Subjects: Indigenous Voice to Parliament; Mark Dreyfus’s grubby low-class parliamentary disgrace.
E&OE
RAY HADLEY:
The Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is on the line. Peter, good morning to you.
PETER DUTTON:
Good morning, Ray.
RAY HADLEY:
It’s been a busy one. I appreciate that you have been meeting with the Prime Minister, as I understand in the last hour or so and now we know why. What’s your take on what the announcement has meant to the Australian, I guess, population and the Referendum to follow?
PETER DUTTON:
Well Ray, obviously there’s a Bill that’s been in the Parliament this week. There’s been some chatter about that, but that’s essentially a mechanics Bill of some of the function behind the scenes so not that consequential in the sense. The Prime Minister’s announced today that they’ve agreed a set of words between the Committee and the government and he’s put that detail out. We haven’t seen any legal advice on that yet. It’s obviously the third form of words that they’ve put together. It goes to a committee process and then they will hear from different lawyers, no doubt, constitutional experts, about what it means.
I think there’s a need for the government to put out the Solicitor-General’s advice so that we can understand what the words mean. The form of the words that the Prime Minister’s put out this morning still include executive government. They’ve included the words ‘of the Commonwealth’. Now that’s a change. Again, I don’t know what impact that has, but for our Party’s perspective, as I’ve said, the Liberal Party will consider all of that. We wanted to look at it, treat it respectfully and wait for the government to form their set of words which they’ve now done, and then our Party Room will have a meeting at some stage – not immediately, but Parliament finishes up here tomorrow and then we’re back next week – but we will make a decision as a Party Room whether we support or oppose the Voice and that’s the process that we will go through in the not too distant future.
RAY HADLEY:
Obviously, David Littleproud was also spoken to about this, this morning and the Nationals will oppose it regardless of the next passage. For people that missed it, the Prime Minister announced a proposed law to ‘alter the Constitution to recognise the First People of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve of this proposal alteration?’ One of the things I’ve mentioned just briefly, I’ve already had the ‘Yes’ campaigners come to me with how they see it, and obviously they’re applauding the decision by the Prime Minister. But I think that the National Party and those who oppose it will look at what has been announced in Section 129. ‘There shall be a body to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice’ – 1. 2. ‘The Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’. ‘The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have the power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.’
The opponents, I think, will seize upon the fact that we’re going to have two sets of laws. Is that your understanding of it? There will be a set of laws for non-Indigenous and another set for Indigenous Australians.
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I mean it comes down to, you know, to the position I suppose, that a lot of people have adopted and that is, I mean everyone wants to see a better outcome for Indigenous Australians, we want to make sure that the money that’s being spent is being spent on services that help kids in communities, that makes sure that people, you know, have a good education and employment opportunities. So, the question is whether enshrining something in the Constitution is going to bind the Parliament in a process that bogs the system of government down, whether it goes beyond just the health and education aspects into other budget priorities and defence policy and all of those questions are the ones that people are fairly asking. The Prime Minister’s taken a decision not to release that detail – that’s a decision that he’s made. But I think there are literally millions of Australians who are saying, ‘well, you know, explain to me what it is you’re asking me to vote for’.
Now that he’s got the form of words, I hope that the PM can release more of the detail because if people form a judgement that this is just going to be another bureaucracy and soak up their taxpayers’ dollars, then they’re not going to be supporting that. If they think it’s going to provide some support, then they’ll be able to make their own decision, but I think if you’re starving people of the information deliberately, then people start to ask questions.
Even in the Bill that’s before the Parliament this week, I mean, we’ve been fighting tooth and nail with the government, simply to try and have a balanced approach for both the ‘Yes’ and the ‘No’ case. You can’t have the question that’s put to the Australian public and you’ve got your finger on the scales supporting one side over the other. People deserve to know the facts both for and against and then Australians are old enough to make their own judgements. The government was reluctant to put the word ‘neutral’ into campaign material that was going out. There was a bit of a bun fight about a few other aspects, but all we’ve asked for is a fair process and people will make their own judgements and some people have already decided vehemently one way or the other. But I think there are a lot of people who want to hear the information or have a doubt about the model and why do you need to change the Constitution as opposed to just putting it into legislation? And that will be the debate our country has between now and October. The difficulty is that, you know, a lot of people now are really hurting with electricity prices and the government’s broken promises, the talk about increased taxation, etc. It’s a tough time for a lot of families and I think they probably want their Prime Minister to be concentrating on those issues as much as he can. I think there’s a bit of rising anger about that at the moment so it’s got a long way to play out.
