Subjects: Prime Minister’s backflip on Referendum pamphlet; Indigenous Voice to Parliament; cost of living pressures; Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022.
E&OE
PETER DUTTON:
I’m very happy to be here with Jane Hume just to make a couple of comments. I just wanted to respond to media reporting by Phil Coorey in relation to what’s an obvious backflip by the Prime Minister. It was never sustainable for the Prime Minister to say to the Australian people that he wanted them to vote in a Referendum and then only provide an argument for one side of the case.
Australians have their views; I think 99 per cent of Australians have a view that they want to see improved situation for Indigenous Australians, they want to see a narrowing of all of the indicators, and I think it was, frankly, quite arrogant of the Prime Minister to believe that he didn’t need to provide details to the Australian people.
Now, in the case, as we’ve seen in the past, the government has published a booklet which has the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ cases put, so that people can look at the information, so that they can look at the way in which you’ve got all the detail before you and you can make an informed judgement.
The fact is that many people, particularly those where English is not their first language, they do want to sit down, particularly older Australians, not online, but to do it with the booklet in front of them so that they can – in a language that they feel most comfortable with – read all the detail and then if there are further questions, they can research from there. That’s a perfectly reasonable position.
The other thing of course that the Prime Minister has to do is to provide equal funding for both sides of the argument. That is completely and utterly rational. It’s the precedent and it should be the case in relation to the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ case.
Whether you agree with the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ case doesn’t matter. It’s about informing Australians and providing them with the most information that you reasonably can, in a measured way, so that people can have some of their own questions or hesitations answered or have their own views reinforced in relation to how it is that they want to vote.
I’ll just make one other comment and then I’m happy to take questions. It was obvious this morning from Jim Chalmers’ interview on the ABC that he’s been thinking about everything over the Christmas break except how to help Australian families. It is clear that under Labor you will always pay more for your mortgages. It was true in years past and it’s true again now. The government’s making decisions including in relation to industrial relations which is putting upward pressure on interest rates.
Australian families know that they’ve got a government that is thinking about everything, but them. There are families who are really worried about the situation that they face in their own budgets. I think the government needs to explain properly, in the run up to the budget in May, how it is they are going to provide support to families because small businesses now with double digit overdrafts are paying huge money to the banks to service and it’s going to get tough.
The Australian public voted this Prime Minister in because he said he was going to lower interest rates and lower energy costs. All that’s happened since then is that they’ve gone up dramatically.
QUESTION:
What’s your understanding of this information campaign? Because Tom Rogers has already come out and said that there would be a booklet, that’s a household guide that would inform citizens about the process and what they need to do, but he said there would be no ‘no’ and ‘yes’ booklet. What is your precise understanding?
PETER DUTTON:
That was the government’s initial position, that there would be no booklet detailing both sides of the case. So, Mr Rogers is a fine public servant, no doubt going off what the Minister had told him, but it is clear by the media reporting…
QUESTION:
…yes, so it’s only the media reporting that you’re coming out today on this? Like, have you got any paperwork from the Prime Minister?
PETER DUTTON:
I have no doubt that Phil Coorey wouldn’t be publishing this unless he is absolutely confident. I know he would never disclose his sources, but I suspect his sources are fairly high level sources and fairly credible sources with a knowledge of some of the detail of the government’s current thinking.
Now, he would never disclose his sources. I would never drop somebody in as to who I think the source could be, but there are some very Machiavellian characters in the government and some who know how to get a story out to the media. So I’m confident that there is integrity in this reporting.
QUESTION:
Is the Coalition’s support for the legislation to update the machinery of the Referendum still contingent on that equal funding or is there something else that you’d be willing to consider as a compromise to support that leg through the Senate?
PETER DUTTON:
No, our position has been that we want to see the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ case presented so that Australians can be properly informed. I think that is treating Australians with respect, and as I say, particularly Australians of a non-English speaking background. They want the information before them so they can make an informed judgement and both cases need to be funded equally and that’s just fair as well.
The Prime Minister’s looked very tricky in relation to holding back one case, not presenting those facts and by saying that there will be no public funding. He’s proposing a significant change to Australia’s Constitution, that is not an insignificant undertaking by a government. The funding needs to be provided because Australians need to be informed and that’s as it should be. That’s the position that we’ve got. It’s the position that we have put to the government in our negotiations with them, and obviously the situation for the government has changed somewhat in the last 24 hours in the Senate as well, which I suspect is [inaudible].
QUESTION:
Is there a figure on how much you’d like to see that funding be?
PETER DUTTON:
No, I think from memory, the funding in the Referendum on the Republic was about seven and a half million dollars to each side. Now, I don’t know, you can put inflation to that to see what the contemporary amount would be, but I think it’s reasonable that, you know, not an exorbitant amount of money, but enough money for the administrative costs or for the basic costs for both sides to be able to put their campaign.
QUESTION:
On national security, when you were Home Affairs Minister, in 2020 you received a report by Emily Corner into the Continual Detention Order Scheme, which said that ‘without evidence, they operate no better than chance.’ How come that report wasn’t disclosed and does this put Australia’s terrorism legal mechanisms at risk?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, look, I’d have to go back and have a look at the detail of it before I made any comment.
QUESTION:
On the Voice Mr Dutton, can I clarify, do you believe it’s impossible for the Party to form a final position on the substantive issue without considering the Constitutional Amendment Bill when it’s put before Parliament?
