Subjects: Indigenous Voice to Parliament; AUKUS.
E&OE.
DAVID SPEERS:
Peter Dutton, welcome to the program.
PETER DUTTON:
Thanks David.
DAVID SPEERS:
Now, before we get to your demands for detail, I’d like to ask you about the current arrangements and whether they are working. Over your 20 years or so in Parliament, surely you’d agree that successive governments really haven’t done enough to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage.
What’s wrong with an advisory body like the Voice to help come up with some better solutions?
PETER DUTTON:
Well David, the short answer is there’s nothing wrong with an advisory body and in the last Parliament we brought forward a policy which would allow that – particularly a regional voice.
I think the remote and regional issues are as pressing as any within the Indigenous communities. Lots of problems within capital cities as well, but the focus on how we can improve the outcomes to narrow the gap and see better outcomes for Indigenous Australians, in particular women and children, is absolutely paramount.
So, I think the idea of feeding in the grassroots feedback and how that can influence policy is a very positive thing and I support that because every Australian wants to see a better outcome for Indigenous Australians. I don’t want to see a situation where the situation deteriorates over coming years because we’ve created a great big new bureaucracy. I want to make sure that there is a system in place which is going to improve the arrangements for people on the ground.
DAVID SPEERS:
To be clear though, from the letter you wrote to the Prime Minister over the weekend, would it be your preference, is it now your position to legislate a Voice before it’s enshrined in the Constitution?
PETER DUTTON:
Well David, the government’s been elected now for seven or eight months. They have the ability – because they’ve got an absolute majority in the Lower House and a majority in the Upper House with the Greens – to pass any bill they want.
They’ve been able to pass legislation which has been applauded by the union movement, they’ve been able to pass legislation which has been applauded by the ‘fat cats’ within the industry super funds and others who are supporters of Labor, but they haven’t been able to pass legislation and they could do that, they could do it when Parliament comes back at the beginning of February so that they could prove up a model and demonstrate how it is that their version of the Voice could deliver the outcomes that we all desire.
DAVID SPEERS:
Let’s go to the detail and the 15 specific questions you’ve posed in this letter to the Prime Minister. The first three are all pretty similar. ‘Who would be eligible to serve? How do you define Aboriginality?’
Given around 50 existing Indigenous bodies seem to manage this question of defining Aboriginality, you know, in a fairly straightforward way, why is this such a big deal for you? What’s your real concern here?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, my real concern is that the women that I met in Alice Springs only a few weeks ago, who are giving us their voice very clearly – I mean the problem at the moment is that nobody’s listening to their voice – I said this to the Prime Minister; I mean, if you’re living in a community where the kids are out at night, they’re too afraid to come home to many of the homes, they’re sleeping during the day so they’re not going to school and we’ve got another generation where kids are missing out on that education. The sexual abuse rates, the rates of criminality within the community – completely and utterly unacceptable and I want a better future for those kids.
So the question is, will the voices of those women, in particular within those communities be heard, or will this be a capital city centric model that when we find ourselves 10 years down the track, as has happened, as you point out in your opening question, over the course of the last 20 or 30 years. I’ve never been in a conversation with a Liberal Prime Minister or a Liberal leader or a Labor Prime Minister or a Labor leader where they’ve talked about cutting funds or having anything but a good desire to improve the conditions.
DAVID SPEERS:
I bring you back to the question, you’re concerned about defining Aboriginality, this seems to be a fairly straightforward thing. Governments have defined it, you know, Coalition, Labor governments for years and years. It’s pretty straightforward.
Why are you worried about that?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, it’s an issue that’s been raised in the committee process. There was a High Court case recently, as you know, in Love and Thoms where there was a broadening of the definition and there’s a lot of debate within the Indigenous community. You’ve seen some Indigenous leaders speak on this very issue over the course of the last 12 months and I want to make sure that those voices who have the ability to make the changes, and the practical outcomes and the improvements for kids and women and families on the ground, that’s the voice that I want to hear. Most importantly, I want the government of the day, whether it’s Liberal or Labor, to act on the voice to improve those outcomes.
DAVID SPEERS:
Another of your questions is whether the Voice will be purely advisory or will have decision making powers?
Look, this proposal has always been for it to be an advisory body. The proposed question or wording in the Constitution the Prime Minister has put forward states it explicitly; ‘the Voice may make representations to Parliament and the executive government.’
It doesn’t say anything about decision making powers. Is this a bit of a straw man?
