Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

If the referendum on 14 October is defeated, I for one will not be celebrating. While I'll be relieved that we have not amended our Constitution to include a new chapter that divides Australians on the basis of race, I will be melancholy because I will regret that Australia, particularly Indigenous Australia, has been put through this divisive campaign. We've said for a long time that the reasons to vote 'no' to the Voice are that it's permanent, that it's unknown, that it's risky and that it's divisive. I'd go a step further and say that it's also unnecessary.

What the proponents of the Voice would like to see—having an advisory body that will advise the government and this place, including me as a backbencher sitting over here on this side of the chamber—is a sound idea—that you would listen to people that you're going to design programs for. That's actually a really sound idea. But that can be done right now. We don't have to amend the Constitution to do that. We have the power right now. It may not even require legislation, but, if legislation were required, I for one would be in support of it. I would like to see programs designed with better input from the people that those programs are to support. That is a sound idea. This referendum is unnecessary. Amending the Constitution to divide Australians on the basis of race is unnecessary. It doesn't need to happen.

We have warned this government of this. I've been involved in Indigenous affairs and around this area for 12 to 15 years. We've warned this government that this step is unnecessary, that it will divide Australians and that we will see the very worst parts of our public discourse when it comes to attacks, possibly from both sides. It's unnecessary. And it is the Prime Minister that has decided to persist with this. It is the Prime Minister who had decided to continue this when he knows that this is likely to be defeated. Certainly the polls are showing that this referendum is likely to be defeated. So why would you put Australians through that? Why would you put Indigenous Australians through that process when we know that that's going to happen?

In relation to Professor Marcia Langton, I can't believe she has said what she said, and I say that with experience with Professor Langton because I've actually worked with Professor Langton on a number of projects over quite a number of years, in particular the cashless debit card. Professor Langton was very helpful in the early days of pushing for the cashless debit card. She came with me here to parliament. She met with members of the crossbench—this was before I got here—and met with members of the government and opposition and called for the introduction of the cashless debit card. In 2008-09, I sought Professor Langton's assistance to help in calling for restrictions on alcohol in the towns of Halls Creek and Fitzroy Crossing in the Kimberley. She was very useful. I remember joining her in a studio at the ABC where she was on 7.30 and was very active in doing that. It disappoints me because I know Professor Langton and I know that she otherwise cares for this country in general, for all Australians but of course particularly for Indigenous Australians.

For these remarks to be made in the way that she has made them is very disappointing. It says to me that the proponents of the 'yes' campaign, if they're having to resort to this type of language, are obviously very worried about the outcome. I would say we should be coming together and starting to focus on how we can actually address the real issues that are occurring on the ground, and that involves some serious action and some serious responsibility and accountability.