Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today by Senator Cash, Senator McGrath and Senator Cadell relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, special purpose flights, and the aviation industry.

Before I commence my remarks, I note that it was a privilege to hear the exchange that just occurred at the end of question time between Senator Wong, the Leader of the Government, and my dear, dear friend Senator Payne.

I'll first make some comments in relation to the answer from Senator Wong to the question from my good friend senator Cash about comments attributed to or reported on by Professor Marcia Langton, who used the terms 'base racism or sheer stupidity' in relation to the 'no' campaign. Those are the two phrases which Professor Langton, who is a senior proponent of the 'yes' case, used in the last few days. The use of those terms is extremely unfortunate. And from my perspective, when those in any argument speaking generally resort to the use of such terms, it is not an indication of a strong argument. It is not an indication of an argument which is winning the day. It is an indication of anger. It is an indication that your argument, in terms of what you are proposing, is not cutting through and is, in fact, failing. You attack those who are putting a contrary view instead of actually taking on the arguments that are being put by the other side. It shows you are losing the debate, and it is extremely unfortunate that those terms were used.

I note that Senator Wong in her answer referred to 'fear', as if the 'no' campaign is relying on fear. Can I say, as someone who is deputy chair of the working group in this parliament who drafted the 'no' case, which went out in the booklet issued by the Australian Electoral Commission to millions of Australians, we came together in good faith on this side of the chamber, feeling a very heavy obligation to make sure that all Australians had the benefit of all the arguments so that they could make up their own minds. That was certainly my goal and that of those on the side of the chamber. We pointed out the fact that the bill that was passed through this place in relation to this Constitutional referendum had 303 words. That's it—303 words. On the basis of a bill with 303 words, the government is proposing to introduce a new chapter into our Constitution, creating a new Constitution. There is a chapter dealing with the House of Representatives, one dealing with the Senate and a chapter dealing with our court system. From those on the other side in relation to the biggest referendum this country has ever faced—the first time a new chapter being introduced into our Constitution—all the detail that was provided was 303 words. That is it.

So I say to those on the yes side: do not abuse your opponents when they simply point out the fact that you are asking the Australian people to make an assessment on the biggest change in this country's history in this referendum on the basis of a bill with 303 words. That is a fact—303 words. That is all the detail the government is giving the Australian people. I think the Australian people deserve better than that and that is one of the reasons why the support for the referendum is crashing. There needs to be a time for personal reflection on the part of those who are putting the yes case as to why the support for the yes case is collapsing. The lack of detail, the fact all the government could provide was 303 words in making the biggest change in our country's history to our Constitution is a fact as to why the Australian people are falling on the no side of this argument.