Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

The Australian Constitution has never recognised the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of this country, and that is what this bill does. The introductory words are very clear on this, stating that the provision is 'in recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia'. Former Chief Justice of the High Court Robert French has said that the proposed constitutional alteration contained in the bill would represent 'a significant shift away from the existing race-based legislative power that the Commonwealth has with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people'. Recognition of the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of this country is long overdue, and the Voice is the form of constitutional recognition sought by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Further, this bill does not give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples any special rights or privileges. It also does not take away the rights or privileges of any other person or group. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples face significant gaps in life expectancy and in educational attainment, and they are proportionally the most incarcerated peoples on the planet. The Voice would have tangible benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It would not negatively affect the lives of non-Indigenous Australians. In fact, improving outcomes for First Nations people benefits us all. The constitutional expert group made it clear that the Voice would not confer special rights on First Nations peoples, nor would it change or remove any rights, powers or privileges of anyone who is not Indigenous.

Some senators asserted that the Voice will result in excessive litigation and foul up the workings of the executive government. Again, this is a furphy. These assertions ignore the text of the bill. They require a selective and distorted reading of the evidence before the joint select committee and its inquiry into the bill. The bill has been extensively scrutinised by some of the best legal minds in the country. This includes the constitutional expert group and the Solicitor-General. They have concluded that the bill is legally sound. The Solicitor-General advised that the Voice is not just compatible with the system of representative and responsible government provided by the Constitution but an enhancement of that system. These views were echoed by the overwhelming consensus of constitutional and legal experts, who told the joint select committee that the amendment is constitutionally sound.

The Voice will improve the development of policy and legislation and the administration of programs. This is because the Voice will be connected to grassroots communities, and it will make representations to the parliament and the government on matters affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. When you listen to communities you get better outcomes, making a practical difference on the ground in areas like health, education and housing. That is what the Voice will help to deliver, and that is the evidence that a range of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and communities gave to the committee in expressing significant support for the Voice.

Some senators have unfortunately deliberately taken out of context quotes from former High Court Chief Justice Robert French and former justice Kenneth Hayne to support the ridiculous and false idea that government will somehow grind to a halt. Both Mr French and Mr Hayne clearly stated that the High Court would not interpret section 129 in a way that would disrupt the ordinary and efficient working of government. Mr French stated, 'I don't think the High Court is in that business,' and Mr Hayne stated that the argument that such an outcome would be destructive demonstrated 'conclusively' why the High Court would not make such findings. The bill is clear. The Voice will have no power to prevent, delay or veto decisions of the parliament or the executive government. The parliament and the executive government will retain decision-making power over all laws and policies. The provision does not require parliament or the executive to consult with the Voice before taking action. The parliament will also be able to make laws about how the executive government receives representations and what, if any, action a decision-maker needs to take in response to a representation.

The issue of sovereignty has also been raised in the context of this debate.