We’re not a perfect country, but I think we are one of the best places in the world. You have won the lottery if you are born here and have the opportunity to pursue your own form of happiness, have a family and provide for that family through the great employment and business opportunities we have in this nation. There’s no doubt that, unfortunately, across generations we as a country though have failed to provide equal opportunities to Indigenous Australians, and we still fail today.
I think the best that could be said for the proposal to have a Voice to Parliament is that it’s an unnecessary distraction from our shocking failures to deliver for Indigenous Australians. I cannot see how a bureaucratic body in Canberra can unpick the complex problems that Indigenous communities face across Australia.
One reason why I’m sceptical about whether this Voice will practically help Indigenous Australians is that we continue to ignore the Indigenous voices that are currently in parliament. We had a clear example of that over the past few months when the shocking explosion in crime occurred in Alice Springs. Alice Springs is perhaps one of the most represented towns in this parliament. There are actually two members from Alice Springs in the parliament. My colleague Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and the new Labor member for Lingiari, are both from Alice Springs. There are about 30,000 people in Alice Springs and there are two representatives in the parliament.
Both Senator Price and the member for Lingiari had been warning for months that the government’s decision to end the cashless debit card, and the Northern Territory government’s decision to end alcohol restrictions, would lead to absolute disaster in Alice Springs. They have been using their voice as elected representatives to say these things. But the government and the parliament as a whole completely ignored them and ran roughshod over their views.
At a Lowitja Institute conference in Cairns Professor Marcia Langton reportedly said in her speech: “People who are opposing the Voice vote, are saying that we are destroying the fabric of their sacred Constitution. Yes, that’s right. That’s exactly what we’re doing.” Professor Langton went on to say: “First of all, our Constitution is racist. It was designed as a racist constitution. The slogan was ‘Australia for the White man.'” Professor Langton is not just a commentator here in this debate; she helped design this legislation that is before us. She helped design that for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Her words are clear that this is exactly about ‘destroying the fabric of our Constitution’.
So when government members stand up and say “This is modest; there’s nothing to see here,” why is it that one of their key advisers for designing this Voice says that, actually, the intent of the Voice is to ‘destroy the fabric of our Constitution’?
I am a proud Australian. I think we are a great country, and I think we should cherish our Constitution. The fact is that we are one of the longest-serving democracies in the world. Democracy is a very recent thing. We have effectively had the same Constitution, with very few changes, the same parliament and very stable institutions. I think we should actively oppose anybody seeking to destroy the sacred fabric of our Constitution. It is a part of the foundation which makes our country great, which gives us freedom, and which guarantees our prosperity. Yet we have a co-designer of the Voice saying that our Constitution, our foundations as a democratic country, should be destroyed. That alone should ring massive alarm bells for anybody considering their vote on this referendum.
We had a great referendum in 1967 which did improve our Constitution, which was all about uniting us as a country and treating all Australians as equal. It wasn’t about voting rights, which is often wrongly said, but it was about making sure that everybody is counted properly in the census and treated equally. That was a great change which united everybody. It actually treated everybody equally in this country, regardless of skin colour or race. This would do the exact opposite, and it would take us back to a pre-1967 situation when there were some racial elements in Australian policy that were wrong and that we should leave in the rear-view mirror. I don’t think we should bring those back into the policy debate.