PETER DUTTON:
No, it’s not. I mean it’s a very serious issue. So, if we’re proposing, if the government’s proposing a system which would dramatically change the way in which our government would operate, our democracy would operate, then again, we need to know the pros and cons of all of that, and then people can make their own decision.
I think for millions of Australians, when I ask for detail from the Prime Minister, it’s done in a respectful way. I think it’s a reasonable question to put. It’s a reasonable proposition that we’re looking at. People just want the detail…
DAVID SPEERS:
Yeah, but you understand that this is an advisory body only?
PETER DUTTON:
Well David, that’s not what the report provides. I mean this is an interesting and a very important point as well. This is the Calma-Langton report. Now, the Prime Minister’s referenced the report. It’s almost 280 pages. The Prime Minister hasn’t adopted the report. He makes reference, continual reference to the…
DAVID SPEERS:
…but it says it would be an advisory body?
PETER DUTTON:
No, it doesn’t actually, it goes beyond that.
So, it talks in there about ‘it may choose other matters to provide advice on, if the High Court interprets that there is a broadening of the appeal’, because I don’t accept this proposition that foreign affairs or defence or education policy or any other policy affects Indigenous Australians more or less than what it does Australians living across the country more generally. The fact is that of course defence policy affects Indigenous Australians in an equal way that it does somebody living in a regional town with them or elsewhere…
DAVID SPEERS:
Ok, but I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the Voice to Parliament would make decisions on defence policy. This is about advice to Parliament and advice to the executive government, as the Prime Minister’s proposed question says.
Look, without the detail you’re demanding, will you vote ‘No’?
PETER DUTTON:
I’m waiting for the detail, and I’ve been respectful of the process, and I think, as I say, we’re all genuinely wanting a better outcome for Indigenous Australians.
We’ve asked the Prime Minister to put forward that detail. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that he puts the detail forward. He can’t say to the Australian public…
DAVID SPEERS:
But is it a deal breaker for you?
PETER DUTTON:
…Well, you can’t say to the Australian public ‘we’ll vote on the Saturday, and we’ll give you the detail on the Monday’. Australians won’t cop that. They understand that there is a very big difference between enshrining something in the Constitution and putting it into legislation which the Prime Minister could do tomorrow. The laws can be changed if it doesn’t work, if it turns out to be a disaster or there’s a better model that comes along, if the Voice decides that there is a much better way to do this in five years time, you don’t have the constraints of it being enshrined within the Constitution.
So, and there are many, you know, learned people on both sides of this argument who say that that the High Court will have a narrow interpretation. Others who say that it will be a legal minefield and if that’s the case, we need to be certain about the advice that the Prime Minister has got, because he won’t provide it to the Australian public at the moment.
DAVID SPEERS:
A growing number of your Liberal MPs are demanding to be given a conscience vote on this. Will you give Liberals a free vote?
PETER DUTTON:
Well David, I’ve been very clear about making sure that we respect our party process. I understand that there are strongly held views and people with good intent who draw different conclusions in relation to the Voice…
DAVID SPEERS:
…so, a free vote then?
PETER DUTTON:
…I’ve said I’m not going to circumvent or pre-empt what the decision of the Party Room would be. I have great respect for my colleagues, we will have the debate and we’ll make a decision in the Party Room and we’ll announce that in due course.
DAVID SPEERS:
Finally, on the AUKUS deal – you’ve been urging the government to buy the first two nuclear submarines from the United States rather than manufacture them here. You’ve said this could be done by the end of the decade. We have seen some doubts expressed by the leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the US.
What do you know about American shipbuilding that they perhaps don’t?
PETER DUTTON:
Look, I have a great deal of respect…I mean this is the point; we all do have a great deal of respect for our American friends. They rightly point out the constraints that exist within their supply chain. Australia would come to the table with the ability to potentially increase that output. It may be that the three countries are looking at a common platform so that there is the ability for the three countries to be involved in the production process. The propulsion system would still be a function obviously developed in the United States or by Rolls-Royce in the United Kingdom.
There are different ways in which you can slice and dice this issue, but it comes down to the reality that Australia is a trusted and reliable partner with the United States and the United Kingdom and I think the times ahead will demand that of us, and we’re a very willing partner to provide that support to our allies and to our partners and friends in the region.
DAVID SPEERS:
Peter Dutton, we will have to leave it there. Thanks for joining us.
PETER DUTTON:
Thanks David. Thank you.
[ends]