Subject: Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
E&OE.
TOM ELLIOTT:
Joining us on the line now is the Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. Mr Dutton, good afternoon.
PETER DUTTON:
Good afternoon. Pleasure to be with you. Thank you.
TOM ELLIOTT:
Okay. So, why is detail on the Voice to Parliament so hard to get at the moment? Why is it every time you ask a question about it – I don’t mean to you, I just mean in general – you cannot get a clear answer?
PETER DUTTON:
Tom, I think a couple of reasons. I mean, one, the government’s made a decision that they’re going to bring forward the referendum, so for political reasons, they’ve decided that it’s better to be dealt with early in this term of Parliament, not be dealt with closer to the election. Secondly, I think they believe that the more detail that’s out there, the more questions people will have. But these are reasonable questions that people have. If you’re being asked to change the Constitution, people know that’s something far different than just changing a bill or introducing a bill into the Parliament, because the Parliament then becomes involved in a process. So, if there’s a constitutional change, where you have the High Court interpreting what it means, expanding the scope, because of their interpretation of the words, and any act of Parliament can’t change that.
So, that’s why I think it’s important people get the detail so that they understand what it is they’re being asked to vote for. But, I mean, the Prime Minister, as you say, was all over the shop today, and I don’t know whether it’s a deliberate strategy, but some of the things he said this morning just simply aren’t true. I don’t know whether he’s just not across the detail, or he believes that people will just vote on the vibe. We’ve got one of the most stable democracies in the world. We don’t want to be tinkering lightly with it. If he’s got an argument to put as to why it should be changed, then the onus is on him to put that argument and to convince people to his position.
TOM ELLIOTT:
Because it’s interesting, I mean, Jeff Kennett was on our morning show with Neil Mitchell today, and he’s a supporter of the Voice, but it was clear when I listened to him that his view of how it would function is very different from Anthony Albanese’s view. So, these are people who on that issue are on the same side and yet they differ as to how it will work.
For me, one of the big issues is, would the Voice advise purely on laws or legislation that affects Indigenous people only, or would it have a broader role? For example, I mean, Indigenous people, like all Australians, might have a view on should the dole be higher or lower or tax rates higher or lower or should we buy a nuclear submarine or something else? Does the Voice confine itself to just Indigenous-specific issues? Or is it on broader issues, in which case every bit of legislation before the Parliament would also have to go through the thread of the Voice?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, Tom, the Prime Minister would say that it only affects a narrow set of issues, and it doesn’t have any impact on other issues like defence or foreign affairs, and that the Parliament wouldn’t be subservient to the constitutional words. Now, to be honest, that is just not true. The honest answer for the Prime Minister to your question is that nobody knows because the High Court will determine whether or not the words have some different import or should be expanded. If you’ve got a view from the Voice that money is better spent in the budget on issues affecting Indigenous Australians in a regional area or indeed in a metropolitan area, and that that’s a higher priority than spending money in another area within the budget then, I don’t know the answer to that. But if the High Court determines that the Parliament should listen to the Voice, and they’ve taken a view when they’ve looked at all of the facts that it does allow that interpretation, then the Parliament can’t do anything about that.
This is the question the Prime Minister was sort of at odds and sixes and sevens on this morning: if the High Court determines that it does have broader application, then it will mean that it goes beyond just health and education. Everybody wants a better outcome for Indigenous Australians. I think it’s a national disgrace what is going on in Alice Springs at the moment where young kids are too scared in some cases to go home because they’re worried about physical or sexual abuse. They are out committing crimes of a nighttime, so they’re not going to school because they’re sleeping during the day. Now, what different voice do you want to hear from the mothers and the elders in that community who are saying, ‘give the police the powers that they need to enforce the law, give the kids a safe environment in which they can live and protect them from sexual predators within the community?’ These are the practical things that people want addressed. If the Voice is just something that the Prime Minister hasn’t given consideration to, but he thinks that it’ll make him electorally popular – then that’s not good enough. You don’t change the Constitution on those grounds.
TOM ELLIOTT:
I briefly did some work on the old ATSIC – the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission – back in 1990. So, it’s a long time ago and I came to the conclusion – I was only 22 or 23 back then – that it was a corrupt money-wasting institution and should be abolished. In fact, it was abolished a few years later. Do you personally think we need an Indigenous Voice to Parliament? I mean, in your heart of hearts, is it something that we should be doing in some way, shape, or form?
