Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

As Senator Scarr said, the bill has 303 words. This is an alteration to our Constitution that we are giving the green light to here—if, of course, the referendum succeeds. Three hundred and three words are not detail enough to satisfy the questions and concerns of not just the opposition but a great many Australians who actually want to be treated with respect in this debate.

To that end, what will this Voice do? It is a key question I have been asking as this debate has been conducted in the community. Is it going to fix the problems that we know exist in Indigenous Australian communities? Is it going to resolve those issues that have dogged parts of our community for so long? Is it going to address fetal alcohol spectrum disorder? Will it address incarceration rates? Is it going to improve education outcomes? Will it improve health outcomes? Will it increase life expectancy? If the answer is 'yes' to any of those things, I think Australians deserve a clear demonstration of exactly how what is being proposed here takes us to that end point. If that is the case then it's a very easy sales pitch. My fear, though, is that none of the above will happen.

In preparing for my contribution here, I've been reading a book by Peter Sutton entitled The Politics of Suffering. It's a book which is quite interesting, I have to say, in terms of contemplating the matters we are considering as a parliament. The foreword, interestingly enough, is written by Professor Marcia Langton. In his book, Mr Sutton says:

We have long been told that the emotional and physical health of Indigenous people will not improve until their social justice and property justice and treaty needs and formal Reconciliation needs and compensation needs have been met, and, by implication, that the heart of the people's problems and solutions lies in politics and law. By definition, those who deliver the people from extraordinary levels of rage, fear, anxiety, neglect, malnutrition, infection, diabetes, renal failure, sexual abuse, assault and homicide will thus allegedly be politicians, barristers and political activists.

This unscientific mumbo jumbo beggars belief. It relies on a kind of magical cause-and-effect relationship, as if a treaty between 'races' will keep children safe in their beds at night.

Mr Sutton, of course, notes that pragmatism, rather than ideology, is central to resolution of these issues, and I tend to agree with his assessment.

Of course, there is that other 'fear campaign', as it's being labelled: what does it mean for the operation of government? It's that question around what it, in effect, means when it comes to the issue of advice to the executive. What implications are there for the business of government—the ordinary function of the administration of the Commonwealth of Australia—if advice is not taken and followed? The answer is that we don't know. There are many varied legal opinions out there, and the only people that can actually deliberate upon this, of course, are going to be judges of the High Court of Australia. That is something that I think people cannot walk past. There is no clear answer on that.

While I am on this, I will refer to evidence provided by the late David Jackson AM, KC, who, in his submission to the inquiry on the matter we are deliberating upon now, says at paragraph 7:

Greater potential difficulty is provided by the phrase "subject to this Constitution" in proposed s 129(3). That usage would ordinarily cause no difficulty, but one provision which would be likely to fall within it would be the proposed s 129(2). If a law made pursuant to s 129(3) had the effect that the Voice (however constituted under s 129(3)) was not empowered to make a representation of the nature referred to in s 129(2), the relevant provisions enacted pursuant to s 129(2) would be invalid.

I think it is important to not ignore that as we consider the question before us.

To the issue of judges, I think what happened in New South Wales in recent times—where one colleague from the other place, Mr Conaghan, the member for Cowper, made his contribution to the parliament and received correspondence from a justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Ian Harrison—indicates that these judges, who will be deliberating on the very questions that have come up in the committee work, are one of two things: either judges are human beings with emotions and opinion or, perhaps even worse, judges can at times be activists for a particular cause. Either way, it is important to note that there is an element of risk associated with this that we cannot just ignore and walk past.

In the remaining time I have, I want to turn to the final issue I take with this, and that is this basic principle that most of us, if not all of us, ascribe to, which is that we all have equality before the law—be it ascribing to article 7 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, of course, points to the fact that, no matter what colour, creed, religion or any other attribute you might have, you are and should be equal before the law. We've signed up to that. So it makes me wonder why we are going down this path and encouraging Australians to vote yes to something that will, in effect, in my view, remove that equality before the law. We are creating a special entity that will confer special rights and privileges on a particular group in our society because of their racial heritage.

As I said before, Australians are being asked to make perhaps the biggest decision that they will need to make in this generation. I am simply asking Australians to stop and to think about the implications of the decision before them. Research the questions being thrown out there. Don't dismiss them as irrelevant, out of touch, racist or disinformation. See what it means for the future of the country, for your children, for your neighbours, and make your decision on that basis. I know I will be voting no in the referendum, but I will support Australians having their say. (Time expired)