Kerrynne Liddle (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Child Protection and the Prevention of Family Violence) Share this | Hansard source

So many voices but not enough listening—ironically, isn't that why this all got started? I will vote yes to assist the passage of this bill. I remain, however, against the constitutional amendment being put to the Australian people. This is perhaps one of the most important bills we will likely debate in this place. The amendment is not just a simple tweak; it's a whole new section within the nation's founding document. The 'yes' narrative suggests that this amendment is a pathway to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and it comes with aspiration and great promise. Those opposite, Voice architects and Voice advocates have acted as if changes to the Constitution about Indigenous matters are somehow only for Indigenous people. The Constitution, however, belongs to everyone, every Australian equally.

I've stayed true to my first speech in this place; I have listened—not to the loudest, not to the most resourced, not to the most organised, but to all the voices. I share with you the contribution of respected voices, respectful voices, culturally authorised voices and existing elected local voices. Only a week ago, senior custodians of Uluru-Kata Tjuta, the vast Anangu-Pitjantjatjara-Yankunytjatjara lands straddling the NT, WA and South Australia trusted me, their elected representative, to speak their own torment. They described deception, suspicions, scepticism and disappointment with the Voice concept, the Voice conversation and the conduct in the path of the bill to this place. This was their very deep concern for all Australians, whatever the result. They wanted to talk straight. They wanted to correct the record. They asked that I use my voice to amplify their voice. They found a way, the right way, to get their voice heard in Canberra. It is my responsibility as their elected member to represent constituents in this place respectfully, regardless of race, wealth, age, religion, gender or sexuality.

Rightly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples hold a special place in our nation as descendants of the world's oldest culture. With up to 70,000 years of connection, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have special rights and interests in many matters that directly affect them—and they should. I also agree that, with special rights and interests in matters that affect them, they should be consulted, because that approach will likely lead to better creation, administration and delivery of policy for them. This proposal, however, is an over-reach, and the reason for permanency of the Voice in the Constitution is simply not good enough.

Mr Murray George, Mr Clem Toby, Mr Owen Burton and Mr Trevor Adamson have thought deeply about the local and national implications of going so public. They have not been driven by money or popularity, and there is no malice. There is just speaking their truth. They want you to know they feel great sadness. They feel deceived, disrespected and ignored. They are gutted that their most sacred place continues to be used for political and promotional purpose. They don't see their hopes and dreams delivered by the Voice, but they know Australians want and can do better. In cities, towns, pubs and clubs and in polite and not-so-polite conversations, they know the debate, the rhetoric and the hysteria will continue, yet at referendum they will be voting no.

Uluru is so much more than a magnificent 500-million-year-old sandstone monolith. It is their spiritual and cultural heart. It is their centre of everything. In the Anangu-Pitjantjatjara language, there is only one Uluru—just one. It is not a canvas. It is not a statement. It is not an artefact. It is not a political tool or campaign tool, nor does it speak of a point in time or come with a date. Unless you have been listening carefully, you can't possibly have learnt this. That brings me to their other issue, representation. Tension about the much publicised Statement from the Heart has been simmering since its creation—yes, since its emergence in 2017. What has turned up the temperature is the recent return of the 'yes' campaign for Uluru for a well-publicised anniversary event and the frenzied use of the word 'Uluru' as this campaign escalates. Uluru is not an airport. That's why the nearby airport is called Ayers Rock Airport. Uluru is not a tourism resort. That's why the nearby resort is called Yulara. The statement itself and the proposition it speaks to is, in their own words, divisive.

In the words of Murray George: 'That canvas now is causing a lot of problems for us. If I could only get my hands on it I would burn it.' The Statement from the Heart has been used and is being used to transmit a message of support that they argue, actually, misrepresents them. Three of these men went to the referendum dialogues in 2017 because they wanted to hear what was happening and they were honoured, truly honoured, as they always are, to have been asked to perform a traditional dance on their country. They recall signing an attendance register but they say that is where their association with the Voice ended. In the words of Mr Trevor Adamson: 'We didn't sign that we were happy for this to go ahead. There was no way we agreed.' I've also heard from women surprised to see their signatures on the statement, unhappy that their attendance and consultation is likely to be interpreted as consent. But they were not prepared to come out publicly.

In my home state of South Australia, the first state to go forward with a state based voice, I had many complaints about its public consultation process before that bill was passed. In South Australia, Aboriginal people have, for some 10 years, been recognised eloquently in the state constitution, and earlier this year the state Labor government legislated its state voice. We've been told a majority of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community will vote 'yes', but the evidence is simply not there. A number circa ten thousand, maybe even tens of thousands, could be quoted to affirm this position. Compare that, though, with ABS data that puts the Indigenous population at just under one million. The 270-plus page report to consider models by eminent Professors Calma and Langton received nearly 3,000 submissions of which only four per cent were Indigenous. The reality is that it will be 96 per cent of the Australian population who will determine what is best for four per cent of the population, and, in this process to date, most of the four per cent have not even been asked. Like all Australians, they simply don't have the detail, just a bunch of principles.