RAY HADLEY:
He was at pains to point out that all the other bodies – various Indigenous bodies – will stand. I mean, they stay there. So, I mean, you know, they’ll be independent of any decisions taken by the Voice. But I do come back to those who’ll oppose it, and I’m sure that by the time we get to tomorrow and we get all the detail – because it’s a bit hard to do on the run, it’s only been announced in the last 45 minutes or so, this possibility that there’ll be two laws under constitutional law and that will mean a law for non-Indigenous Australians and another law for Indigenous Australians. I don’t know whether people, particularly non-Indigenous, would be happy to accommodate that. It’s a matter that will have to be explained by the Prime Minister, whether when he talks about ‘the Parliament, shall subject to the Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating only to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice people, including composition, function powers and procedures’. I mean, it’s not clear there exactly what they’re talking about, and I think if they’re going to go to October and want people to vote ‘yes’, they’re going to have to enunciate what they mean by that, exactly what does it mean in reality as opposed to words?
PETER DUTTON:
Well Ray, I think you’re right that people want the detail. It’s interesting going out into some of the regional areas, speaking to Indigenous elders out there and they say, ‘well, you know, what if the Voice has a different view to, you know, the local community’s voice? Whose voice prevails in those circumstances?’ A lot of those basic questions, the government needs to answer. I mean, we wrote to the Prime Minister with 15 pretty common sense questions, I think, and we’ve still had no reply to that.
So, I think if the Prime Minister wants to carry the confidence of the Australian people, you can’t treat people like mugs, you’ve got to provide them with the information, answer those questions that you and many others have put, and, as I say, people can make an informed judgement. We’ve wanted to wait for the wording, we’ve got the wording now and we’ll be able to get the legal advice in relation to it and as a Party, we’ll be able to take our next steps from there.
RAY HADLEY:
Okay. Let’s get back to that legal advice. What was Mark Dreyfus, the Attorney-General, trying to achieve and was shouted down by people, you know, on the body that finally made the decision in concert with the Prime Minister? What was he trying to get enshrined in all of this before he was sidelined?
PETER DUTTON:
As I understand it, he was trying to remove the words ‘Executive Government’. So, in the second sentence…
RAY HADLEY:
So it’s still there, yeah, ‘Parliament and Executive Government’.
PETER DUTTON:
Yes, but they’ve inserted ‘of the Commonwealth’. Again, that must have some legal impact, I’m not a constitutional lawyer, so I won’t speculate as to what that means, but the query about ‘Executive Government’ was that it then includes the heads of departments, for example, and so it’s not just a Voice to Parliament but to Executive Government, and there’s interpretation about how far that extends. So again, lots of questions that need to be answered and the PM’s putting this forward. He believes strongly in it and I hope that he’s able to provide the detail to a lot of Australians.
RAY HADLEY:
Ok, just back quickly, I had Dennis Shanahan on the program yesterday. He’s doubled down again on the attack on you by Mark Dreyfus, the Attorney-General, which according to Dennis, who was in the chamber, said it even embarrassed hardened Labor supporters and Labor MPs. You were then shouted down when you tried to introduce some opportunity for a vote on getting rid of these Nazi signals, signs and salutes and all the rest of it and they decided that that was not the case. Then there was a walkout staged by members of your Party when Milton Dick decided that he wouldn’t censure or ask the Attorney-General to withdraw or apologise as the case may be. What’s it like sitting there with Dreyfus doing what he did to you yesterday and the day before?
PETER DUTTON:
I thought it was a horrible display, to be honest. You know, I’ve been in public life a long time and I’m happy to give as good as I get and happy to be involved in discussions and debates and stand up for what I believe is in our country’s best interests. So, you cop a bit and you give a bit but I just thought Mark Dreyfus’s comments were unhinged. It was obviously an attempt to try and slur me in the run up to the by-election in Victoria. I’ve never seen anything as low-class as that in my time in Parliament and, you’re right, you could see the senior Labor members knew that he was completely off-script and it was deeply offensive and completely the opposite of any view that I hold. I think he was demonstrated to be a hypocrite and I think, frankly, he’s diminished himself very much. As Julian Leeser properly pointed out, he’s the Attorney-General, the First Law Officer of the country. He’s supposed to act in a dignified way and set an example and I think his colleagues, frankly, in private have really given him a touch-up, and rightly so.
RAY HADLEY:
Okay, we’ll talk next week about this because it all will unfold in the next seven days. I appreciate your time. Thank you
PETER DUTTON:
Thank you, mate. Take care.
[ends]