Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Later this year, Australians will cast their vote in a referendum to change our nation's rulebook, the Constitution. There is no doubt about it: this is one of the most significant and important decisions Australians will ever make about our system of government. Why? Because, if this referendum is carried, Australians will have voted to change the way our nation is governed in a permanent way. The nation that we know today, our representative parliamentary system of democracy and our lives will be changed dramatically, and, unfortunately, arguably not for the better. There is no doubt about it: Labor's Canberra based Voice is four things: it's risky, it's unknown, it's divisive and, on top of all that, it's permanent. The Liberal Party is opposed to the Prime Minister's Canberra-centric Voice.

But, despite our opposition, it is a decision for the Australian people. Australians expect to vote on the issue later this year. As we have said, we will not stand in the way of the Australian people having their say. The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act requires the Electoral Commissioner to distribute an official pamphlet containing arguments for and against a constitutional change. The arguments for or against a constitutional change must be authorised by a majority of parliamentarians who voted for or against it in parliament. In other words, some parliamentarians must vote no to this bill to ensure that the Liberal Party is able to provide substantive input into the official 'no' case, while supporting the bill in parliament.

I am strongly opposed to the Voice proposal. As a first-generation migrant to Australia from Singapore, my birth certificate is very different to the birth certificates of most members in this parliament because it records my race as Eurasian. A search of the Singaporean government website reveals that official documents routinely record a citizen's race to achieve social policy objectives, such as to maintain racial diversity when allocating public housing or determining which subjects a student is permitted to study at school—as was the case during the 1980s, when Chinese students were required to study Mandarin, and not Malay, as their second language, as part of a pro-Chinese government campaign.

In Singapore, a citizen's race excludes them from holding certain positions in parliament, due to racial quotas. Not so in Australia. I never want to see racial differentiation introduced into our system of government. It is refreshing that my Australian citizenship certificate and those of millions of fellow migrants do not record our race. It gives us the freedom to be equally Australian citizens with the liberty to aspire to any office in the land; to stand for election to parliament and perhaps one day serve as Prime Minister or Governor-General; to live where we choose; and to study whatever subjects we choose. Therefore, we must resist differentiating Australians by race in the Constitution. The big danger with the Voice is the destruction of equality of citizenship. As my colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price, a proud Walpiri woman, says, 'We are one together, not two divided'.

Enshrining our Constitution a body for only one group of Australians means permanently dividing Australians by race. The Voice will be a permanent, publicly funded group for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders with additional rights embedded in our Constitution. The Voice will forever be a symbol of division rather than an instrument of unity. The coalition does not believe that that is what Australians want.

Our Constitution is the foundation document on which modern Australia is built. But it is not complete. It could not foresee that, over the next 122 years, Australia would become one of the great multicultural nations of the world, a country in which more than a quarter of Australians, including myself, my mother and my father, were born in another country, and almost half of all Australians have one parent born overseas. And, of course, our Constitution did not recognise our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. That all changed in 1967, when Australians, overwhelmingly, at a referendum, voted to bring our country together.

The story of our Indigenous heritage is one of three great threads that are woven into the fabric of our nation. The other two threads, our British foundation and our immigrant character, have intertwined with it to build a nation with a unique character, made prosperous through agriculture, mining and industrialisation. The Constitution is our most important legal document. It establishes the legal foundation of our country, a nation moving forward. The Australian Constitution did not arrive as a perfectly completed document. In fact, took years of careful consideration and debate in its drafting. No-one in this place would argue that it is a perfect document and, indeed, every word is open to interpretation.

