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

I rise to make a short contribution on the third reading of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. In making my contribution I want to make it very clear to the chamber what will happen on this side when this bill is voted on today. The majority of this side of the chamber will vote to pass this bill through the parliament. This is not though because we agree with what this bill ultimately sets out to achieve, which is of course to irrevocably change this nation's Constitution in a way that will destroy one of our most fundamental values—equality of citizenship. The majority of us will vote to pass this bill because we believe in the people of this nation and their right to have a say on this issue. Ironically, the referendum of course will provide an unequal say for every citizen.

What we tried to do through the committee process on Friday evening and into Saturday morning was to establish some basic information for the Australian people so that when they ultimately vote in this referendum they are properly informed. What we saw, however, from this government was a cynical exercise to obfuscate and deflect rather than provide the Australian people with the answers they both want and deserve.

Senator Watt of course was armed with his handy little booklet that he purported gave Australians the information that they need, but he wasn't armed with the answers to the real questions Australians are concerned about. On more than 100 occasions the best Senator Watt could do on behalf of the government was respond: 'Well, that will be a matter for the parliament,' or, alternatively, 'I refer to my previous answer.' It was without a doubt one of the greatest displays of an exercise in avoiding giving the Australian people the details that, as I said, not only they want but, if you were treating them with any form of respect, you would ensure as a government you were able to give to them.

Despite this government's inability to answer any questions on how the Voice will work, some things were established during the committee process. We showed that there are genuine legal risks that the Australian people are just being asked to accept. We showed that the only real attempt at explaining the Voice is a glossy two-page brochure; but what we also found out is that it isn't even worth the paper it's written on. Australia's Constitution is our most important legal document. Every single word can be open to interpretation. 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) and the meaning of the words in section 129 (iii) are all important issues, and not one of them was explained during the committee process.

What we do know, though, from our interrogation of the bill, is that it is four things: it's risky, it's unknown, it's divisive and, on top of all that, when you change our Constitution it is a permanent change. Enshrining the Voice in the Constitution does mean that it's open to legal challenge, and if it is open to legal challenge then it is open for interpretation by the High Court of Australia. Ultimately, despite what the government says, it is the High Court of Australia who will determine what the right to make representations actually means—a vital question that we did pursue in the committee stage and there are still no adequate answers to it. What we do know is that legal experts don't agree. And the legal experts, I'm sure, cannot be sure how any High Court will interpret such a constitutional change. Again, what are we doing here? We're opening up a legal can of worms. The proposed model, as we know it, is not just to the parliament; it's to all areas of executive government. It gives an unlimited scope, as we've heard, from the Reserve Bank and potentially to Centrelink. Or, in the words of a constitutional law professor, from submarines to parking tickets. What does that then mean for the Australian people and for the government that they know? There is a considerable risk of delay to government decision-making. And what does this, ultimately, deliver to them, potentially? The risk of dysfunctional government.

There is no doubt that every single one of us in this place wants to see better outcomes for the most marginalised people in our community. We all want to lift them up; none of us want to put barriers in their way. But in our national anthem, we now proudly sing that 'we are one and free'. What the Albanese government is proposing with the Voice is a way of dividing us, and that certainly does not make us one. As Senator Nampijinpa Price has said:

We should be one together, not two divided.

And as Ian Callinan AC KC, former High Court judge has said, 'I would foresee a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation arising out of the Voice.'

The coalition does not believe that this is what the Australian people want. Once the Voice is in the Constitution, it won't be undone. Once a High Court makes an interpretation, parliament can't overrule it. We'll be stuck with the negative consequences and bad outcomes. And what we saw in the committee stage of the bill on Friday night, and into Saturday morning, is that the government either will not tell or, even worse, is unable to tell Australians the most basic details. The government did not have the answers. The big message out of all of this is that the Voice is four things: it's risky, it's unknown, it's divisive and it's permanent. If you don't know how the Voice is going to work, my humble opinion is to vote no.