Alicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. Again, I want to say how proud I am that the Albanese Labor government is seeking to hold this referendum in taking this incredibly generous invitation from First Nations Australians, as set out in the Uluru statement, to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament. I want to begin by again acknowledging as we do each morning when we open in this place the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, land which was never ceded. What a privilege it has been for me to grow up on your country, to live and work and raise my own family on your country. I want to acknowledge the elders of this area. I respect their deep, significant cultural connection to this country that has existed for over 65,000 years, the oldest continuing culture on the planet.

Canberra, my home, is named after the Aboriginal word for meeting place, 'Kambera'. Long before it was our capital city, this region was a meeting place for local Indigenous nations. 'Canberra' is a beautiful word, with a beautiful meaning. Canberra is a beautiful place, important to both modern Australia and First Nations Australians. Too often people in this place dismiss this city. In this debate, we hear those opposite mockingly refer to the proposal as the 'Canberra voice'. 'Canberra' is not a dirty word. I am a proud representative of this wonderful city and I am so grateful to experience its rich Indigenous heritage every day.

Last night with my ACT colleagues, the member for Fenner, the member for Bean and Senator Katy Gallagher, I hosted a forum for the Canberra public on the Voice. We had over 300 people come in person and another 400 join us online. I want to thank the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, ANU Vice-President First Nations, Professor Peter Yu AM, and Noah Allan, a brilliant young Ngunnawal man, for joining us and sharing their insights as part of that panel. It was an honour to hear from such a wise and generous panel in what they shared last night. Honestly, I don't know how anyone could have listened to that panel and not wanted to vote 'yes' and get out and campaign for 'yes' to this referendum.

We also were welcomed to country by Aunty Violet Sheridan, a leader in our community who works every day. I really want to acknowledge her contribution to the life of our city and community. In her beautiful welcome last night she said: I speak of hope. I speak of the proposed Voice to Parliament, a beacon of empowerment and self-determination. I acknowledge the truth of the pain of an ongoing struggle that many of my people face. Let us commit to dismantling the barriers that divide us and embrace the richness of our shared history.' Aunty Violet's words sum up why this proposal is so important. Every year we hear from the minister about progress on closing the gap. Unfortunately, progress is too often slow or nonexistent. As Aunty Violet said, the Voice will help us dismantle the barriers dividing us. It will help us close the gap.

The Voice is about two important concepts: recognition and consultation. It's recognition, long overdue, that we share this vast continent with the oldest continuous culture on the planet. It's recognition that First Nations Australians have been here for over 65,000 years, that their connection to this land is real and meaningful in a way that white Australia can't even comprehend. And it's about consultation, a concept we love to talk about in this place, a concept which at its most fundamental and basic level is about talking to and taking on the views of people who will be impacted by the actions you take. It's a level of basic respect that is owed by this nation to its Indigenous First Peoples.

This week is Reconciliation Week, a week in which we mark a few important milestones. First, on 27 May 1967, Australians voted in a referendum to ensure that First Nations Australians were recognised as a part of the Australian population. Second, on 3 June 1992, the High Court handed down the Mabo decision, which abolished terra nullius and recognised the deep connection of Indigenous Australians to their land. This year the Australian people are being asked to vote in a referendum which, if successful, will be the next hugely significant milestone on the path to reconciliation. It is a proposal put not by the Labor government but by First Nations peoples themselves, through the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

This debate is an incredibly important one, but we must not forget the impact it will have on First Nations Australians, and I am concerned at the tone of the debate, particularly from those opposite and from the 'no' camp. Over the past week we've seen some pretty grubby politics from those opposite on this issue. We've seen dog whistles, we've seen furphies and we've seen old tropes re-emerge. I'd like to take a moment to dismantle some of the mistruths uttered by those opposite. The opposition has put forward arguments about the sanctity of the Constitution and that change should not be taken lightly. All of us in this place acknowledge the importance of our Constitution and the need for careful consideration. But on this side of the House we firmly believe that enshrining the Voice in the Constitution is a progressive and positive step forward for our nation—one that will make Australia a fairer place where nobody is left behind.