As an objector, I'm simply dismissed as a wrecker, mischievous and a Chicken Little, while others are caught in a redneck celebrity vortex or are bedwetters. But at least I can tell you how I really feel. At least I recognise that there are alternative views from mine. I dismiss as absolutely absurd actions that seek to control and decided and embarrass people on whether anyone can have a voice about the Voice. Think for a minute of the corporate sporting clubs, organisations and companies eager to have publicly jumped on board to be seen as part of the vibe, and yet they don't even get a vote. So it is the Prime Minister has chosen, with unexplained urgency and with a still confused public, to go to referendum later this year. Maybe now is the right time or some truth-telling.

In May 2023, the Prime Minister declared this as a modest request, but, more recently, he said it is modest no more. So, Prime Minister, tell the Australian public: which is it? Put simply, the proposition is constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians through an institutional mechanism called the Voice. Voice and constitutional recognition are not the same thing. The Prime Minister could have legislated for his version of voice and embedded recognition in the Constitution, but he chose not to. There was no room, no appetite, for compromise from Voice proponents, and the Prime Minister just did what they said. The proposition before us divides us. It introduces to the Australian Constitution greater access for advocacy of our parliaments and our institutions for one group of Australians over others exclusively.

The Constitution provides the legal framework for how Australia is governed. Australians have, historically, been cautious about this, and we should be. That's because it matters for certainty and stability of government and its executive, and that should matter to each and every one of us. Since its creation in 1901, Australians have been asked 19 times to alter our founding document and only eight times have we voted to amend it. This time is not the right reason: it is not the right question, it is not the right words and it is not the right solution. So, publicly, I say no. And in the privacy of a ballot box, I will also say no.

The Liberal Party has no objection to recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution, but not in the way this legislation does it. The Liberal Party, like all Australians, wants to see an improvement in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, but disagrees that this is the pathway to that. The Liberal Party agrees that we can, and should, all do better in listening and hearing the words and voices of people on matters that affect them, and so we focus on local and regional voices. The proposition, the parliamentary processes and the communication of this matter are flawed, and designed to confuse, cajole and guilt Australians in order to deliver a 'yes' result.

I am told by those wise enough to have participated then, and on review of the available data, that despite what the 'yes' campaign might want you to believe, this is not anything like the 1967 referendum. Back then, a 90.7 per cent vote delivered a 'yes' result in every single state and territory. That, not this, is nation-building. In 2023, fuelled by a prime minister whose personal, professional and political investment in this has been on very public display, we're heading to a referendum with around a 50 per cent split. We're currently on a path, it seems, to a result that will be a nation divided, no matter what side gets the necessary vote.

You've heard enough about the joint select committee's Liberal dissenting report. It's just unfortunate that we haven't had a constitutional convention to air some of these issues. There's no defensible reason for a rushed process. It was hamstrung by detail. There were differing—yes, conflicting—views amongst eminent legal experts. There was uncertainty and risk associated with, if adopted, unquantifiable risk and, if adopted, this would be permanent. Under the title 'Recommendations', there was just one:

The Committee recommends that the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Taurus Straight Islander Voice) 2023 be passed unamended.

I say that less accountability is not good for us for us politicians, or for program providers and bureaucrats—and no to the deferral of responsibility for all the solutions and the change to voice.

In the world of Indigenous affairs, the words 'consulted, engaged, codesigned, collaboration' are increasingly commonplace. There are many commissioners, ambassadors, advocates, working groups, conventions and expert panels, and the task of providing advice to governments is their role. How does Voice replicate, interact or overlap? There are 11 federal parliamentarians and 15 state and territory parliamentarians who identify as Indigenous. They're from all political parties—noting that Labor and Greens don't have a monopoly on acting in the best interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. On the threat that an Australian 'no' vote will spell the death of reconciliation: that is simply not true. Reconciliation is everyone's responsibility; the work of reconciliation won't end regardless of the result, says its CEO.

The Prime Minister could have done this differently; he could go back to the original proposition to legislate for Voice. He could refocus on the issues that matter most to Australians and the day-to-day reality of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who are impacted by issues of poverty, geography, responsibility and poor service delivery, and, as such, who are doing it harder than most. We now know that Uluru traditional owners, Mr Toby, Mr George, Mr Adamson and Mr Burton, draw on knowledge of land, law, culture, community and wisdom to conclude they will vote no. I am guided by my vote and my values of lean government, a bureaucracy of minimal interference, equality of opportunity and pursuit of opportunity for all Australians equally. I will vote no, knowing that this conversation has proven to me that, regardless of the vote, everyday Australians know we that we should have a renewed commitment that we must all do better. (Time expired)