Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Hansard source

Like many in this place—indeed, like most Australians—I support constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians. In respect of the big changes our country has made: as Thomas Paine said, 'Time makes more converts than reason.' We have been discussing constitutional recognition for a long time. That is why I think Australians are ready, even eager, to achieve it. It's right that our foundational legal document reflects Australia's first culture and people. Australians have had more than enough time to consider and to agree with this—and the vast majority do. For many years this has also been the coalition's position and indeed the Labor Party's position also. It has broad community support, for the simple reason that acknowledging our history and Indigenous Australia's role in it is a simple statement of truth that should be reflected in our nation's birth certificate.

So, it's right that we should seek, as former prime minister Tony Abbott said, to correct the great silence in our Constitution. This is not performative. As Julia Gillard said:

The Australian Constitution is the foundation document of our system of government, but it fails to recognise the special place of our first Australians.

In considering this, many have noted that the best way to ensure the success of a change to our Constitution, even one with significant support, is to have bipartisan consensus. This has always been our approach, because it is the proven successful method of changing our Constitution. Even Kevin Rudd conceded that the history of Australian referendums is that if you don't get bipartisan support they will go down. Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd all acknowledged the need and the method to achieving this necessary change, and I challenge anyone to find another thing that all three of those former prime ministers agree on.

Any government must consider the task of taking the majority of people in a majority of states with them on a journey of change. However, the bill before us in the Senate today has not been the product of such a process. Instead we have a prime minister, his minister and a government that are more interested in their own success than the success of constitutional recognition. Labor has deliberately left the path of bipartisanship on this issue, and this will lead to a poor outcome. They've done this by adding to the question of constitutional recognition another issue that does not have bipartisan support and an idea that is yet to receive consensus among Australians—a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament and to the executive government. In doing so, they have been insincere in their actions and reaching in their rhetoric.

We can see this insincerity and the lack of bipartisanship in their actions. First, they didn't consult before releasing the wording. Then they refused to provide voters with any of the traditional information on the question to help them cast their vote, in the form of a referendum pamphlet—something that, thank heavens, the coalition has ensured has been restored. Finally, they reduced themselves and this debate by name-calling—in particular, the Prime Minister to Julian Leeser, a man who has championed this cause over a lifetime of work. Telling him to have courage was a particularly low ebb. My colleague Mr Leeser has dedicated much of his career to this issue, and, true to the class and dignity of his character, he kept the aim of constitutional recognition, not his own interests, at the heart of his response. He said:

In this referendum, the prime minister should be building bridges not throwing stones …

All of us should consider the sincerity of the argument when the Prime Minister makes it in such a way. This isn't how you construct a sincere process, let alone a successful one. The Labor Party and no-one else have, by their own actions, by their choices, secured a poorer outcome in this referendum process. They are in fact risking constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians and they are risking progress on the fundamental cause of reconciliation.

The question as it has been proposed by the government, without any concession or consideration, and the bill that is before us conflate two issues. The first is constitutional recognition; the second is a constitutionally enshrined voice. They have asked us to put to the Australian people that it is a two-for-one deal, take it or leave it. Now, it would be fine if this gamble placed at risk only their own political fate, but it doesn't. It gambles with our nation's foundational document, it gambles with the hopes of so many Indigenous Australians who are seeking recognition and it gambles with the future of our country's relationship with its past.

As a Liberal and as a parliamentarian, I was elected to make sure that we provide the best legal framework our government can provide for our country, and I know that we as senators all take this duty very seriously. But this duty is highlighted to its zenith when considering the amendments to our foundational legal document.

This is not a simple bill that will be considered easily on a Thursday afternoon with little debate, the consequences of which will be significant but perhaps not simply regulatory. This is a bill that asks us to question whether or not we would be happy for the generations who come after us to live with its consequences and whether our predecessors envisaged these changes in the formation of one of the most successful and prosperous constitutional democracies in the world. We may call ourselves 'the lucky country', but it's testament to our character of understatement that we do so, because our success has not been achieved by dumb luck and our future will not be secured by it.

