Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We're debating one of the most significant bills to come before the Senate, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I want to acknowledge all senators who have made contributions by sharing their wide-ranging views and also acknowledge the respectful way in which these have generally been received. It is how we behave in relation to this debate that will be reflected in the community over coming months.

This bill will amend our Constitution forever. We've heard many tell us that enshrining an Indigenous voice in parliament is the only solution we should consider, but like many of my Liberal Party colleagues I do not believe that to be the case. We don't believe this proposal should be adopted, because it is risky and divisive, but we do believe in Australians having the chance to have their say on this matter. As a result, I will vote yes to facilitate the passage of the bill later tonight. There are, however, many questions that remain unanswered, many of which will be asked during the committee stage of the bill's passage this evening, although how many will be answered in full remains to be seen.

One of the major differences between the Liberal and Labor parties is that the Liberal Party places greater trust in Australia's democratic institutions. We already have the opportunity to give Indigenous Australians a voice in parliament. We do so by voting for them to represent us, not by opening the Constitution up to legal challenges from the unelected High Court of Australia. In his contribution to the debate earlier today, my colleague Senator McGrath acknowledged some of the great Indigenous Australians who have proudly served in this place. I'd also like to acknowledge my colleagues Senators Nampijinpa Price and Liddle and particularly note their excellent contribution earlier, as well as those of others around the chamber who similarly provide an extremely valuable perspective and contribution to our parliament.

The proposal for the Voice that Prime Minister Albanese has presented us with is full of unknowns. It is not fair on Australians to ask them to blindly accept the government's proposal without any assurances that it will deliver any form of improvement to the lives of Indigenous Australians across the country. I prefer to work with what is known rather than what is not. If we don't know how the Voice is going to work and if the government can't give us clarity on how it will work, then I believe that the only choice is to say no. Australia's constitution is the most important legal document we have. It provides a strong foundation to our democracy. As every word can be open to interpretation, we need to make sure that we clearly understand what every word on every page means. Even Australia's legal experts are unclear about how Labor's proposed voice model will be interpreted. Do we want to risk opening the Constitution up to misinterpretation?

Much has been said about the inclusion of the executive government in the proposed question. In addition to the risk associated with how the Constitution will be interpreted, I'm concerned about the additional risk that will come from the confusion of not knowing what aspects of parliament or executive government the Voice will have input to. It's a recipe for dysfunctional government that will lead us to a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation, as former High Court judge Ian Callinan has said.

Can we guarantee a Voice that comes from Canberra is truly representative of the needs of regional and remote communities? Every community is different, and a centralised, Canberra based organisation rarely has the grass roots, local knowledge and awareness to affect change. It's a huge risk we are being asked to take.

The Albanese government refuse to reveal any details on how the Voice would operate before asking us all to vote on these reforms. We've been told this is an important first step to reparations, but don't we deserve to know all the details before committing to a permanent change to our Constitution?

As my colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price has stated, this debate is dividing us, not bringing us together. Enshrining only one group of Australians in our Constitution, rather than encompassing all Australians, means our country will be permanently divided by race. We should be one together, not two divided. I also wholeheartedly agree with her sentiments written recently in Essays for Australia:

… gaslighting Australians to coerce support for a 'Yes' vote and calling Australians racist, troublemakers and uncaring if they do not oblige does not make for a healthy democracy and is completely and utterly un-Australian.

It's okay to say no, and it's okay to ask for more information. Instead of uniting Australia, this divisive version of a voice will forever be a symbol of division. We all want better outcomes for marginalised people in our communities. However, dividing it is not a path to achieving those better outcomes. There are not two kinds of Australians. There are Australians. We are Australians.

The reforms to our Constitution we are debating today represent a significant move away from our parliamentary system. This will change the way we govern forever. A democracy is a society where citizens are sovereign and control the government. A democracy must be fair for all, no matter their origin, ethnicity, religion, gender, age, education, sexuality or what they earn. What is being proposed with this Voice model is not fair for all Australians.

As pointed out by others in earlier contributions, this government argues that the Voice will advance the interests and welfare of Indigenous Australians but has not shown us how. We support constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians and we support the empowerment of local and regional voices across our country. We do not support dividing our nation.

The consensus needed to fully encompass all views on a voice takes time. There has not been enough time given to ask questions about exactly how this will work and to consider responses. There hasn't been enough time given to consider the legal ramifications of this model, and we haven't had time to think about the permanency of this change to our Constitution. Something that is so important should not be rushed through. Our legacy should be one of unity, not of division.