Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2008 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 13 and 14), omit all the words from and including "In" to and including "Australia:".

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 17 to 20), omit paragraph 129(ii).

As I indicated in my second reading debate contribution, I'm moving these two amendments which mirror those moved by Mr Leeser in the House of Representatives. As Mr Leeser said, in his view constitutional alteration needs to do three things. First, recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Second, give the Voice a permanent place in the constitutional architecture. And third, provide the supremacy of parliament. That's the point of these amendments.

As I said in my contribution earlier, the Constitution is our rulebook; it's what makes us Australian. It's the thing we go back to when we're dealing with any of our issues. In my view, because of when the Constitution was written, Indigenous Australians weren't part of the discussion or part of the architecture and so there is something missing from our Constitution. That needs to be rectified. There has been a lot of discussion about the actual question, and how the question was worded was a feature of the coalition report. I refer back to my contribution in the second reading debate to give the context of my views around that.

Quite frankly, I should be sitting on that side when it comes to how I am going to vote on the bill. I should be there. But I don't believe that someone like me, or someone like Mr Leeser, has been given due respect by the process. I want to see constitutional recognition. I would like to see a voice. These amendments provide the opportunity for a voice, which is what the Uluru statement says. It calls for a voice enshrined in the Constitution, and I support that. But I don't support the question as it's drafted. That's why I didn't vote for the second reading, but I wasn't prepared to vote against the opportunity for the Australian people to have their say. That's why I abstained from the second reading vote.

As I said in my contribution to the second reading of the bill, without a change to the way the question is structured I won't be supporting the question. But, again, by the same token I don't want to vote against it because it's not what I believe. But I think the process we've been through hasn't been inclusive, and I'm quite distressed that the government have taken us down this path. I understand their rationale and I respect that, but this should be a question where we are all able to work together. The Constitution is something for all of us, and we shouldn't be trying to change it in a way where we don't have a level of accord across the parliament; I think that's a real failure. I feel I should be in a position to be able to support the constitutional amendment, and I'm very sad that I can't because of the way the question has been framed, not taking into account all the perspectives that have been put up, quite genuinely, as part of the process.

I know that these amendments are not going to be supported; I understand that. But I move them genuinely to make the point about my distress around the way the process has been conducted, and the way that people like Mr Leeser have been treated—people who are genuinely, and for a long time have been, disposed towards not only recognition in the Constitution but also a voice—and so that the historical record shows there are a number of us across each of the two houses that carry that perspective, although I respect Mr Leeser's view that he is going to continue to campaign for the question. But I think it's the wrong question, and therefore I am moving the amendments in that context. I have already made my position clear with respect to support or otherwise for the question at the end of the day.