On those measures alone, I would say that the referendum question, as it's drafted, is a bad law. But the process of how this question has come to our chamber reinforces that—a process that has been run by a government that has said, 'Just close your eyes and trust us.' I say no. The Australian people expect more from us than just a blind gamble on their future and a roll of the dice on the past. They expect us to consider this question with regard to the severity and significance of the action that we are taking, not just with a punter's wink and grin.

I can appreciate the passion and the emotion of those who believe that a voice to parliament is an answer to a problem we have long sought to solve. However, I expect that my position will be similar to many Australians'. My heart says, 'Yes, grasp the opportunity for constitutional recognition'—long in the waiting and quick in the taking—but in the end my head and my gut say no, because, no matter what the potential benefits, I can't support a poor proposition and I can't vote for this bad question that will create a bad law.

We all want constitutional recognition, but, to do that, Labor is asking us to change our foundational legal document—with a bad law to get there. As my colleague Julian Leeser said, 'An all-or-nothing approach could deliver nothing.' This could deliver absolutely nothing. However, in considering what the 'all' could look like, we do not even have the detail. For this reason alone we know that it's a bad law from a bad process. For my part, I believe that this is a bad law for three very simple reasons.

Firstly, it's a bad law because simple questions on its operation can't be answered, such as: Will the Voice be able to make representations to the Reserve Bank or to the Fair Work Commission? Will it be able to make representations on the appointment of judges by the executive? Will it be able to make representations before we declare war or before we sign a trade deal? And, without the core recommendation of the Calma-Langton report for local or regional voices, who will the national Voice be taking advice from? Even the questions of who will be eligible to serve as part of the Voice and will they be paid haven't been answered. To this extent, I know it would make a bad law, because, if you can't tell me how it will work, why should I vote for it?

From time to time this place does pass bad laws—because we're not all-knowing or as wise as we like to think we are—but when that happens we can pass other laws that correct those errors; we amend laws to fix problems. However, in this case it's entirely different because changing our Constitution is not that simple. So this is a bad law because none of the unforeseen consequences will be able to be changed, for, if the referendum question is successful and we need to alter it, the fix won't be as simple as just passing a law through parliament; it will require a whole other referendum.

The concepts of a new chapter in our Constitution, a new institution and a new mechanic—the Voice to Parliament—are not at all simple. There is a real and present risk of how these schemes will operate with the rest of our Constitution and how our system of government operates. As I said, this change is not simple. It's not a bill that, when unforeseen circumstances present themselves, we can simply revisit and come back to this place to change the law. This risk is heightened when government refuses to explain how it will work, so, to that extent, I know it is a bad law because you can't tell me how it will work and I can't change it later. So how can I possibly vote for it?

Finally, this change will not simply alter the tax system or change the way we defend the country; it proposes fundamental changes to the way in which our country governs itself and the institutions that make up our democratic system. For all its faults—and it does have a few—our country is the envy of many. In 2021, Australia claimed four of the world's top 10 most liveable cities. We're ranked second for our healthcare security in the Global Health Security Index and third for our healthcare system in the Commonwealth Fund. On the OECD Better Life Index, Australia ranks first for civics engagement; second for education, housing and health; fifth for environment; and sixth for income. Our life expectancy is higher than the OECD average. Our sense of community is higher than the OECD average, as are our educational outcomes for girls and the number of citizens who complete secondary school.

Our Constitution, stable liberal democracy, institutions, rule of law and Westminster system of government have all contributed to the progress and prosperity of our country for over 100 years. This is a bad law because it will fundamentally change the institutions that have created and protected one of the most stable constitutional democracies in the world—Australia.

If you can't tell me how it will work, if I can't change it later and if it risks what we have, why would I vote for it? How could I vote for it? The Liberals will vote to ensure that the Australian people get an opportunity to have their say—don't worry about that. They'll have their say in this referendum and they'll have their say on this proposed question.

It's just such a shame that Labor has established and run this process it has. I am genuinely worried that it will risk the constitutional recognition that we need in this country and it will risk the process of reconciliation. Australians will have a say in this referendum, but it will be an empty referendum—empty on the promise for proper process, empty on the promise of detail of the change, empty on the promise of a better future for Indigenous Australians and empty on the promise of constitutional recognition. Its emptiness will only be contrasted with the arrogance of this government in pursuit of its own glory; its Prime Minister's inability to compromise and to find consensus; and the Labor Party's obsession with politics over progress.