Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. The proposal contained in this bill to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in our Constitution is not a proposal that I can support. However, I will support the passage of this piece of legislation because I, like the Liberal Party, will not stand in the way of Australians having their say on this really important issue. One of the key differences between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party is that we place far greater trust in the democratic institutions of our country, which is why we are concerned by the idea of transferring authority out of the hands of the people who have been elected to these institutions and hand it over to the courts, to people who do not represent the people of Australia. So, whilst we do support people having their say, we do not support the permanent change to our Constitution, because Labor's Voice is four things. It's risky, it's unknown, it's divisive and, above all, it will be permanent.

Australia's Constitution is our most important legal document. Every word can be open to interpretation. Therefore, enshrining this Voice in the Constitution means that everything that happens thereafter in relation to this power is open to legal challenge and interpretation by the unelected High Court of Australia. Legal experts themselves can't even agree on how any High Court will interpret such a constitutional change. In fact, no-one can say for certain what a future High Court will decide at all. The only certainty is that this Voice will open a legal can of worms.

As Ian Callinan AC KC, former High Court judge, said, 'I would foresee a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation arising out of the Voice.' No-one knows what a future High Court will decide, not even the experts. It's a matter of public record that even the government's own Constitutional Expert Group could not reach agreement on this very issue and that the Solicitor-General has conceded there is room for argument. That's why the way that Labor have worded the change also means that their proposed model is a voice not just to parliament but to all areas of executive government. That gives them unlimited scope, from the Reserve Bank to Centrelink or, in the words of a constitutional law professor, 'from submarines to parking tickets'.

Former Justice of the High Court Robert French has even commented that the immense range of matters in which Labor's Voice model may apply means that the Voice would really make government unworkable. In effect, this change fundamentally undermines our Westminster system of democracy and, at the same time, provides immense uncertainty about the future machinations of government. The Prime Minister's Voice will wrap government administration and decision-making in a whole new level of complexity, and we know that more bureaucracy slows things down and that this change has the potential to render the government inert. A dysfunctional government is not in the best interests of Australia or Australians.

Australia hasn't changed its Constitution by referendum since 1977. This is a massive decision. It is certainly not a modest one, which is why it is so concerning that Labor refuses to reveal any of the details before the Australian people go to the ballot box to cast their vote. The Prime Minister is asking Australians to vote on a voice without knowing how that voice will operate. In other words, he's asking Australians to sign up to a permanent change to our Constitution with some vague notion that the details will be revealed after the referendum. To reiterate the key point here: we currently have no firm details about how Canberra and Labor's Voice will work. Essentially Labor is putting the cart before the horse and, in doing so, treating Australians with great contempt. Australians deserve all the details before they vote on a permanent change to our Constitution. They should not be asked to sign a blank cheque. So my message to the Australian people is: if you're not sure how the Voice is going to work—if you don't know—say 'no'.

Another significant danger with Labor's proposed Canberra Voice is the destruction of the concept of equality of citizenship. I truly believe that the Constitution belongs to every Australian and that every Australian should be treated equally within the powers of our Constitution. But enshrining a body for only one group of Australians in our Constitution, as the Prime Minister is proposing, means permanently dividing Australia by race. The simple proposition of whether we are willing to divide our country in this way is something that we must examine closely. I don't believe that that's what Australians want. Importantly, we know that many Indigenous Australians don't want this split. At its core, the Voice is divisive.

It will be a permanent, publicly funded group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people which has additional rights that will be embedded in our Constitution. Those rights will be to make representations to the parliament and executive government in relation to absolutely everything. This sends a message to Indigenous communities that they are different from everyone else and they will be treated differently forever, because, if this change gets up, it will be permanent. The Voice will be forever a symbol of division rather than an instrument of unity. And we should be bringing Australians together, not dividing them, as Mr Albanese seems intent on doing.

Most importantly, dividing our country along the lines of race will not help the most marginalised members of our Indigenous communities. We all want better outcomes in this area. The coalition absolutely strongly supports this critical objective. But we know that enshrining a top-down, elitist Canberra voice isn't the solution. It will do nothing to help Indigenous community members on the ground who want to build a better life for themselves and their families. We know that having a Canberra based voice rather than regional voices seriously risks the need of rural, regional, and remote communities been completely overlooked. Despite with the Albanese government seems to believe, Canberra doesn't know what is better for those who are actually on the ground in regional, rural and remote communities.

As a senator from rural South Australia, I understand firsthand how these challenges are often felt very differently in rural, regional and remote communities. Solutions often need to be addressed with flexibility and with innovative solutions that recognise the individual and unique challenges of these communities. To borrow a phrase from somebody else: 'If you've seen one rural town, you've seen one rural town.' Each and every one of our rural communities is unique and needs different solutions. But the Albanese government continues to prove that it only understands a one-size-fits-all, city-centric model which they continue to use as their approach to policymaking and decision-making. They don't understand the needs of rural, regional and remote Australia, and they've proved it again with the construct of this Canberra voice.

But the dangers become more concerning when you consider the fact that labour's proposed voice, once enshrined in the Constitution, will be there permanently. It cannot be easily undone once it's enshrined. Interpretations cannot be overruled once the High Court makes a decision. Australians will be forever tied to the negative consequences of the Prime Minister's voice. When it becomes evident that it is not resulting in better outcomes for Indigenous communities, when it becomes clear that the Canberra based body is not effectively representing the interests of the unique rural, regional and remote communities across Australia, it will remain as a permanent feature of our government, our Constitution and our democracy. That is why we on this side of the chamber are so concerned by the way the Prime Minister is trying to portray this decision as no big deal, a modest change and something that should just be waved through almost on the vibe. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are talking about a fundamental and complex change in the way that we will be governed in Australia. This is a very big deal, and to pretend otherwise is not only disrespectful to Australians but disrespectful to our democracy. This will change our country and the way it is governed forever.

But there is a better way forward. Both parties of government recognise the need for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. We recognise that there is a place in this country, too, for bodies to serve as voices for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. But they should not be a top-down, elitist voice out of Canberra. We believe in the importance of having local regional voices, as was recommended by the co-design process led by professors Tom Calma and Marcia Langton. These would be bodies embedded in local communities and regions, established at a grassroots level and recognised by legislation. They are the potential engine room for real change on the ground because they would be tailored to the needs of each and every one of our unique communities. Importantly, they would recognise the unique differences between rural, regional and remote communities and those in metropolitan areas. We know that the concerns of Aboriginal communities in the Central Desert are vastly different from those that are facing Cape York. It's disappointing that Labor has chosen to reject this alternative approach in favour of a risky, untested one that will be locked permanently into our Constitution. Labor believes that Canberra knows best about what local communities want, but the Coalition understands that remote communities know what's best for them.

To summarise, it is clear that those opposite are only going to provide greater uncertainty. We have a prime minister's Canberra voice that will contain significant risk, as well as uncertainty about how the High Court will interpret it, and, if carried at the referendum, it will be permanent. For these reasons, I, like most of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, do not consider that the proposal in this bill should be adopted. But I and my party have made our position clear: we support the Australian people having their say.