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

In the first instance, it's not a 'scare campaign' to ask reasonable questions. We are currently within the meaning of section 129(ii). How is it a scare campaign for me or Senator Nampijinpa Price to ask whether or not making a representation to a particular part of executive government includes ASIO? Either the Voice can make a representation to ASIO or it can't. If the answer is no, rule it out. It's very simple. And, if the answer is yes, say yes. How is it a scare campaign to ask a very genuine question in relation to whether the Voice can make a representation to a Commonwealth entity? The Reserve Bank has been raised by people, and that is why we are asking: can the Voice make a representation to the Reserve Bank?

In relation to your comments about my questions concerning the term 'First Peoples', First Peoples will be a legal term. I asked you: why did you choose the term 'First Peoples'? Why didn't you use the term 'First Nations'? Do you actually see that there is a difference between 'First Peoples' and 'First Nations'? If you do, it would be great if you could explain it, because the term that is used will be interpreted by a future High Court, as you know. It will actually have a constitutional consequence if the referendum is carried. It is entirely appropriate, given the lack of detail that we have—we have a glossy brochure and a handy little booklet—that we explore in this forum what the legal consequences will actually be.

To further the questions that Senator Nampijinpa Price has—and she will continue to ask questions—in the explanatory memorandum, 'matters relating' et cetera is explained as:

… matters relevant to the Australian community—

and this is the point that Senator Nampijinpa Price is making—

including general laws or measures, but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples—

and here is the keyword—

differently to other members of the Australian community.

So Senator Nampijinpa Price in the first instance is merely asking you: can you take us through what some of those matters are? But then I will also ask you: what is the process by which a court will determine whether a measure affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people differently? The issue we now have is, if you're unable to advise the Senate what these matters are, how is the Voice itself—whatever this body may be, because we don't know what this body may be—whether or not the matter that they are making a representation on, to go to the explanatory memorandum, is a matter relevant to the Australian community et cetera but which affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people differently to other members? They in good faith make a representation to you. We're still going to explore what the obligation on the government is in relation to providing them with information. They have taken some time; they've consulted; they've come together and they now have a representation and make the representation. What happens if it's not a matter pertaining to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples? How is the court going to determine what actually is a matter? Are they going to waste their time making a representation? You can't clearly articulate tonight what a matter is that relates to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island peoples. So again I ask you, in relation to the explanatory memorandum, we would like some further explanation. This is explained as:

matters relevant to the Australian community, including general rules and measures, but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently—

a key word—

to other member for the Australian community.

Could you please just tell us what some of these matters are?