Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Hansard source

I hope that during this debate it can be as respectful as what we have heard already today on both sides. This year, Australians will be asked to vote to amend the Constitution to enshrine an Indigenous Voice to parliament. From the outset, let me make it clear that I do support Australians having their say via a referendum. I, and my Nationals colleagues, supported the referendum bill earlier this year to ensure that Australians can have their say, but I will be voting against this bill before us, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, because I do not support the proposal that is being put to the Australian people.

This proposal is not the simple recognition that I believe is actually supported by most Australians. This proposal goes way beyond that. Despite what the Yes 23 television adverts will tell you, do not be fooled. This proposal presents a risky and permanent change to our Constitution.

My opposition to this bill is not to say that I want Indigenous Australians to be voiceless—quite the opposite. As I member of the Nationals, most of my colleagues represent electorates with the largest percentages of Indigenous populations. We know and we see the city-country divide. We know the gap, and we know that we need to address issues in regional Australia to help close the gap for Indigenous Australians as well as other regional Australians. We need to look at regional health, government services, infrastructure and community wellbeing in some of our most remote and isolated communities.

As I travel around my home state of New South Wales and beyond, where I see good outcomes, where I see true effort in closing the gap, is where I see local government and councils sitting down with representatives of their Indigenous communities and together working through measures that are fit for purpose in their home towns. My own council, the Edward River Council, have worked hard to establish constructive relationships with the local land council and our local Indigenous knowledge centre. Together they are working on sharing knowledge, sharing understanding and providing opportunity for the whole community. At the other end of the state, Moree council have commenced a similar process, and they are working very hard to find solutions together. That is the sort of voice, the sort of understanding and the sort of progress that I believe works. Some tell me that these examples justify a constitutionally enshrined national voice, but I'm not convinced, because what I know is that what they have identified as positive action in Moree is completely different to what is being undertaken in Deniliquin. I also know that these relationships are fluid and flexible, whereas changing our Constitution for such a body is rigid, permanent and risky, and I am not alone in holding these concerns.

Indigenous community leaders in Dubbo, from separate political backgrounds, were speaking to the local newspaper, the Dubbo Daily Liberal, earlier this year, expressing their concerns about the Voice. Gamilaraay man Peter Gibbs, who I know personally, is also CEO of the local Regional Enterprise Development Institute and has devoted his life, through that organisation, to establishing and finding employment and enterprise opportunities for Indigenous people right across western New South Wales. He believes our current system of democracy is working. It has seen 11 MPs elected to this parliament from across the political spectrum. Mr Gibbs told the paper:

Do we honestly believe that [the] voice will get one kid to school, get someone into a job, protect one domestic violence victim, one child out of care or another young person out of the judicial system?

By the same token, community worker and Wiradjuri and Gamilaraay elder Frank Doolan said money for the Voice would be better spent providing social housing and employment or improving health outcomes. That too is key because the Voice is not a cost-free exercise. We're only hearing about the Voice and the vibe and doing the decent thing, but when we ask, 'What is the cost?' we get blank. Already the National Indigenous Australians Agency receives over $4 billion a year, with over 1,400 staff. The Prime Minister has promised that the Voice, if established, will have a full secretariat and the resources needed to ensure it is supported and can do research and the like. There has never been a discussion about what the recurrent expenditure will be, how many extra Canberra based Public Service jobs will be created or how the Voice will interact with the existing agencies, including the NIAA, or any of the existing Indigenous bodies, like the Coalition of Peaks, a body that already represents over 80 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community organisations and was formed, according to its own website, to change the way the Australian government works with Indigenous people.

As it stands, Indigenous Australians are not voiceless. Prime ministers have, for years, established Indigenous advisory committees. There is the entire department, the NIAA, with offices right across the country, with the stated vision that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are heard, recognised and empowered. So, with all these voices, why aren't we seeing solutions? I think the answer to that is clearly that we haven't been listening. But, as Mr Gibbs says, 'A new bureaucracy will not change that.'

Another friend of mine, also from Dubbo and also a very proud Indigenous man, Michael Cooper, says the proposed Voice is not reconciliation. He tells me, 'From my experience in this space, I have grave fears it will be too bureaucratic and not actually help to improve the lives of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Australians in regional Australia.' But he does fear the divisiveness. He says there is a large group of Aboriginal conservatives across western New South Wales who are fearful of being shouted down. He says he has already witnessed gaslighting of people who express concerns about the Voice by proponents.

Now, I have met with supporters of the Voice, too, and I have had deep and respectful conversations with those I have met with face-to-face—unlike the anonymous keyboard warriors. And I will continue to meet with and speak to all sides of this debate, because I think that's important. What I have asked each of the proponents I have met with is: what does a voice look like to you? The answer I get each and every time is different. It could be elected or see elected representation, regional or national. Even when they have read the Calma-Langton report that we are told will form the baseline, interpretations of what that looks like vary. Some say the Voice will be much like any other advocacy group such as the National Farmers Federation or the business chamber of Australia. Wrong; those groups are not written into our Constitution. Yes, they make representations to government but they're not constitutionally enshrined.

In an online video, constitutional law expert and Voice proponent Professor Anne Twomey explains that a voice will enable Indigenous people to make submissions to parliament, as she says, 'as anyone can'. This begs the question: if anyone can make a submission to parliament, why do we need to change our Constitution? Indeed, as its website says, the Coalition of Peaks already makes representations, as do others.

The Prime Minister says the Voice represents a modest change. He claims it's the decent thing to do and it will only look at issues of direct relevance to Indigenous people. Then he goes to an Indigenous conference and says, 'Why would you accept a modest change?' Voice proponents and detractors alike also have a different interpretation of the proposed amendment we are now voting on today, drafted by the Prime Minister's handpicked referendum working group. Working group member Professor Megan Davis says, once established, politicians won't be able to, in her words, 'shut the Voice up', claiming it will not be limited to matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Professor Davis says it can speak on a broad range of issues including the conduct of elections, the criminal justice system, financial policy or defence. Similarly, PricewaterhouseCoopers' Indigenous consulting body published a report called Who is speaking? Who is listening? In that report they say the national Voice could provide advice on policies and strategies such as free trade agreements and national energy policies or even on how the government should respond to royal commissions.

It's this broad scope that concerns people like human rights commissioner Lorraine Finlay, who said the Voice:

… substantially increases the risks of bureaucratic complexity, legal uncertainty and judicial activism.

Ms Finlay goes on to say the draft wording:

… inserts race into the Australian Constitution in a way that undermines the foundational human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination …

This, to me, is the crux of the matter. I believe in our system of democracy. I believe, just like Mr Gibbs, that people who are motivated and supported to stand for an elected role, be it local government, state or federal parliament, should be able to do so and should be judged on their personal qualities rather than their race. As an Indigenous colleague, who I deeply respect, said to me when he was appointed chair of a government agency community consultative committee, 'I am not an Indigenous chair; I am chair because I know and understand the issue. I am also Indigenous, but so what?' I am absolutely committed to working with my democratically elected colleagues to listen to our communities—