PETER DUTTON:
Look, my view is that it’s difficult for millions of Australians to arrive at an informed judgement if the Prime Minister is not going to provide the detail that they seek. It’s important that Members of my Party Room receive that information, as it’s important for millions of Australians who are interested in hearing the detail can hear it in an informed way and make a judgement.
QUESTION:
Just on the funding question; given that the government has already granted Deductible Gift Status to the ‘yes’ campaign side, would it be sufficient to – in terms of treating them equally – if it also gave that status to the ‘no’ body?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, no. I mean your argument would be that if the ‘no’ case proponents – whoever leads that campaign, or whoever the directors are or whatever the structure is – I mean, they would have to make an application to the ATO for DGR status, as the ‘yes’ case has. They would have to put all of the requisite information before the ATO Commissioner, which would be appropriate. Then it should be treated according to the law and according to the same standards that have been applied to the ‘yes’ case. That has to be approved eventually and that’s as it should be. I mean if that was denied, if the proper application was made and it was denied, then again, that would be ridiculous.
QUESTION:
The ‘no’ campaign has suggested that migrants should also be recognised in the Constitution alongside First Nations people. Where do you stand on that issue and will that be something that you will be something that you will be putting in your discussions?
PETER DUTTON:
Well look, I made this point clear, and again, I think it reflects the view of a lot of Australians, that we have a very proud Indigenous heritage – 60,000 years, and we honour our Indigenous heritage, we seek reconciliation and to make for a better life for those kids in Alice Springs and right around the country and for a much brighter future – we have a very proud British heritage, our system of democracy, this Parliament, our systems and institutions derive a lot from that British heritage – we should be incredibly proud of that because we produced scientists and people that have contributed to successes for western democracies and for the world over that period of time. We have an incredibly significant and successful story to tell of people who have come from the four corners of the earth to join our nation.
They are the three limbs, and Noel Pearson and others have put this more eloquently. That’s the reality of who we are, and we shouldn’t be embarrassed or shy away from either of those three, and if the government has got a proposition to put in relation to other matters, we are happy to listen to them…
QUESTION:
But are you in favour of that? Sorry, if I can just clarify, are you in favour of that?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, we would look at a proposal. In terms of Noel Pearson’s words, which as I say, I think summarises it very well, I don’t have any problem with that. The question, honestly, that I think you’ve got to contemplate, if you’re talking about any change to the Constitution, is what interpretation can then be made by the High Court? And that’s something the Prime Minister hasn’t explained in relation to what he’s proposing.
QUESTION:
The Coalition will oppose the Safeguard Mechanism Bill despite concerns in Shadow Cabinet and now Bridget Archer has said she has an open mind on Labor’s Bill. Do you expect all your MPs and Senators to toe the Party line when that’s voted on?
PETER DUTTON:
Yes, and our position has been clear. This is a tax that’s being imposed – its three times the tax that Julia Gillard proposed. It’s going to drive up the cost of living and Australians at the moment are sitting there doing their budgets, not working out how they’re going to pay for everything that they’ve got stacking up on their kitchen table.
They’ve got bill after bill after bill. This government promised to reduce their electricity bills by $275 – they’re going up. They promised to reduce their mortgage – their mortgage is going up and up under Labor. If you’ve got a situation where the government is presiding over policies, where big business is not going to wear this to their bottom line, they’re going to pass the cost on to the consumers.
So, when you go to Bunnings, or when you go to Coles, or you go to Woolies, or when you go and purchase a motor vehicle, all of those costs are going to be met by consumers. So it’s inflationary. It’s going to make it more difficult for families, not easier for families.
I don’t think we realise in Canberra at the moment how difficult it is for families in the suburbs. They are really struggling, and they don’t need extra costs and extra budget items and additional expenditure imposed on them by the Labor Party and the Greens – and that’s what this does. It’s inflationary and it’s a tax on businesses that will be met by consumers…
QUESTION:
It’s Greg Hunt’s tax though, isn’t it?
PETER DUTTON:
Well it’s not actually…
QUESTION:
Why is it not Greg Hunt’s tax because he designed the Safeguard Mechanism?
PETER DUTTON:
Because it’s compulsory, Andrew. Ours wasn’t. That’s the key difference. And when you compel people to purchase credits, or to opt into that system in a compulsory way, that is the key difference.
QUESTION:
Just back on the Voice – if this pamphlet, as we expect, enables the ‘yes’ and the ‘no’ cases to make their case with equal fanfare, that in effect is a form of public funding, given the booklet would be funded by the government. Isn’t that not sufficient enough at least to get you across the line on supporting the legislation?
PETER DUTTON:
No, it’s not Phil, because again, the precedent here is, I think is quite instructive, and the precedent is that you provide support so that both campaigns can pay for their administrative costs, can pay for travel for the key proponents to go out to speak to public meetings and the rest of it, that’s quite a separate expense than the expense that you’re speaking about in terms of the mailing out, the publication to be printed and mailed out etc. So, they’re two separate expenses and it’s reasonable that both should be funded.
QUESTION:
On the pamphlet though, my understanding is that those pamphlets are generally written by politicians in Parliament who are proponents of either side. Would you or other Liberals be happy to put your name to the ‘no’ campaign, to a ‘no’ pamphlet.
PETER DUTTON:
Well, the way that it operated in relation to the Republic, was that people were identified on both sides of the debate. They contributed to the 2,000 words or whatever it was in the Republic debate at the time. Again, I think that precedent is perfectly reasonable, and people can make their arguments.
Alright, thank you very much.
[ends]