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

We actually haven't gone over it before. We were talking about the potential for there to be a veto, even though the design principles state that the Voice will not have a veto power. We're actually talking here about procedural hurdles.

In any event, let's have a look at what we have established tonight. Over the course of around nine hours, what we have now seen on the part of the government is an extensive inability to answer questions about how the Voice will work. We have shown that there are genuine legal risks that the Australian people are being asked to accept. We have shown that the only real attempt at explaining the Voice is a glossy two-page brochure that isn't even worth the paper it was printed on. Quite frankly, what we've heard both last night and now, into the early hours of this morning, will give the Australian people—and that's who we're asking the questions on behalf of—absolutely no comfort whatsoever.

As we all know, or at least on this side we appreciate, the committee process is an important way for this parliament to scrutinise bills that come through this place. I, Senator Nampijinpa Price, Senator Kerrynne Liddle, Senator Bridget McKenzie and those on this side understand that the committee process is an important place for us to undertake this scrutiny. In particular it is important when looking at a bill like this which proposes a huge change to our nation's rule book, our Constitution. What we have established tonight is that the government wants the Australian people to vote at a referendum to change the Constitution, but again, as we've seen here, they won't give them the detail that they are so desperately asking for.

Australians want to make an informed decision. They want to, but after tonight the bad news is this is it, people. This was the final, in fact it was the only chance that on behalf of Australians we had an opportunity to interrogate this process. Senator Watt may have been armed with his helpful little booklet, but what he wasn't armed with were answers, answers that the Australian people both want and deserve. Just telling Australian people that it is a matter for the parliament, which on my count happened more than 100 occasions, is quite frankly not good enough. But then we actually got to 'I refer you to my previous answer', which is even worse.

These are important questions about how the Voice will work. It is not good enough. Australians deserve to know how this referendum will change the way in which they are governed if it is successful. All we have confirmed from the committee process tonight is that the Voice will be four things. It will be risky, it will be unknown, it will be divisive, but on top of all that, because of the nature of the bill that we're discussing tonight, it is permanent.

Australia's Constitution is our most important legal document. Every single word can be open to interpretation. That is what we tried to explore tonight: the meaning of the words in the chapeau; the meaning of the words in section 129(i); the meaning of the words in section 129(ii); the meaning of the words in section 129(ii). Because enshrining the Voice in the Constitution, despite what Senator Watt has said, does mean it is open to legal challenge, and if it is open to legal challenge it is open to interpretation by the High Court of Australia. It does not matter what Senator Watt says, quite frankly; it is the High Court of Australia that will ultimately determine what the right to make a representation means. What we now know throughout this entire process to get here tonight is that legal experts don't agree and they cannot be sure how any High Court will interpret such a constitutional change. This does open a legal can of worms. The proposed model, as we know, is not just to the parliament; it's to all areas of executive government. It gives an unlimited scope, as we've heard tonight, from the Reserve Bank, potentially, to Centrelink, or in the words of a constitutional law professor, from submarines to park tickets. There is a risk of considerable delays to government decision-making. This obviously risks dysfunctional government. That is what people are potentially voting for.

Australians themselves have not changed our Constitution by referendum since 1977. This is a huge decision for the Australian people, but the Labor government, the Labor Party, refuse to provide any details before the Australian people vote. They're asking Australians to vote without knowing exactly how the Voice would operate. As we have seen tonight, cart, horse, Labor is putting the cart before the Voice. Some Voice activists says that this will be the first step to reparations and other radical changes.

I think the biggest danger with the proposed constitutional amendments is the disruption of equality of citizenship. I quoted the late David Jackson tonight. He said of the principle of equality of citizenship that we will be a nation whereby we are no longer equal. Enshrining in our Constitution a body for only one group of Australians does mean—no matter what Senator Watt says—you are dividing Australians by race. As Senator Nampijinpa Price, who will speak shortly, has said, we should bring Australians together, not divide them. We should be one together, not two divided. All we are doing is intentionally embedding in the Constitution paramount rights in favour of one group of people. It doesn't matter what Senator Watt says, it is based, as Senator Nampijinpa Price said, on their race. And these rights are superior to the rights of all other Australians.

What we're going to end up with—it doesn't matter now what the result is—is the Voice forever a symbol of division rather than an instrument of unity. The Constitution, as Senator Nampijinpa Price has articulated at length tonight, will say to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: yes, you have superior rights to the rest of the people in Australia forever, but, this in turn says—to some of the most marginalised Australians—you are different from everyone else and you will be treated differently for evermore. As Senator Nampijinpa Price said, this does nothing to help build confident human beings in Indigenous communities who want to stand on their own two feet, build better lives for themselves and their families. Everyone in the Coalition wants better outcomes for the most marginalised people in our community. We want to lift them up, we don't want to put barriers in their way. In our national anthem, we now proudly sing 'we are one and free'. But what Mr Albanese wants to do with this proposal is divide Australia. This does not make us one. Again, we should be one together, not two divided.

The simple proposition of whether we are willing to divide our country on the lines of race is something we should all examine closely. Once the Voice is in the Constitution, it cannot be undone. Once a High Court makes an interpretation, parliament cannot overrule it. We will be stuck with negative consequences and bad outcomes. What we've seen both last night and this morning is that this government will not tell Australians the most basic details. Senator Watt didn't have the answers. Let's just confirm the message, the big message out of all of this tonight: if you don't know how the Voice is going to work, vote no. If you don't know, vote no.