Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

If it's an Indigenous voice to parliament that Australians are looking for, then congratulations to all—we've already succeeded. An Indigenous member of our great Australian community already has access to the same levers that those of us of British ancestry and those of us from all over this planet who now call Australia home have. It is our democratic representative process. This system has allowed for all Australians to have their voices heard through the voting process, and this process, by virtue of our great nation's ability to recognise injustice and to act upon it, allows women and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders the right to vote as well.

We can't allow those who seek to divide us to get away with the misappropriation of language. This is crucially important. The goalposts have shifted on what it means to be intolerant. To simply ask questions or to ask for detail or to have a different view on how to address the issues of inequality for Indigenous Australia in a calm, rational and respectful debate is enough to have you branded a racist. These are the people who want to use weasel words, labelling the Voice as an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. This way of framing the discussion implies Indigenous Australians within our own electorates and patron seats don't already have a voice, as if we are here in this place representing all Australians except those of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander ancestry.

And more than that, if you disagree with the idea then it also implies that what you're really saying is that you don't think Indigenous people deserve a voice. It is designed to intimidate and manipulate reasonable and honest Australians into compliance out of fear. This idea of a voice denigrates those Indigenous members of parliament in this very chamber and in the other place fighting for the plight of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Those Indigenous members and senators come from across the entire political spectrum.

We on this side of the chamber are more than willing to consider what the proposal is, but, as we have said, the choice, as it should be, ultimately rests with the Australian people. But the problem is, once again, there's nothing for them to really consider. There's no detail. There's no plan. There's certainly no transparency from those opposite. The coalition do stand here in good faith. We want to reasonably consider the proposal, but we need the government to come to the table and explain what it is they're hoping to achieve and how it will work practically. After all, it's one thing to have good intentions, even a good idea, but when it comes to taxpayer money and constitutional change we can't simply operate on goodwill and the vibe of an idea.