Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some comments this evening in relation to a very disturbing article that appeared in the Australian today, 7 September 2023, in which there was debate as to whether or not a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament and executive government would actually enable dissenting views to be put. One of the concerns I've had in relation to the proposed referendum is that it refers to 'the' Voice as if the First Nations people—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—in this country all had the same view with respect to the very difficult and, in some cases, intractable issues facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in remote and regional communities especially. One of the concerns I have with the Voice is whether or not, and how, it could reflect the divergence of opinion, perspectives and lived experience amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across this whole country.

In this chamber, over the last four and a bit years, I have sat and listened very carefully to the contributions made in debate by Senator McCarthy, Senator Dodson, Senator Stewart, Senator Cox, Senator Thorpe, Senator Lambie, Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Liddle. Those contributions bring different things to the debate and to the arguments. They don't all present the same view, the same perspective or the same consideration in relation to the issues which are considered; they are different perspectives. And why wouldn't they be different perspectives? One of the issues I have had with what's proposed in terms of 'the' Voice is that very point: it talks about 'the' Voice when there are hundreds of thousands of voices. This begs the question of how those disparate voices will be considered through the process.

So I was very disturbed to read this Australian article, where it was put:

Constitutional experts George Williams and Greg Craven say the influence of the advisory body could be undermined if it presented various views on the same issue.

That's what these constitutional experts, George Williams and Greg Craven, said. And Professor Williams, the University of New South Wales deputy vice-chancellor, said:

It is better that the voice speak collectively on behalf of its membership even if, as expected, there are differences of opinion.

To me, that says not that we have the detail, so you wouldn't be able to find the answer to the question, but it deeply disturbs me that you have one of this country's leading constitutional experts and a strong proponent for a constitutionally entrenched voice to parliament and executive government arguing that, in his own words, it is better that the Voice speak collectively.

Professor Williams went on:

The effectiveness and influence of representations by the voice may be compromised if the voice represents multiple positions at once.

How can't it represent multiple positions and reflect a divergence of opinion? Senator McCarthy has her views. If we go around the chamber, Senator Cox has her views, Senator Thorpe has her views, and Senator Liddle and Senator Nampijinpa Price have extremely different views from their own philosophical perspective and from their own political perspective—and that's the way it should be. So how are those disparate views—those different views and perspectives—going to be reflected in 'the' Voice, especially when you have constitutional experts saying that it is better that the Voice speak collectively on behalf of its members? What does that mean in terms of minority opinions or different perspectives? How are they going to be heard through this constitutional body, the voice? That is one of my fundamental concerns with respect to the constitutional referendum. It's an example of the detail that is completely lacking in the proposition which is being put forward to the Australian people.