Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is amazing, isn't it, that those on that side come in and ask questions about a learned woman's comments that they have taken offence to. They are the same people who had made their decision very early on that they were going to oppose the Voice. Let's be very clear about what they are opposing. They are opposing recognition in the Australian Constitution of our first people. Secondly, they are opposing giving First Nations people a Voice to Parliament. This is not something that was concocted here in Canberra; this was actually something that First Nations people have argued for, asked for, for so long.

If we look at the reason why it was this government that introduced the bill so that we can have a referendum so that finally our First Nations people can have recognition in the Australian Constitution and to give them a voice, was because of the very obvious things that we have been doing as governments. Let's face it, the majority of governments in this country at a federal level that have had the responsibility for our First Nations health, welfare and education have been Liberal governments, over a very long period of time. What they have been doing has not been working.

If we continue to do the same thing, we're going to get the same results. First Nations people have a much shorter life expectancy, poorer health outcomes, less opportunity for education. Fewer First Nations people go on to a tertiary education. I'm not saying tertiary education is the be-all and end-all but they do not have the opportunity. If we want to talk about the word 'racism', I have been absolutely astonished at the number of racist comments, the attacks on social media when people are trying to have a conversation about the referendum and about our democracy. I, for one, can respect someone else's opinion. If people want to vote to no, that is fine. You have every right; that is why we defend our great democracy. But what I do not support is an argument mounted on racism from the people on that side who are supporting the 'no' campaign and people from outside this place, the parliament, who are using racism to stop this referendum being successful. It is such a shame that we can't have a proper debate. I thought, 'Well, do we leave the comments up on social media—the negativity and the racism?' I thought, 'No, because there are a lot of people that are going to be reading those comments and they will get offended by them.'

So I'm all for those who do not want to support it. That's fine. But let's be very clear for those people on that side. How could the 'no' campaign be anything else but run by Mr Dutton, whose first act of defiance to the First Nations people was when he walked out of the apology in the federal parliament? He walked out when the Prime Minister was apologising for the past. He walked out, and he is now the Leader of the Liberal Party. So why would we be surprised that he's taken a very strong view to oppose the Voice? Why do you think he's doing that? Because it's the 'no-alition', because it's much easier to say no. But then he came up with a great plan: 'What we'll do is vote against this referendum but, gee, we're going to have our own referendum and spend even more money.' Are we supposed to trust that at that time he would have another referendum and it would be successful?

I really am astonished that people would come in here and try and blame everything about racism on this side of the chamber and anyone who is actually supporting the 'yes' campaign. I believe that we should all be able to make our own decisions based on our own values.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's rich coming from those opposite speaking of transparency and accountability and demanding facts to come in here and ask for the very same thing that Indigenous people have been asking for through the Uluru Statement from the Heart. This isn't something that was established that somehow fell from the sky when our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, was elected. This Uluru Statement from the Heart, if those who are watching have not read it, is fewer than 400 words. They are simple words: 'A generous invitation for you to walk'—

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don't even know that.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection. I do know it. For those who sitting opposite saying, 'If you don't know, vote "no",' do you know what you are doing? You're insulting the intelligence of the Australian people. That's a shame on you because you sit here demanding and taking this moral high ground, thinking that you are alleviating Australians of this dilemma that they find themselves in. But it's very simple. If nothing changes, we cannot see results. You've been in government for the last decade. How much change have you seen? We're still seeing suicide rates skyrocket. We're still seeing incarceration rates through the roof. You call us a first-world nation when you're treating your Indigenous people as third-class citizens. Senator Hanson, what do you have to say for that?

Through the chair, I would like to come back to the point here. When I'm talking to people on the ground, the fearmongering of those on the other side, who are not basing any of their arguments on facts, is outrageous. It's all about the hypotheticals. It's all about making sure that they politicise. They use every opportunity to politicise this campaign when they know that it's simply a generous invitation for us to close the gap, for us to listen, for us to get better results.

My late father used to always used to say that God has blessed you with two ears and one mouth so that you can listen twice as much as you speak. Clearly, those opposite are just talk. They do not walk the talk. They just sit there. They just spread misinformation and they expect that Australian people are that stupid that they will listen to their fearmongering and listen to the misinformation that they're spreading. Don't you know that people on your own side—people such as Julian Leeser, Malcolm Turnbull, Julie Bishop and Jeremy Rockliff—are voting yes? Why are they voting yes? You clearly don't know.

Do you know what? I don't know that you're ready to face the facts. I don't think you can handle the facts. The facts are out there. They've been out there. People have been asking for this. An overwhelming majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are asking for this. Now, you all have families and children. Put yourselves in their position. They are begging for your vote. Each and every Australian out there has this opportunity, and I have faith in the Australian people. I know that we will make the right decision when it comes to 14 October, because we want to see a united nation. We want to see our nation come together.

It's really important for us to realise that the two components of the question that will be asked of the Australian people are very simple. They are recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and making sure that there's a voice to parliament—not a voice in parliament, but a voice to parliament—that will listen to the concerns of Indigenous people and ensure that, when it comes to policymaking, there's effective policymaking by consulting with those whom it will impact the most.

I would like to rephrase what those opposite are saying when they say, 'If you don't know, vote no,' by saying: 'If you don't know, find out more.' As Australians, we are smarter than that and we deserve better than that. Don't let those opposite insult your intelligence. Find out more. Vote 'yes' if you want to see change. Vote 'yes' for a better Australia.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address this topic from the perspective of somebody who has worked for much of his professional life as an experimental test pilot, which is all about saying: there's a bid for change, there's a new proposal, but will it work and will it have unintended consequences, and what are the facts? Now, that approach doesn't mean that I'm anti the new proposal. It doesn't mean that I'm somehow biased against the new proposal. It means that I'm applying due diligence, which is a feature of the engineering world, the aviation world and the financial world. In fact, I would argue that every household does their due diligence in a range of areas.

But I want to come to these two topics that have raised. They are around race and whether asking questions is legitimate. Going first to the question of race, I have a quote:

The draft wording that has been announced goes beyond ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a right to participate in decision-making that affects them. It inserts race into the Australian Constitution in a way that undermines the foundational human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination and creates constitutional uncertainty in terms of its interpretation and operation.

Now, I invite people to guess who actually said that. It wasn't somebody from this side of the Senate chamber. It was Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, Lorraine Finlay, a well-established constitutional lawyer and human rights lawyer, somebody who works for our nation from the reference point of what is fair and equitable. That is her assessment. The last part of her assessment goes to constitutional uncertainty in terms of its interpretation and implementation.

It is worthwhile looking at the comments of people like former High Court judge Ian Callinan, who said:

… I would foresee a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation arising out of a voice …

Again, this is hardly someone you would say was stupid or racist.

Professor Greg Craven, who is a constitutional law expert—and he, indeed, has been deeply involved in creating the Voice—said on the Albanese government model:

I think it's fatally flawed because what it does is retain the full range of review of executive action. This means the Voice can comment on everything from submarines to parking tickets … We will have regular judicial interventions.

If eminent experts who are clearly not stupid, who are clearly not racist, are calling into question both the efficacy and the potential for unintended consequences, it is quite reasonable—in fact, proper—for Australians to say, 'If you can't tell us the details, we won't support it.'

Question agreed to.