the week was pointless. It's a well-crafted speech that does not address the risk that we had identified in the joint select committee.

This is not about the vibe; it is not about recognition, which has bipartisan support; it is not about seeking better outcomes, which we all want to happen—all of us want that to happen, and we should not pretend otherwise. And if there's a particular person in this place or the Senate who doesn't want better outcomes for Indigenous Australians, I'd love to hear who that person is. I'd love to hold them to account. Our job here is to listen to and represent everyone in our electorates. This place, the House of Representatives, is the voice of Australia. We represent everyone whether they voted for us or whether they voted against us. Whether they have been here for multiple generations or they came one year ago, we are their voices here and we should be listening to them.

So when we say, 'Of course we can do better, of course we can,' is there an underlying assumption there that there's something wrong with our democracy? That there's something broken in Australia's democracy? It's not perfect, but I tell you what: it's one of the best democracies on earth. And we know it's one of the best democracies on earth because people all around the world, when they have a choice of what country to go to, do you know what's top of their list? This country. Australia. And when you see people with tears running down their faces, so proud to become citizens of this country, it's not just because they've gone through all the hoops and hurdles to become a citizen, it's because they know what else is on offer in the world.

We are an ancient country but as a democracy we are quite new. We are also one of the oldest and most stable democracies. One of the key ingredients for that is our Constitution. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, we deliberately made that a hard document to change. Australians are very protective of it, and that's why it has been changed on so few occasions. And in the copy of the Constitution that we all have—I think if you pull your desk drawers out, you'll find a copy of it—it says this:

Australia's Constitution contains little of the soaring rhetoric which is familiar in the constitutions of many other lands. That is one of its strengths. It is a practical, matter-of-fact, unpretentious but effective document. As such, it reflects the pragmatic, no-nonsense attitude which we like to think is among the most attractive features of the Australian character.

It's a functional document and it has served us well. We haven't had civil wars. We haven't had blood on the streets. We have been a stable and effective constitutional democracy and we should be very, very proud of that.

We didn't have a constitutional convention—and let's not pretend the Uluru dialogues were a constitutional convention. They weren't. None of those words that were put forward to the Australian people in October were tested or discussed in those meetings. They weren't. It did say there was a desire for a voice, but it didn't have any discussion of the detail. So the substitute we had was a few weeks, five days really, for us to hear evidence. And that was treated with contempt because at the end of that process not one word, not one comma, not one syllable was changed because you had made your mind up. You had decided that it was perfect. If the Constitution is amended in October, it is inevitable that the High Court will be asked to decide whether the executive has certain duties under part II. Let's not pretend that part III fixes it, because you fought so hard to keep part II, and you fought so hard for a reason—because it has real power.

See this speech in context