Subjects: Indigenous Voice to Parliament; AUKUS; Defence technology exports.
E&OE.
PETER DUTTON:
Thanks very much everyone for being here. I’ve written to the Prime Minister on behalf of millions of Australians, just asking for the basic detail about what the Prime Minister is proposing with the Voice.
Now, every Australian wants to see better outcomes for Indigenous Australians, particularly Indigenous kids. I was up in Alice Springs only a few weeks ago and the national tragedy that’s unfolding there on a daily basis is unconscionable. I’ve asked for a Royal Commission, and I’ve asked for the Prime Minister to really address that issue, and that we would support any reasonable measure taken to make a better situation for those kids possible.
It’s obvious that the Prime Minister has made a political decision based on the advice of his strategists not to provide the detail to the Australian public, and by doing that, I really think he’s treating people like mugs.
I think the Australian public deserve to know the detail, and when the Prime Minister says that there’s a report out there from the Marcia Langton-Tom Calma inquiry, he hasn’t adopted that report. There are different options available in the report, but the Prime Minister hasn’t said that he adopts that report or that that’s what would be implemented.
I think reasonably the Prime Minister can put forward what it is that he’s talking about, because to change he Constitution, as we’ve known since the time the Constitution was written; it’s a very serious question that is being posed and people won’t lightly change the Constitution even if they believe in the cause, unless there is a compelling argument to do so.
So, by starving the Australian people of the basic detail about the voice, the Prime Minister is really setting the Voice up for a fail and setting back reconciliation and that’s something that he has to answer to the Australian public on.
So, I’ve been very reasonable and I’ve been constructive in my approach since the day I was elected as leader. We’ve supported the government on issues where it’s in our national interest to do so, but it’s clear that the Prime Minister has made a political decision to hold back the detail on the Voice and he should release that detail, so that Australians can make an informed decision. That’s not unreasonable to ask for and it’s detail that he should be able to provide straight away.
I’m happy to take any questions.
QUESTION:
If the Labor Party releases the information you’re requesting, would you consider supporting it? Would you support it?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, let’s see what the Prime Minister has to say, because it’s clear at the moment that on the advice of some very clever political strategists, he’s going to rush the constitutional question. It wasn’t proposed for the back end of this year, it was proposed originally for 2024 and he’s made a conscious decision not to release the details. So the Prime Minister has to answer the question, frankly. I mean, why won’t he provide the detail? And if he makes reference to the report that’s been written, the reality is that there are options in that report and he hasn’t adopted the report. So, let’s see what the Prime Minister says, but clearly at the moment he doesn’t want to provide that detail.
QUESTION:
Ken Wyatt says he took the 272 page report on the Voice to Coalition ministers. It was agreed to before the election. He was saying that he believes that ministers just simply haven’t read that report, otherwise, perhaps that would be something in that report you’d be prepared to support. What’s changed since then?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I’ve got the utmost respect for Ken and many Indigenous leaders. I met with Noel Pearson just a couple of weeks ago – a person for whom I have a great deal of respect – but the government hasn’t adopted that report. They’re referencing a report which was done – it’s a good report – but it has not been adopted by the government because there are options in the report. So when we say what would be the composition of the Voice? How would it work on a regional basis? And the most acute issues for Indigenous Australians are in remote areas.
It’s clear that the Prime Minister’s just plucked this figure of 20 representatives out of the air when he was asked about it a couple of weeks ago. That figure doesn’t appear in the report and so there are different options within the report that the Prime Minister’s made no reference to.
I mean, he hasn’t said that this is the reference document, this is what we will implement if the Voice is successful at a constitutional vote. That’s not what he said. He just makes these sort of oblique references to the report that was done, says the details in there, but he hasn’t said that that’s what he’s going to adopt or out of the report – which parts of it, which of the options he will take up, and which he will leave behind.
QUESTION:
If there were large portions of that report or options in that report that were being adopted, would that then sway the Opposition to consider supporting it?
PETER DUTTON:
Well again, I mean the Prime Minister has had seven months to come up with a plan to present the detail to the Australian public. I think he’s treated the public, frankly, like mugs at the moment where he won’t provide that detail. People have got reasonable questions. I think there are many Australians who, if they had the detail in front of them about a particular model, that they could support the Voice.
There would be others who say, ‘well that’s not a model that I think is going to enhance the outcomes, narrow the gap in relation to Indigenous Australians’, and I think the Prime Minister has to provide that detail. You can’t just say to the Australian public, as the Prime Minister’s suggesting, that you vote at an election or on a constitutional change on the Saturday, and we’ll give you the detail on the Monday.
It’s a very serious decision to change our Constitution. We live in one of the strongest democracies in the world. We have an established and stable system of government, and this is a very significant proposal to deviate from the way that we govern, the way that the High Court could interpret a Voice and words in the Constitution, and the onus is on the Prime Minister to release that detail. They’ve had seven months to come up with it and let’s hear what he has to say.