In the contribution from the Leader of the Opposition we heard about the accomplishments of our forefathers and the success of our Constitution. But it is essential that we also recognise that this is a document that was drafted over a century ago, at a time when Indigenous Australians were described by speakers of this very institution in terms that should never be uttered by anyone, especially not elected members, into the Hansard. We cannot deny the historical injustices that remain unaddressed, the history in this country of racism and hurt that remains. Recognising the First People of Australia in the nation's birth certificate is a crucial step towards reconciliation and inclusion. Contrary to the claims made, the proposed changes are not being put forward to divide our country. Rather, they aim to unite us by giving Indigenous Australians a meaningful platform to voice their concerns and contribute to the decisions that affect their lives. It is about recognising their unique heritage and ensuring that their perspectives are taken into account in policymaking processes.

We have known through centuries of failure that making policy about First Nations people without First Nations people does not work. Seemingly, the opposition would seek to have us continue along this failed path. We've heard from some in this chamber that the Voice would see 'the end of parliamentary democracy as we know it'. What absolute rubbish! The Voice would be an advisory body that provides recommendations and guidance to the parliament and the executive government. It would not possess legislative power and cannot override the decisions made by the elected representatives of this place. It is simply a mechanism to foster greater consultation, dialogue and understanding, which will ultimately lead to better outcomes for all Australians. Importantly, it is what First Nations Australians have asked for. The claim from the Leader of the Opposition that the Voice will impede our democracy and lead to years of litigation has been debunked by constitutional expert after constitutional expert. Yet the opposition refused to listen. They demanded that the government make public the legal advice provided by the Solicitor-General. When we did, did they accept that advice? Of course they didn't.

I have faith that Australians will not dismiss this proposal based on the ridiculous and outlandish hypotheticals and fearmongering from those opposite. The opposition have shown us their inability to engage in constructive debate and work towards practical solutions. We've heard countless coalition members talk about the importance of an egalitarian society, and I agree wholeheartedly. However, true equality means acknowledging and addressing the disparities that exist within our society. We currently do not live in an equal society. Just looking at the gaps—the shameful gaps—in life expectancy between First Nations Australians and other Australians, in health, in educational outcomes, in incarceration rates, and in rates of children in out-of-home care, we do not currently live in an equal society.

Professor Yu last night at our forum spoke of the pain his family went through as a result of the policies of successive governments. He said: 'I used to live on an Aboriginal reserve in Broome. We had to be outside of town at the 6 pm curfew. My mother was required to apply—she didn't, but she was required to apply—to get a dock ticket that meant she wasn't allowed to speak her own language or associate with her family, so she could be considered an honorary white and work as a maid for a white family. So, when you think about that history, these are the fundamental premises of the birth of the nation and the denial of our people. So this referendum is not just about the advisory body; it's about reconciling of a key fundamental of the birth of this nation.'

And last night in our forum, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, and Professor Yu talked about how they and others of their age actually lived in a country where they were not counted as part of the population. Really, it is very hard to comprehend what that would feel like. And it is shameful that that ever happened. But in 1967 Australians voted to change that, and that is why votes such as that upcoming this year are so important: they do make fundamental changes to the lives of people in this country. The Voice is a step towards achieving a more inclusive and just Australia, yet those opposite would have you believe otherwise.

Lastly, I want to emphasise that the proposed changes to the Constitution have not been rushed or taken lightly as the opposition would have you believe. The most extensive consultation and discussion with Indigenous Australians in history took place over many years, culminating in the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017, a consensus document calling for three things: voice, treaty and truth. The process was inclusive and consultative, contrary to the claims made. Then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, in his response to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, broke the heart of Indigenous Australians.

I am proud that this government and this Prime Minister won't be swayed by the mistruths spoken by those opposite. We will walk hand in hand with First Nations Australians and grasp the chance of meaningful reconciliation offered by them. We will support the proposal that commands the support of over 80 per cent of Indigenous Australians. And we will campaign and we will win—not for us, but for every Australian in all corners of this wide brown land.

I want to conclude by quoting Noah Allan, a young Ngunnawal man who participated in our panel last night. He was asked what the Voice meant to him, and he said: 'We've always had a voice. This will mean our voice will finally be heard.'

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This year, millions of Australians will be asked to vote on the constitutional amendment in this bill, Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. The choice we make will be the most consequential electoral decision of our time, perhaps since Federation, for it's poised to create a new institution of government, and, of concern to many, it will bring back an old idea, one we thought we had expunged: the idea that there are two kinds of people—two kinds of Australians.

