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

As we can see in this chamber right now, Senator Pratt interjects as we try to have a reasonable debate on this topic. Those opposite in government can't stand to hear anyone's view that differs from their own.

As I said, it's one thing to have a good idea, but when it comes to taxpayer money and constitutional change we can't simply operate on goodwill and the vibe. It needs to be grounded in achievable, measurable and practical reality with real outcomes. Surveys are repeatedly showing Australians want detail, and the Prime Minister is repeatedly ducking under the table. The government must set out specific detail. The question is: does the detail even exist? There are so many questions that remain. Who will be eligible to serve on the proposed body? What are the prerequisites for nomination? Will the government clarify the definition of aboriginality to determine who can serve on the body? How will members be elected, chosen or appointed? How many people will make up the body? How much will it cost taxpayers annually? What are its functions and powers? Is it purely advisory or will it have decision-making capabilities? Who will oversee the body and ensure that it is accountable? If needed, can the body be dissolved and reconstituted in extraordinary circumstances?

I would have thought these are very reasonable questions. It should be the bare minimum when proposing a change that could have lasting and far-reaching consequences for all Australians. It would be a totally futile, purely symbolic and empty exercise to implement any kind of system without ensuring that it actually worked for all Indigenous Australians. But we know that meaningless symbolism is Labor's lifeblood. Virtue signalling to the high heavens makes it look like you're doing something good without actually having to do the legwork.

My colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price has stood in this chamber day in, day out, time and time again, being the Voice for the people of the Northern Territory, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. She represents real regional voices, forgotten Australians who need a voice, yet we don't even know if the Voice is going to be their voice. So whose voice is it then? The inner-city bureaucrats? Only the Indigenous groups who vote red? At present, the referendum is risky, costly and especially divisive. As always, this government says one thing and does another.

We live in an age where questions are dangerous and dissent is criminal. If you don't swim with the tide of progressivism, you are the problem. You are not simply an alternative view, you are not still a valid member of the Australian tapestry, you are the enemy and should be forced out of the conversation. We saw that yesterday with a new campaign by GetUp encouraging people against the Voice to make increasingly racist comments to ensure their isolation.

Labor has not been upfront with Australians about the risk. Some Voice activists have said this will be the first step to reparations and other radical changes. The Voice, for some, is part of a three-stage process: the Voice, then a treaty and then something called truth-telling. But don't fall for these seemingly innocuous terms. What they really entail is the effective creation of a two-state system within this country that rewrites history and the law and fixes nothing. This isn't scaremongering about something imminent and nefarious. This is a warning about what is possible under Labor's Voice when it lacks the details necessary to safeguard this country from those unintended consequences. Labor has significant form on unintended consequences as a result of their half baked and rushed legislation, and we're seeing the dividends of that on our energy bills currently, on inflation and the cost of living.

Australians deserve all of the details before they vote on a permanent change to our Constitution. And we mustn't forget, at a time when Australians are indeed experiencing a cost-of-living crisis, the Voice referendum and the setting up of this body, if it's successful, will be incredibly costly. In the financial year 2023-24, the government has allocated $4.3 billion for the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which has over 1,400 staff. Their role is to advise government on improving the lives of Indigenous Australians. Labor's Voice would basically replicate this. There is no clarity on how the two would interact. This is not to mention the some 109 Indigenous bodies funded by the government in existence already that work to provide outcomes for Indigenous Australians. If the mechanism to address Indigenous outcomes already exists, what are we really voting on? If they don't work, shut them down and use that money to promote this new voice. The government needs to be honest about its agenda here.

The Australian people should be asking how much is this going to cost in the end. We've at least got some indication of how much money it's going to cost at a state level. You've got the treaty deals the Queensland government is considering, and they are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. It's not a modest change, and we don't know how the Voice will work, and this is just one state's arrangements.

How many extra public servants will be required to service the Voice? What is the anticipated recurrent expenditure? How much will taxpayers spend on motor vehicle fleets, accommodation and travel? We on this side are slow to transfer authority out of the hands of the people and into the hands of courts that do not represent them. But this government wants to jump right in, because it doesn't believe in its heart of hearts that Australians know what's best for them.

This voice is divisive. It does not give the voiceless a voice; it amplifies one voice over the others. The big danger with the proposed constitutional amendment is the destruction of equality of citizenship. As Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price says, 'We are one together, not two divided.' Enshrining in our Constitution a body for only one particular group of Australians will mean permanently dividing us by race, and many Indigenous Australians don't want this split. We need to bring Australians together, not divide them as Mr Albanese wants to do. This will divide our country along the lines of race and do nothing to help the most marginalised members of the Indigenous community. The Voice will forever be a symbol of division, rather than an instrument of unity—in fact, it already is. Noel Pearson has warned that voting no would lead to a future of 'almost endless protest'. Pearson even criticised Senator Nampijinpa Price for being trapped in a 'redneck celebrity vortex' and for being used by right-wing thinktanks to 'punch down on blackfellas'—hardly the words of inclusion.

In this referendum we will see, as we saw with the same-sex marriage postal survey, those with the affirming view labelling those with alternative views as bigots or, in this case, racists. But the question—and this is why I say, 'Don't fall for the language'—isn't about whether Indigenous people deserve a voice, as the 'yes' proponents pretend is the case. Not many in this country would deny a voice to any Australian. The question is about this idea of creating another bureaucratic body at great cost to give one segment of Australia a greater say than the rest of Australia, undermining the democratic process to, at best, make no difference to the lives of Indigenous Australians and, at worst, circumvent the democratic process to influence policymakers on all matters. This top-down, elitist Canberra voice does nothing to help Indigenous communities on the ground, those who want to build better lives for themselves and their families. We all want better outcomes for the most marginalised people in our community. The simple proposition of whether we are willing to divide our country along the lines of race is something we should all examine closely. The coalition does not believe that that is what Australians want.

Prime Minister Albanese is asking Australians to vote for this huge change to our Constitution, without giving them the details of how it will work. Many who advocate for the 'yes' campaign are trying to portray this as no big deal and something that should just be waved through on the vibe. It is a very big deal and it will change our country and the way that we are governed. There is absolutely nothing 'modest'—as Mr Albanese is trying to pass this off as—about changing the nation's rulebook. Our party's position is clear: we support the Australian people having their say, but we do not support this risky, divisive, unknown and permanent change to our Constitution. Our message to all Australians is this: if you don't know, say no.