PETER DUTTON:
Well Tom, I would support, frankly, anything that’s reasonable that is going to improve health outcomes. As I say, I worked in the area for a long time, but it breaks my heart that young kids in our country in the year 2022, in Indigenous communities, are being sexually assaulted at rates that make us an international shame and embarrassment, to be honest. So, if the Prime Minister’s got a model that he thinks can improve that scenario, then, of course, we will sign up to it. But I don’t believe that enshrining in the Constitution – unless the Prime Minister can answer the questions that have been put to him – I don’t believe that Australians will vote for that, and the difficulty is that if we go to a referendum, and it is voted down, because of the way the Prime Minister has handled it, then I do think that that sets back some of the reconciliation efforts, and I don’t think that’s something that we want as a country.
So, he has the ability to legislate a Voice tomorrow and it could provide for all that people are wanting at the moment. You could see how it went for the next couple of years and if he makes the case and it works well and the health outcomes are improving, etc. well, maybe at that stage if he wants to enshrine it in the Constitution he could have a fair argument. But, at the moment, he’s saying ‘well, just look at the report – the Calma-Langton report – and have a look at that and that’ll provide the detail.’ But the Prime Minister hasn’t adopted that report. He’s not saying here’s the Bible and this is what we will adhere to and this is what we will legislate. The report, which is over 270 pages, has different options that it’s suggesting. It’s not even a definitive model that they’re suggesting. So, I don’t understand why the Prime Minister can’t answer those basic questions and I think he should.
TOM ELLIOTT:
So, if I’ve got this clear, you’re retaining an open mind towards it. If the Prime Minister comes out with something that’s coherent, that will give a practical improvement to the lives of Aboriginal people then you and presumably the Liberal Party will support it. But until you see that, you’re I guess, well not necessarily against it, you’re just not for it. Is that a fair way to put it?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I just think, frankly, I’m like millions of Australians who wants to understand the detail and then I can make an informed judgment and decision. If it is something that helps Aboriginal people in Indigenous communities – then that’s great – but if that could be achieved through legislation without changing the Constitution, then I think that’s the preferred option.
If the Prime Minister can’t explain, I mean, he hasn’t even, as he said this morning, he hasn’t even sought legal advice from the Solicitor-General about how it would work. So, I don’t know how he can genuinely say that it won’t be interpreted in a particular way because if you start to creep into areas of defence and border protection and foreign affairs and economic management more generally, well, I don’t think Australians will support that.
But I think genuinely most people want to see a better outcome for Indigenous Australians. The Prime Minister is saying this is the path forward, but if you’re not going to provide details, how can people make that judgment?
TOM ELLIOTT:
I’ll just put on my sort of historical cap here. You know, as I said, we had the old Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission that essentially ran the budget for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, that money was wasted, it didn’t help Aboriginal people. Almost two decades later, John Howard had the intervention in the Northern Territory and that was continued by the Rudd government. That didn’t seem to really work. When you were in government, you had cashless welfare cards for remote Indigenous communities, now Labor is unwinding it…
PETER DUTTON:
In fact, that was working!
TOM ELLIOTT:
Well, that’s what I’ve heard. Anyway, I mean, it’s been unwound. We’ve had many goes at different sorts of policies and none of them seem to work, why would this be any different?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, it’s a great question. If you enshrine an ATSIC-type body into the Constitution, then as your listeners know, you can’t undo that through the Parliament – you’re stuck with that model. It would have been a disaster for Indigenous people, as well as Australians, if we were stuck today with ATSIC, with all of the problems that it created, the corruption and the other allegations against different individuals that were aired at the time. It would be a disaster if it turned out that the Parliament couldn’t get rid of that body because it wouldn’t be improving the health outcomes of Indigenous people, it wouldn’t be improving the lives of those young kids in Alice Springs today, and it would be at enormous expense and I just don’t think that’s what the Australian public would see as a common sense solution.
But again, the PM is either deliberately refusing to answer these questions or creating the ambiguity thinking that somehow that’s a smart political tactic, but I think he’s making a grave error. I think they really need to recalibrate what it is they’re doing, the answers that they’re providing, because at the moment, I think more confusion is starting to frustrate Australians and I think the Prime Minister looks, at best, tricky with some of the responses.
I mean, one of the answers this morning that he gave was that there are two questions. The first question is about Indigenous recognition in the Constitution and the second is about the Voice. Well, the fact is, as every Australian knows, he’s not proposing two questions. They’re trying to conflate the two issues because they know there’s probably greater support for constitutional recognition than the Voice. But I just think it’s too tricky by half. There is only one question. The question is, as he proposes it at the moment, ‘do you support the Voice? There’s nothing about constitutional recognition that’s been put to the Australian public.
Incidentally, I support constitutional recognition. I think, you know, John Howard, all of my predecessors, frankly, right up to Scott Morrison have supported that and our Party Room has – but providing that it’s a form of words that is not interpreted by the High Court to bog government down and to make decision-making impossible and to create great expense with little outcome.
TOM ELLIOTT:
Alright, thank you for your time.
[ends]