Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, I will not be able to support this bill before the House, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, in its current form. With the time afforded to me, I'd like to touch on three particular points. I want to share how my family is intertwined with our First Nations people; I want to share correspondence and feedback that my office has received on what the people of my electorate of Wright have been saying—and I mentioned those people in my maiden speech and labelled them 'the silent majority'—and I want to share some data from previous referendums, of which only eight of 44 proposals with constitutional change have been approved, and, moreover, how the eight that were successful navigated their path to success.

We all seek a respectful and caring debate. It has saddened me. Professionally, I compliment all of those in this place that have lent into that space, but there have been others that have chosen a different pathway, and that has saddened me. With reference to the data collected from my office, being for those for the vote that have either contacted our office by email or telephone, we have recorded as best we could so that the data is accurate 'for', 'against', 'undecided' and 'alternative wording suggestions'. In a nutshell, 72 per cent of those people that have contacted my office are not in support and 28 per cent are in support. Telephone traffic from across the electorate, in the main, has been asking for more detail. Telephone traffic says they do not want another giant bureaucracy set up in Canberra, and they don't want boots on the ground. They want more boots on the ground where they see issues unfolding, such as Alice Springs, Logan and Townsville.

Following are some extracts of correspondence that have been received, for example, from Randall and Pam: 'There are already too many representative bodies milking the system, not to mention the National Indigenous Australian Agency of $3.4 billion. All the rest of us are worthy.' The sentiment they were offering was that this was divisive. David from Harrisville wrote: 'I'm very worried about Labor's proposal. If it's passed, it'll wreck our parliamentary system.' Mark sent an email: 'I'm not in favour of changes to the Constitution that give advantage to one part of the community over another. I am in favour of appropriate changes to the Constitution, and I'm disappointed at the lack of proper discussion.' Otto from Laidley believes the Voice will divide Australia and that the process is divisive. Paulo and Anna wrote: 'The Westminster system has served democracies around the world for hundreds of years. We have an Indigenous population of three per cent and five per cent of Indigenous democratically elected sit in the parliament. How is the current system of an equal voice of representation broken?'

One of those democratically elected senators is Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. She said:

I don't want to see my family divided along the lines of race because we are a family of human beings and that's the bottom line.

She also went on to say:

I'll be voting 'no' because this will not unite us, this will divide us.

Finally, I'll read from a press article titled 'Why acclaimed Aboriginal activist Richard Bell won't vote Yes'. When asked the question, he says no:

No … way. It's just going to be a layer of bureaucracy filled by all these … people pushing it.

It will probably cost a billion dollars to administer it. Why don't [we] build houses for black fellas with that? Why don't we try to help raise the standard of living? We have the lowest state of living in the whole country—why … aren't they doing something about that?

And I've toned down his colourful language in that correspondence, but it is on the public record.

It did sadden me this week, or last week, when we saw senior proponents from the Indigenous community in the 'yes' campaign using slanderous, intimidatory narratives, berating Indigenous leaders, belittling them, bullying them. The parliament is probably well aware of Noel Pearson's comments, when he took on another prominent Indigenous Australian. I found that to be unacceptable in a debate, and I'm calling for a respectful engagement by all of those in the debate. Where you have a difference of opinion, those opinions should be respected, on both sides of the debate. No-one has a licence to berate, to belittle or to bully.

Mick Gooda, in response, said that he would not be bullied into conforming with Pearson's position and the Australian public will not be bullied into voting 'yes' for this referendum. And I suggest that he is right. I suggest that he is spot on.

Warren Mundine said:

I see the Voice as effectively reversing the 1967 Referendum, entrenching race and segregation in the constitution and bringing it back.

He went on to say:

It will enshrine a monolithic bureaucracy to end all bureaucracies in the constitution and a permanent and enduring part of Aboriginal lives. Like a great, big new protection board.

There have been those that have voiced their objection, as I have, and it also saddens me that they have been tarnished loosely with the assumption of being racist. That is appalling—absolutely appalling—and no-one should be subjected to that, whether the comments come from this place, from the fourth estate or wherever.

I remind those who wish to comment to hearken back to the US Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, when she, speaking in New York in 2016, labelled Americans who supported her opponents a 'basket of deplorables'. Nothing will send this debate south quicker than dividing our nation.

In my last point, I'll refer to previous referendums. Since Federation, only eight of the 44 proposals for constitutional change have been approved. The most recent successful referendum was back in 1977. To put that in context, I was nine years old, so it was some time ago. Of the eight, six passed with over 70 per cent support. And I would hope that one day, through this process, we end up with some wording that passes with over 80 per cent, because I think that, if we put to the Australian public 'that the Indigenous community be enshrined in our Constitution', full stop, there would be an overwhelming majority, and that this bill, if amended, would join those outcomes and the privileges that we enjoy in Australia today. The highest percentage 'yes' vote of any referendum was in 1967, as to an act to alter the Constitution to omit certain words relating to the people of Aboriginal race in any state so that Aboriginals were to be counted and reckoned in the population—a 'yes' vote of 90.77 per cent. So Australians have an appetite for the Indigenous community to be recognised.

University of New South Wales Pro Vice-Chancellor and Uluru Statement from the Heart co-chair Megan Davis said last year that, whilst she understood the attention paid to bipartisan support, in this particular case it may not be as important as it used to be. I beg to differ. I would have liked to have seen the parliament land on wording that had bipartisan support to give this referendum the best chance of passing. Of the 44 referendum questions since 1901 to change elements of the Constitution only eight have been successful, and they had bipartisan support. That's the very point I'm making. There is a pathway for us to ensure that we get a high outcome on this.

Unfortunately, in March this year the Prime Minister said, 'It would take a lot of convincing before I'd support any amendments.' He has been true to his word. There have been no amendments. There has been no compromise. There has been no consideration of the voices of the democratically elected in this House. It has put fear into those who have told voters, 'Yes, but we'll sort that out afterwards.'

In the couple of minutes afforded to me that I have left I want to share with the House a yarn that President Reagan offered. This metaphor I think is very poignant to this debate. A set of parents had two children who were twins. One was an extreme optimist and the other one was an eternal pessimist. They took counselling. The counsellor said: 'I'll rectify the behaviour patterns. We'll put the pessimist in a room with a heap of the newest, shiniest toys we can find. From the stables at home I'll bring in wheelbarrows of manure, which we'll put in a room. We will put the optimist in there.' The parents agreed to the experiment and the children were put into the rooms.

The pessimist cried tears. The counsellor asked, 'Why are you crying?' He said, 'Because these are the best toys I've ever seen and I know that someone is going to take them off me one day.' The optimist was throwing manure over his shoulders and having a wonderful time. He had a smile on his face. The counsellor said to him, 'Why are you so happy?' He said, 'Because I know in here there's a pony somewhere.' My point is that I think that when we scratch the surface and move beyond this there'll be a pony in here somewhere.

See this speech in context