QUESTION:
You mentioned treating the people like ‘mugs’ by not revealing this detail. Is the Opposition doing the same by not saying what they’d be prepared to support, what you would be prepared to support?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I am speaking on behalf of millions of Australians who are asking the reasonable questions. How would people be voted onto the Voice? How would regional areas be represented? In an area like Alice Springs, for example, you’ve got four distinct areas of country, and I’m not going onto your country without permission from the elders, and you’re coming onto my country without permission from the elders… Will there be four representatives from Alice Springs or from other jurisdictions?
When the Prime Minister says that there’ll be 20 people. That is not a figure that’s in the document that he makes reference to. He hasn’t adopted the report and Australians, I think, are reasonably saying; if we’re going to be asked to vote for constitutional change – which enshrines an arrangement – we should know what the arrangement is.
At the moment the government is not providing that detail. I think it’s reasonable in this debate that the detail be provided by the government who’s proposing the question.
QUESTION:
Has the Prime Minister actually seen this letter, and have you heard back from him?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, it’s been sent to his office, and he’ll respond in due course. That’s obviously something that he’ll consider, but we’ve put it out there because I think it represents the views, frankly, of millions of Australians – people who support the Voice, who don’t support the Voice, but want to be in an informed position so that they can understand what it is they’re being asked to vote for. I don’t think that’s unreasonable, certainly not racist, it’s not about being opposed to reconciliation. It’s all about, frankly, just being informed about what it is they’re being asked to vote on. I don’t think that is unreasonable to ask the Prime Minister to provide that detail.
QUESTION:
Did you raise your concerns with him when you saw him at the cricket on Friday?
PETER DUTTON:
I’ve met with the Prime Minister and I’m grateful for the meetings that we’ve had, and he knows that I am genuinely interested in advancing the cause of reconciliation. It breaks my heart that in the year 2022 we can have young Indigenous kids being sexually assaulted on a regular basis within some Indigenous communities in this country. It’s completely unacceptable, but the Prime Minister has to explain how the Voice will make it better for those kids and make it better for Indigenous people around the country. That’s all we’re asking for.
QUESTION:
Would you consider a conscience vote pending what the detail is?
PETER DUTTON:
I’ve outlined what it is our Party Room process will be and we are not deviating from that.
QUESTION:
Is this letter confirmation the Liberals will not back an Indigenous Voice to Parliament?
PETER DUTTON:
It’s confirmation that we want the detail, and I think millions of Australians want the detail and it is not unreasonable to ask the Prime Minister for the detail. How many people will be on the body? Who will be elected? How will they be elected? What voice will they have on issues that the High Court determines that they should have a voice on? There are many reasonable questions. No legal advice has been released and the Prime Minister has made this deliberate tricky strategy and a decision to starve the Australian people of the information that they need, and I don’t think that’s acceptable.
QUESTION:
What did you make of the report from the US Armed Services Committee which raised concerns about AUKUS?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, just a couple of points. Obviously, I believe that AUKUS is the underpinning of our national security for the coming decades. There was a lot of work putting it together with the United States and the United Kingdom. We’re very grateful to our two most important partners. They have understandable questions about what capacity they have within their shipbuilding, within their submarine building program and I believe very strongly that when we negotiated with the United States and the United Kingdom, there was the option for us to see that submarine built in the United States.
Representative Joe Courtney, who is a great friend of our country has made some comments, some positive comments about the prospect of there being headroom within the supply chain.
In the end, what do we want? We want a safe and secure region in the Indo-Pacific. Australia is at the heart of that, and our alliance with the United States and the United Kingdom is an absolutely essential part. So, the collective effort that we bring together, and the way in which we collaborate, the way in which we support each other’s assets is crucial to keeping pace within the Indo-Pacific, not just today, but over the next decade and two and beyond that.
So, I will provide whatever support is required to the government to make sure that we realise that capability, that we get those submarines as quickly as possible, because it’s a great deterrence effect and it provides a great deal of support to the Australian Defence Force to keep our country safe and to keep our region secure.
QUESTION:
Do you stand by the claim that Australia can fill a submarine capability gap by buying two Virginia-class boats by 2030?
PETER DUTTON:
Yes, there is no question in my mind that that option is still on the table. The ability to make sure that we can keep our region safe is really dependent on the acquisition of those assets. I hope that the Prime Minister is able to continue to press the case because when we negotiated AUKUS, when the Coalition negotiated AUKUS, it was clear to us, as it’s now clear to the government, that the intelligence is that we live in a very uncertain time, the most uncertain time since the Second World War and the sooner that we can acquire that capability, it is in Australia’s interests, it’s in the United States interests, it’s in our partners interests within the Indo-Pacific. That’s why we should continue to work very closely to achieve an outcome and to acknowledge from the US, and other partners, that they have their own obligations and their own needs, but we are a trusted and reliable partner and that’s why the AUKUS deal was struck in the first place.
QUESTION:
Given Australia is exporting hundreds of weapons to nations with questionable human rights records, do Australians deserve to know more about these deals, like people in Europe and the US are told?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I noticed the comments made by the Defence Minister Richard Marles yesterday and I’d endorse those comments. There’s a regulatory process, a legal process that is applied to exports of those weapons and that’s a system that has served us well for a long time and I’d support the Defence Minister in the process and the comments that he made yesterday.
Alright, thank you very much.
[ends]