Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 known as the Voice. Asking Australians to participate in any referendum is a big deal. This is because any change to our Constitution, our nation's guiding rulebook, is a big deal. Every word in our Constitution can be open to legal challenge and interpretation. It is therefore the government of the day's responsibility to have very carefully thought through the wording of any referendum question being put to Australians and also the proposed wording to be incorporated into our Constitution. Once a change is made to our Constitution, it is very difficult to unchange it.

History shows that there is very little chance of a referendum succeeding in Australia, regardless of the proposed wording change. Since our Federation, Australians have only supported eight of the 44 proposed constitutional changes. 1977 was the last time Australian electors approved an amendment to our Constitution. Given this, when considering asking Australians to vote on a referendum, I believe it is incumbent on the government to do a number of very key things: (1) ensure that the proposed wording change will not be open to legal challenge; (2) ensure that there is a rigorous review and consultation process; and (3) ensure that there is ample detail provided to Australians about the consequences of any proposed wording to our Constitution.

Legal experts do not agree on how the High Court will interpret the proposed constitutional change to create the Voice. Ian Callinan AC KC, a former High Court judge, has said:

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

It is a matter of public record the government's own constitutional expert group could not reach agreement on the consequences of the proposed constitutional change. Some said it could give rise to a constitutional duty for government to consider any Voice representations even if the parliament did not want this. Others have disagreed. The Solicitor-General has conceded that there is room for argument.

The government's inquiry into this bill has been poor. The inquiry into the republic referendum held 12 separate hearings. This was after a full constitutional convention that invited delegates from right around our great country. The Albanese government determined that a constitutional convention was not required for the Voice. There has been no explanation given for this decision. If we had had a convention on the Voice I'm quite sure that we could have ironed out the details and at least narrowed the issues in dispute. Instead, the government decided merely that a joint select committee would be formed to review the bill, and that was given only six weeks to conduct the inquiry. I believe that was woefully inadequate, and I simply don't understand why the rush.

Prime Minister Albanese is asking Australians to vote for this change to our Constitution without providing the details of how the Voice will work in practice. Some 'yes' campaigners have argued that the proposed changes to the Constitution are modest or that they are no big deal, but, as I have said, any change to our Constitution is a big deal. In February this year I penned an opinion piece on the Voice which was published in the West Australian newspaper. In this piece I said:

Closing the gap requires the support of both sides of the aisle … If we are going to propose the inclusion of the Voice in our Constitution the Australian public should be treated … with respect. Australians have a right to ask the Government common sense questions—

regarding the referendum. Since February the government has announced a referendum question and the proposed constitutional wording. Sadly, there are now even more questions and even greater uncertainty as to how the Voice will work in practice.

I went on further to say:

In WA, our regional and remote communities are at breaking point. Our hospitals, police force, community organisations and local councils are literally crying out for help.

I represent some of our most vulnerable Australians. I want only the best for my Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander constituents. I want the children to go to school and to get a job, for the home to be a safe place, for overcrowding to be a thing of the past, to keep our young people out of Banksia Hill Detention Centre. I want the reduction of alcohol abuse and drugs. The most important thing is to stop our kids from having kids. Clearly the way in which federal and state governments have been supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders needs to have a complete overhaul. It is simply not fit for purpose. I expect all of my federal colleagues here, and represented across our land, want the lives of our First Nations people to be improved. I do not think that that is being debated. Many argue that the Voice is the answer, but there are many others who are not convinced of that.

According to the Calma-Langton report, which laid out in detail how a national Voice model would operate, the first step in the process of creating the Voice was to start with local and regional voices, and I believe, as someone who represents the second-largest Indigenous population in our great country, that that is a very good starting point. For too long Canberra has been telling Indigenous communities what is best for them. The government, however, has acknowledged at some point in the future there is an intention to create a local and regional voice structure. But, in the meantime, the proposed Voice model would be a top-down approach.

I had hoped that the Voice would have provided a vehicle for Indigenous Australians to have their say in how national policy affects the local challenges, and we know there are plenty of challenges. But it will simply be impossible for the many Indigenous communities across Western Australia to be represented on any Voice committee, which will undoubtedly be a very city-centric, Canberra focused body. How on earth will the voices of regional Western Australia's Indigenous communities ever be heard under what is being proposed today?

The Prime Minister says that the Voice will unite the nation. I'm sorry, Prime Minister; I disagree with you 100 per cent. If the Voice referendum is not successful, we will not only have expended many millions of dollars and untold amounts of human resources for no outcome, but the Canberra bureaucrats would have continued to spin their wheels without making headway to improve our existing programs.

In conclusion, I do not support the proposal that is contained within this bill. However, I will not stand in the way of the Australian people having their say. It is right and proper that Australians have the final say on the referendum.

See this speech in context