This choice will be made by the people. It's important they know what is at stake. So today I want to speak directly to my constituents in Canning. In our community, we are new Australians, we are seventh-generation Australians and we are First Australians. And, together, we all long for a nation where our sons and our daughters know they are equal and know they belong. We are grieved by the moments when we lost our belief in our shared humanity, equality before the law and our common dignity.

Perhaps no moment was more shameful than that on 28 October 1834 when Captain James Stirling led a detachment of 24 soldiers and civilians to a bend in the Murray, 23 kilometres south-east of my home, and led a murderous ambush on 80 Bindjareb Noongar men, women, children. At least 15 but perhaps 50 were killed in cold blood, as bad as any atrocity that I've heard of in modern warfare. Stirling later admitted that it was his plan all along not just to punish with decisive severity but to appal the local Aborigines.

Some settlers, like Thomas Peel, were delighted by Stirling's actions, receiving title to more than 250,000 acres of land surrounding the massacre site only weeks later. Others were appalled, with one Christian settler calling it 'a shocking slaughter'. The Pinjarra massacre went directly against the instructions given by the Crown as to the treatment of Indigenous people: that we were to 'conciliate their affections, enjoining all our subjects to live in amity and kindness with them.' While some, like Captain James Stirling, forgot these directions in 1834, others, like Captain Frederick Irwin, remembered. It was not simply a matter of being a good soldier who followed orders. It was more than that; it was conviction.

Captain Irwin was a man of war, make no mistake, and he came down hard on lawbreakers in Western Australia, settler and Aboriginal. He also believe that, while Aboriginal people may not be like him, they were equal to him under the law because they, like him, were subjects of His Majesty and, more to the point, they, like him, were made in the image of God. After the Pinjarra massacre, Irwin used his power and influence to create the Eliza mission where Kings Park is today. It was a safe refuge from frontier violence where Noongar people could come and go freely for shelter, food and medical aid. Who knows how many Indigenous people we wouldn't have with us today if it hadn't been for his actions there?

Captain Stirling's and Captain Irwin's are two competing visions of humanity. In my own life as a soldier, I sense I have known both these men. One believes different people have different value and can be dispatched with great violence and without thought. The other believes we have equal value, that we are one blood. As Australian history has unfolded these past two centuries, Frederick Irwin's vision of equal value under law has prevailed over James Stirling's vision of violence at Pinjarra all those years ago.

The violence during early British settlement is hard history. It's hard to reconcile with our present moment. But these are the voices from that time that speak to me. I hear the words of the Scottish migrant Robert Lyon. He felt very uncomfortable with the way Stirling was taking conflict with the Noongar people. It takes bravery to speak against the grain of the moment, but he did it. He pled that Aboriginal people were 'guilty of no crime but that of fighting for their country. We call their deeds murder; so might they ours. But the fact was that they had a right to make war after their own manner.'

The Noongar people were just like the settlers: people with families, people with rights, including the right to defend themselves, and that principle still challenges us now. It has led us on a journey right through to today. There have been peaks and valleys along the way, with the 1967 referendum being a high point in public sentiment for the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, but there is still much to be done as we seek an ongoing reconciliation, and the Pinjarra massacre reminds us of the moral burden that lingers over our national history.

And now we consider the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice with this central question: does this Voice create a new risk of making one people more equal than another—or, put another way: can we atone for the inequality of the past with a new kind of inequality? I accept that many people in Canning, who share the same longing for equality between us, have formed opposing opinions on the question before us, and I respect that. But our job in this House is not merely to echo these opinions. The people who sent us here deserve more than that. We, their elected representatives, need to wrestle with history and offer our best judgement.

To be direct: I do not support Labor's voice. I think this Voice is a radical departure from our parliamentary system, fundamentally changing the character of Australian governance. One of the great challenges we face in the future is governing fairly for all Australians in a society that is becoming more diverse. The great cultural consensus of the last century has evaporated. The rise of independent and minor parties is proof of that. Our democracy needs to be fair for all Australians regardless of ethnicity, regardless of religion, regardless of gender, regardless of sexuality, regardless of origin. That's why the rule of law is central to our idea of fairness. Everyone, regardless of wealth or privileges, is equal before the law.