By enshrining the Voice into the Constitution, we deny the parliament the power to alter it by legislation, as was the case when this parliament legislated to abolish the dysfunctional Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Further, enshrining Labor's Voice will open a legal can of worms with challenges and interpretations adjudicated by the unelected High Court. Labor's proposed model isn't just the Voice to Parliament but to all areas of executive government. It gives unlimited scope, from the Reserve Bank to Centrelink. There is a significant risk of considerable delays to government decision-making, creating dysfunctional government. The Hon. Ian Callinan AC KC, a former High Court judge, said:

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

Former High Court Justice Hayne said it would 'disrupt the ordinary and efficient working of government' to such an extent that it would 'bring government to a halt'. It is a matter of public record that even the government's own constitutional expert group could not reach an agreement on what this constitutional change would do. Our Constitution has served our nation well in terms of stability. One of the key differences between the Liberal Party and Labor is that we, as Liberals, place far greater trust in the democratic institutions of our country. We are cautious about transferring the authority out of the hands of the people and into the hands of the courts, who do not represent them.

Let me be clear: I do not support the risky, divisive, unknown and permanent change to our Constitution. Changing our Constitution is a momentous step. It hasn't been done by referendum since 1977. However, Labor is refusing to reveal the details of legislation before Australians vote. The Voice is a three-stage process: voice, treaty, truth. This referendum is only the beginning of the process—the tip of the iceberg. Many Voice activists say this will be the first step towards reparations and other radical changes to existing property rights. How can a nation sign a treaty with some of its own citizens?

My constituents have continually raised their concerns with me, asking how much it will cost them. Prime Minister, how much will the Voice cost? How many extra public servants will be required to administer the Voice? What is the anticipated recurrent expenditure? How much will taxpayers spend on remuneration, motor vehicle fleets, accommodation and travel expenditure? These are all valid questions which the Australian public are entitled to ask.

Budget Paper No. 2 in the 2023-24 budget makes clear the government will provide $364 million over three years to deliver the referendum on the Voice. This includes $336.6 million over three years for the AEC to conduct the referendum, $12 million for the National Indigenous Australians Agency and the Museum of Australian Democracy for civics education, $10.5 million for the Department of Health and Aged Care to increase mental health support for Indigenous Australians during the referendum period and a further $5.5 million for the National Indigenous Australians Agency for consultation, policy and delivery.

In 2023-24 the government has allocated $4.3 billion for the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which has over 1,400 staff. Their role is to advise the government on improving the lives of Indigenous Australians. Labor's Voice would basically replicate this, and it is not clear how the two would interact. Australians deserve all the details before they vote on a permanent change to the Constitution.

Bureaucracy slows things down. I have never met anyone who wants more bureaucracy in their life. The Albanese Canberra based Voice will mean administration and decision-making of government departments will be wrapped in another layer of complexity and will no doubt be slowed down by this process. If the Voice is given the constitutional function of making representations, many say it will have to be told in advance of relevant matters that are being acted on before they are decided by government. The Voice would then be given the time and resources to analyse these matters to decide whether they will put forward a position. If that is not done, its constitutional rights will have been breached, opening government up to constitutional and administrative law litigation. How can government operate effectively with such constraints? This potential administrative paralysis will happen across all government departments and other forms of government.

Currently in our parliamentary representative system of democracy 27 million Australians are ably represented by 227 federal members of the House of Representatives and senators. This 47th Parliament is the most ethnically diverse parliament on record, with 11 members identifying as Indigenous. By proportion, Indigenous people are more than equitably represented in our present electoral system.

The government's inquiry into this bill has been embarrassingly poor and has denied Australians the opportunity to understand the impact of constitutional change. The inquiry into the 1999 republic referendum had 12 hearings, after a full constitutional convention that invited delegates from around the country. However, this parliament's joint select committee was allowed less than 28 hours for hearings, including the time spent on introductory and ceremonial aspects. Incredibly, the joint select committee was given just six weeks. The government have also denied Australians the benefit of a constitutional convention, which could have ironed out details and narrowed the issues in dispute.

As a first generation migrant, I value equality of citizenship and celebrate that my Australian citizenship certificate does not classify me by my race, unlike my birth certificate. Yet the fundamental premise of the referendum segregates Australians by race. The Albanese government has rushed through the referendum process without providing necessary detail, exposing the operation of government to legal challenge in the courts. The Australian people should never be asked to vote on a constitutional change without fully knowing what they are voting for.

See this speech in context