Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This government loves nothing more than signalling virtue about the importance of countering so-called disinformation—or is it misinformation? I get confused. The reason for this is that they view anything that contradicts the left-wing talking points such as the identity politics narrative or the need for the welfare state as disinformation—or is it misinformation? I'm still trying to find that out.

Of the 44 referenda that have been put on the Australian Constitution during this country's history, only eight have succeeded. The last successful questions were put in 1977, relating to voters in territories being allowed to vote in referenda, age limits for judges and the question of casual senate vacancies. Labor has not proposed a successful referendum since 1946. It's the only time they succeeded in changing the Constitution. It's no wonder Labor now seeks to use every opportunity to change the rules to suit the style of telling the Australia people what to think and how to vote.

This bill seeks at its heart to fundamentally remove safeguards in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act to ensure that referenda are conducted with informed voters and with integrity. Under this bill Labor will get to put their finger on the scales, and Australians will pay the ill-gotten price. The bill will determine the settings for how the referendum on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to parliament is conducted, but the changes included in this bill will of course be used in future referenda as well.

Now, it's true that this bill does make a number of what we would describe as non-controversial changes to the act to bring the operation of referenda into line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act. As currently drafted, though, there are three issues which really ought to ring alarm bells in every Australian. Firstly, the bill removes the requirement to provide all households with a pamphlet outlining the 'yes' and 'no' cases for changing the Constitution. Secondly, the bill doesn't make provision for the official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations, and the bill also does not outline any official funding for these campaigns.

All that aside, let's drill into what this is really about. This is really about the government's obsession with race based politics. It's really about saving the government's failing Voice to Parliament by removing your right to be fairly informed about the true motivation for and the practical outcomes of the proposed race-based division that the Voice represents. Far from being something that would actually help Indigenous Australians, if it is even designed to do that, the Voice is nothing more than a Trojan horse for creating yet another left-wing bureaucracy that, once established, will not be able to be disbanded without another referendum. We know that the point of these amendments is to facilitate that referendum on the Voice. The point of the Voice is to have it entrenched in the Constitution. It's really an underhanded tactic from Labor. It serves only the welfare state's interests and promotes more division in our culture at a time when we simply do not need it.

There's absolutely no reason why the so-called Voice to Parliament requires a referendum at all. If the intention behind the Voice is to help Indigenous people and alleviate the very real suffering that many of them face, this could be done without an advisory body and it could be done tomorrow for things like the cashless welfare card that was abolished earlier in the year. As I said, the real agenda here is to brick a left-wing bureaucracy into the Constitution. It's just more jobs for their lefty mates, and pretending to speak on behalf of Indigenous people is just not the point. Only, this time, this particular body would never be able to be disbanded without a referendum. The swamp won't be able to be drained. That's another way of putting it. We will not be able to drain the swamp without another referendum, and the Australian people are being led down that path.

Does the Albanese government already have in mind the changes that it would make, or are Australians going to get what they're being told they will be voting for? The only way to find out will be to see the manoeuvres that this Albanese Labor government pulls after the referendum. I prefer not to take that risk, given how difficult it would be to undo if it happens. But, simply put, Labor is hoping that Australians just don't ask too many questions about the Voice. Instead, Labor is relying on being able to call you names if you start asking questions—names like 'borderline racist' if you dare to question it—even if your concern is for the wellbeing of Indigenous people, and I would suggest almost everybody on this side of the chamber holds that concern.

The bill seeks to pay lip-service to democracy and transparency in the referendum process while removing and meddling in the safeguard processes that are actually designed to keep referenda clear and honest so that Australians know the facts and can then make up their own minds. In fact, Labor's own explanatory memorandum describes it as a bill 'to ensure a consistent voter experience across elections and referendums'. But we know what this is about. It's about greasing the wheels for a major strike on our democracy by way of this Voice to Parliament. And, if the bill passes in its current form, the operation of section 11 of the act will be suspended for the purposes of the vote, meaning there will be no requirement for government to distribute information to electors that sets out both the case for and the case against the Voice. These pamphlets, as they're known, are vital to ensure that Australians understand what they're voting for and understand the long-term consequences of making such a radical change to our Constitution, our founding document which underpins the entire system of government and our way of life.

These important safeguards of our constitutional amendment process have only been departed from three times since the requirement was introduced in 1912—firstly, in 1919, when there was insufficient time to produce them; in 1926, when there was no agreement on how to produce the 'yes' argument; and then, in 1928, when there was overwhelming agreement between the parties and the government. None of those circumstances apply today. So one must ask: why is Labor pushing to avoid these important checks and balances? It's because they know they can't defend their own position under proper scrutiny. They don't want you to know the detail and they don't want you to hear the arguments against the Voice.

The notion that dividing Australians by race in our bureaucracies and asserting that only people of Indigenous descent have a valid opinion about matters pertaining to Indigenous people is absurd. Such a notion is hostile to the reason and the words of civil rights leader Dr Martin Luther King, who, as we all know, famously said that he hoped for a world in which his grandchildren would not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. Talk about missing the point. Labor are actively trying to hide this from the Australian people. They don't want you to question it. They don't want you to know that, when it comes to the very real and serious issues that Indigenous people face—such as incarceration rates, lower life expectancy, alcoholism, drug addiction, unemployment, homelessness, suicide and so on—the Voice to Parliament will not have a positive impact on those issues. They don't want you asking what new departments will be established, what welfare policies will be enacted or what advertising or welfare campaigns will be undertaken that haven't already been tried. They don't want you to know that the welfare-state approach to these issues simply isn't working. They don't want you to query why the government isn't taking consistent, practical action on tackling these problems rather than engaging in more semantic rhetoric.

The Voice is a Trojan horse for a bureaucracy that we won't be able to curb or disband, even though its powers and functions are subject to change. Either way, it's more jobs and more taxpayers' money for the unelected. They just want you to think that you are borderline racist if you oppose them. All that is happening here is that the government is making an advisory body for itself and claiming it will serve Indigenous interests. It's a very convenient way of appearing to do something to help Indigenous suffering while actually not achieving that goal. The Voice members are only going to echo the same old left-wing talking points designed to trash Australia's heritage and divide us. So it's my position that this chamber should oppose the bill. I ask you to do the same.