“My personal view is that I don’t think this is an appropriate change to the Constitution,” he said.
“I do believe in recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution.
“I don’t think this type of bureaucracy or body that gives certain people, based on race, a voice to parliament that other people don’t have, constitutionally aligns with my principles of equality of citizenship, and I’m also concerned about some unintended legal consequences.”
Mr Birrell has not been convinced by debate since his National Party and its coalition partner, the Liberal Party, made their opposition to the Voice clear.
“I haven’t moved in the position that I had, which was I don’t think, personally, that Australians have been given the appropriate detail to understand what this change means,” he said.
“What I have done, is I’ve voted for the machinery of referendums bill. Well, I didn’t vote against it, because we decided as a coalition, we wouldn’t vote against it and had there been a division, I would have voted with the government.
“So essentially, I voted to have a referendum, and now I think it’s up to the people in Nicholls to make their call on it.”
When asked if Australia’s First Nations people, with their unique history of thousands of years of links to the land, presence here before colonisation and own customs and laws justified the Voice, Mr Birrell said it did not.
“The question is, you’ve got a principle of equality of citizenship and the way our democracy works and this, in my view, this particular constitutional change is at odds with that equality of citizenship, and I think that we can close the gap (of disadvantage) in better ways,” he said.
Mr Birrell said he was undecided about whether to campaign against the Voice, but said whatever peoples’ views on the matter, he would like those views to be respected.
“We’ll see what the question is and and how things look, but I’m inclined to respect everyone’s ability to go out and make their own call on this one,” he said.
