Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

This is where the crux of the problem actually lies. Again, you've said it'll be determined by a future parliament. You say that the government's intent is set out in the design principles. We now know that the democratically elected parliament does not need to go anywhere near the design principles, so put that aside. That's not in the constitutional change. The constitutional change says: 'in recognition of'. It states:

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

(i) there shall be a body …

I'm trying to explore what this body actually is because the most guidance I get here is it should 'be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice'. That's it. I want to go back to my question. I asked: would it be possible to enact legislation saying that—and this is an example—for constitutional purposes my local Rotary club is now the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice or one of the land councils is now the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice and that is actually the body that is represented in the Constitution? Is that correct?