Subjects: Indigenous Voice to Parliament; the Liberal Party’s position.
E&OE
TOM ELLIOTT:
Peter Dutton, good morning.
PETER DUTTON:
Good morning, Tom.
TOM ELLIOTT:
Well, explain your version of the Voice. How is it different from the government’s?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, our concern about the Prime Minister’s proposal is that it becomes a bureaucracy in Canberra and it doesn’t help Indigenous people on the ground, which is what we desire. But even worse than that, it is going to change our system of government forever and you can’t out-legislate the Constitution. Once the change is made, it’s made forever, and I think the advice from the Referendum Working Group headed by Megan Davis has been very clear that the Voice does intend to have a say with the Reserve Bank, on defence policy, on foreign affairs, and that is a very significant change to our democracy, and our way of government and the way it operates – and we’re opposed to that.
The Liberal Party has been long in support of constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians and so we recommitted to that yesterday and we’ve said if you want to help out in a place like Alice Springs or Tennant Creek or other communities where the levels of domestic violence are abhorrent, the life expectancy is not what it should be, educational standards are not up to scratch, then listen to what those local women and elders and parents are saying in those communities and the billions of dollars that are being wasted at the moment, get that directly into the communities – and I think that’s a more practical way of providing support to people on the ground.
TOM ELLIOTT:
But what are you actually saying, though? Are you saying you would say have a whole lot of different voices, like Indigenous voices, like an Alice Springs voice that might make a representation to the federal government? Or a Darwin voice? Or a regional West Australian voice? I mean, is that what you’re saying?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, that’s right, and there is, as we’ve been around to say an area like Laverton or Leonora – been in the press recently, as has Alice Springs – a lot of difficulty, particularly after the government abolished the Cashless Debit Card, the grog has restarted. The voices on the ground there are very clear, Tom, but they’re not being listened to and I just think practical advice is fine, people can have a say in the policy-making, and in the end, though, if we enshrine something in the Constitution, as the Prime Minister’s suggesting, firstly he’s not prepared to answer basic questions in relation to it and it’s against his own legal advice. So, this thing ends up in the High Court for years and years to come, which is of no benefit to anyone.
TOM ELLIOTT:
Indigenous leader Warren Mundine, who’s heading up a big ‘no’ campaign against the Voice. He’s described your stance as being a ‘very big disappointment’, that you should also be in the hard ‘no’ camp like he is. What do you say to that?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, we’ve been very clear that and I’ve been very clear myself that I intend to advocate to Australians to vote ‘no’ for the Prime Minister’s Voice. I think it’s another Canberra bureaucracy and I don’t think it’s going to deliver the outcomes. The Liberal Party, back to John Howard, has supported constitutional recognition, and, as I say, we’ve reasserted that position yesterday. So, there’s no news in that sense. But we’ve taken a very strong stance against what the Prime Minister is proposing, and, as I say, there’s nothing that you can pass in the Parliament that overrides the constitutional words, and the High Court has interpreted even a recent case in relation to what it means to be an Indigenous person. There is a lot of legal ambiguity and I think the fact the Prime Minister refuses to answer even the most basic of questions, including the refusal to release the Solicitor-General’s advice, I think should make a lot of Australians sit up, think, have a look at the real detail of what the PM is proposing, and I think the more people understand it, the more inclined they’re going to be to vote against it.
TOM ELLIOTT:
Ok, so if I’ve got this clear, Anthony Albanese wants to put the Voice into the Constitution. You, however, want to put a recognition of Indigenous people in the Constitution. But aren’t both of those things a bit racist? To have special mention of one race of people in a document – that being the Constitution – which is supposedly for all Australians?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I think it’s appropriate to recognise the Indigenous Australian heritage in our constitutional document. I think that’s entirely appropriate. The Prime Minister is proposing something completely different from that and it does, on the argument of many, have that discrimination against some Australians or elevates one group of Australians over another and that’s again not something the Prime Minister is willing to talk about. But I think there are many reasons why people would have hesitation and if the Prime Minister is acting against his own legal advice, if he’s creating a legal landmine, then I think we need to question it and we need to think very carefully about it, and not just rely on “the vibe,” but think very carefully about the implications for decades to come.
TOM ELLIOTT:
A number of state and federal Liberal MPs have said that they will support Albanese’s voice, does that mean your Party is split on this issue?
PETER DUTTON:
No, it doesn’t. In the Labor Party, as you know, if you’re of a different mind, if you’re against a decision taken by the Labor Party executive, you’re expelled from the Party, you can’t cross the floor. In the Liberal Party we’ve had a proud history of, you know, the strength of the individual voice and the ability for people to, you know, to express their own views. In our Party Room, in the Federal Party Room, there would be 99 per cent support. That’s the reality. I think two people have indicated that they don’t agree, and that they support the ‘yes’ campaign and that they would be doing that. They’re people on the backbench and they’re perfectly entitled to do that. There are people in our Party who opposed John Howard on border protection policy. So, that’s been the history of the Liberal Party. So, I know the Labor Party wants to make a big deal of that, but it’s a much more democratic process in the Liberal Party. But the point I’d make is that 99 per cent of people in our Party Room strongly supported the position we took yesterday.
TOM ELLIOTT:
Final question, can members of your Shadow Cabinet cross the floor or are they duty-bound to support your particular version of the Voice?
PETER DUTTON:
Wherever we make a decision of the executive, it doesn’t matter whether it’s on an area of health policy or it’s an area of taxation policy or indeed in relation to this matter, once the Shadow Cabinet has made a decision, or the Shadow Ministry, when there is Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet solidarity, people are obliged to support that position. But I can tell you, Tom, again, the vast, vast majority of people in the Shadow Ministry, including the Shadow Cabinet are 100 per cent in support of the position we’ve adopted.
My job is to act in the country’s best interests. I think the Prime Minister is dividing the country and we’ve put forward a proposal which I think unites the country. It doesn’t disrupt our system of government. We live in one of the most stable democracies in the world. Why would we put that at risk? I want practical outcomes that can help Indigenous Australians and that’s why I advocate for Australians to vote ‘no’ to Mr Albanese’s Voice.
TOM ELLIOTT:
Peter Dutton, thank you for your time.
PETER DUTTON:
Thanks, Tom. Thanks so much.
[ends]