We now see the challenge of a toxic new politics that divides people into tribes based on their identities, and I reject that politics. Instead, I want to see greater unity, cohesion and fairness in Australia, and, sadly, this Voice, while well-intentioned, will only entrench division. Those opposite argue that the Voice will advance the interests and welfare of Indigenous Australians, but they haven't shown us how. It is vital, though, that we do more for Indigenous Australians. Everyone in this place is agreed on that. That's why we on this side of the House with full hearts support constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians and the empowerment of local and regional voices across our country. When we consider Labor's Voice, we must also balance it against the interests and welfare of every other Australian, including the many first generation migrants who have chosen Australia as their home. Sadly, I think Labor's voice undermines equality before the law—that very principle which is the great attraction for many migrants to our ancient land.

There are a few of the points I'd like to note today. First, the Prime Minister has made a mockery of this referendum process. He has not convened a constitutional convention to build consensus on the amendment or to refine the drafting or to narrow the areas of dispute. He has not sought to build bipartisan consensus across the aisle. He has rushed the parliamentary committee process, cutting short important deliberation. Only six weeks were allocated to receive submissions, hold public hearings around Australia and report back to parliament on the legal effect of the constitutional change. He has not established a yes or a no campaign so that all Australians can easily access and consider the competing arguments. The truth is that Labor has stacked the deck for the 'yes' campaign at every turn. This is not democratic, nor is it respectful of the Australian people. It casts a shadow over the whole referendum, and if this referendum fails, all the ensuring heartache belongs to the Prime Minister. He has not drawn the country together, which is the special task expected of a national leader.

Second, this amendment is risky. It poses a massive risk to our democratic system of government. Legal experts have given evidence that the amendment will impose two mandatory duties on the government: a duty to consult the Voice prior to decisions and a duty to consider representations made by the Voice. This will radically change governance in this country. Decisions will be delayed. There will be endless consultation and gridlock. But don't take my word for it. Robert French AC, a retired chief justice of Australia, gave evidence that it would 'make government unworkable'. His evidence was supported by Kenneth Hayne AC, a retired High Court justice, who gave evidence that the Voice 'would disrupt the ordinary and efficient working of government', so much so that it may 'bring government to a halt'. If you think that those retired justices were exaggerating, take it from one of the most strident advocates of the Voice, Professor Megan Davis, chair of the government's First Nations Referendum Working Group. According to Professor Davis, the Voice will be able to speak to cabinet, public servants and Commonwealth law bodies, among others. As Voice advocate Professor Greg Craven put it, the Voice will have a say 'from submarines to parking tickets'. Australia has enjoyed stable democracy for the last 122 years. Is it imperfect? Yes. But it is unique when considered in the broad sweep of human history. This radical and risky proposition will sever us from that tradition of stability and entrench division and gridlock into our governance.

Third, there is no detail on the Voice itself. How will it interact with the parliament and the executive? How will membership be determined? How will members be appointed and for how long? How much will it cost? How will my local Indigenous people, the Bindjareb Noongar people, long-time custodians of Mandjoogoordap and the surrounding lands be represented? Will their voices be heard among the many others from across this land? These questions are fundamental to the consideration of this proposition, and the Australian people can't make an informed decision without answers to these important questions.

Fourth, this constitutional amendment will be permanent. It can't be undone. It's final and it's certain. Given all the risk to stable governance, the lack of detail on the Voice itself, the shoddy process and the partisan approach by Labor, we cannot gamble with our unique democracy and hope this radical change will work out from the other side. Had the Prime Minister led a proper consultative process, had the Prime Minister reached out across the aisle in a spirit of unity, had the Prime Minister hammered out the detail, had the Prime Minister engaged with the risks and sought to minimise them, we might be seeing a vastly different approach to this referendum. Instead, the Prime Minister has failed to lead, and I fear his legacy will be one of division and heartbreak, setting the cause of reconciliation back for generations.

Finally, I have a word on the debate itself. I have heard some nasty comments from the yes side directed at those who have questions about the Voice, firing off accusations of racism and bigotry and nastiness. I won't repeat them here. I'm sure bad things have been said by the 'no' side as well. But this has to stop. We all must show respect, good faith and tolerance toward one another. So, to my constituents in Canning, I say this: it's okay to vote either way after considering the arguments. And, having considered the arguments, I will be voting no in the best interests of all Australians, to uphold equality before the law and for the future stability of our democratic country. But I won't be standing in the way of this bill, which will enable the referendum to go forward. I say today to the people in Canning: we are all of one blood—one, not two. We are one people, one and free.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to 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.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to 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.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.