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

So the answer to that is 'no'. What we have been exploring is the legal implications of section 129(i): 'there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice'. I have put to you, as the minister representing the government who is asking the Australian people to vote on this: in interpreting section 129(i), would it be possible to enact legislation saying that, for constitutional purposes—I gave the example of the local Rotary club; you could use this example—one of the land councils is now the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice? The answer is: 'That is a matter for the democratically elected parliament.' I then put to you: if the parliament enacts legislation declaring a single person as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, does that satisfy the requirement of section 129(i)? For example, if the parliament enacted legislation stating that Noel Pearson or Professor Megan Davis were the Voice, would that satisfy the constitutional requirement? And, again, it was, 'That is a matter for the democratically elected parliament.' Again I asked you: does section 129(i) actually contain any implied constitutional requirement that the Voice members be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals? I have to say that the people I have spoken to actually believe this. They believe that what they are voting for, if they vote yes, is that this will be a body whose members will be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals, but we now know that that is a matter for the democratically elected parliament. So I'll go back to what we do know.

What we know is this. There shall be a body. That's it. We know what the name of the body is, but after that we don't have any detail as to what the actual body itself will look like because that is going to be left to the parliament to decide. We have a booklet—a 'handy little booklet', Senator Watt has referred to it as—that doesn't take us any further in terms of what this body will actually look like. The handy little booklet is worthless when it comes to the legal interpretation of section 129(i). There is no certainty here for the Australian people at all. In fact, I would actually say that there is now even less certainty because we have no guidance other than that this body has a name. We don't know what the composition of the body is going to be.

What we do know—and we'll explore this shortly—is that we have a body with some extraordinary power. As we go through this line of questioning, it will be seen that it is risky and uncertain. To quote again the late David Jackson: 'We will become a country whereby we are no longer equal. I would say it's divisive, but, because this is a constitutional amendment, it is permanent.'

Could we now see if we can get a little further clarity in relation to section 129(ii). Section 129 states:

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

…   …   …

(ii) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

I do want to explore the words 'and the executive government' in quite a bit of detail. What does the word 'representations' mean? Are there any limits on the term 'representations'?