Subjects: Changes to the Coalition Shadow Ministry; the Prime Minister’s Canberra Voice proposal; Alice Springs; NDIS.
E&OE.
PETER DUTTON:
Well, everyone, thank you very much for being here this morning. Today, I want to announce the following changes to the Coalition Shadow Ministry.
I’m absolutely delighted that Senator Jacinta Price will take on the role of Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians. Many Australians know Jacinta well. She’s a fighter, she’s a warrior for Indigenous Australians, and she’s a very proud Territorian. She’s a former councillor and a deputy mayor of Alice Springs and a former small business owner. She’s always fought hard to improve the lives of Indigenous women and kids and we’ve seen that just in recent days. She’s done an incredible amount of work to tackle tough issues like the scourge of sexual abuse, domestic violence and the crisis in law and order in some Indigenous communities, particularly in Alice Springs most recently. I’m incredibly proud of the work that she’s been able to do, that she continues to do, and I know that she’ll do an outstanding job in leading the charge for better practical outcomes for Indigenous Australians, not through the Prime Minister’s Canberra Voice Bureaucracy.
I’m also very proud that Senator Kerrynne Liddle will join the outer ministry as the Shadow Minister for Child Protection and the Prevention of Family Violence. Kerrynne has an incredibly distinguished career prior to entering the Senate. She worked as a senior business leader, a small business owner, as a journalist, and as a former small business owner and senior leader in the private and public sector. Kerrynne’s extensive professional experience has led to her success in key areas, including in tourism, in energy, in media, in tertiary education, in the arts, social housing and Indigenous affairs sectors. So, I am really very pleased that she’s able to join the Shadow Ministry in what is a very critical role.
I want to say thank you very much to Karen Andrews, who is a dear friend, and she has given many years of fine service to the Coalition, both in government and most recently in opposition. Karen and I had a conversation recently where she advised me that she would step down from the frontbench and not contest the next election. She has been a warrior for really important causes and the Home Affairs portfolio, as we know, is a very important one, and in government and in opposition, as I say, she really has been a first-rate contributor to that portfolio and I wish her every success into the future.
Senator James Paterson will join the Shadow Cabinet as the new Shadow Minister for Home Affairs. As a member and former chairman of the PJCIS – the Parliamentary Joint Committee for Intelligence and Security, James has been absolutely at the forefront of many of the critical national security debates facing our country in recent years. He’s done an outstanding job in holding the government to account for its values in cyber security, along with raising the critical issue of foreign interference in our community. He’ll retain his existing shadow ministerial portfolio of Cyber Security, and he will do a great job in that portfolio responsibility.
Senator the Honourable Michaelia Cash will return to a familiar portfolio area for her as she takes on the role of Shadow Attorney-General in addition to the role that she already has now. She’s a very fierce and a very smart legal mind. Michaelia also has been a dear friend for a long period of time. She’s a trusted confidante. She’s somebody I work very closely with, and she will be a very safe set of hands in relation to that portfolio responsibility.
I want to assure all Australians that the Coalition will continue to focus on delivering positive plans and policies for the future of our country in 2023 and indeed in the lead-up to the next election and well beyond that. The new Shadow Ministry appointments strengthen our team as we approach the task ahead.
I’ll ask Jacinta to say a few words, then Kerrynne, and then I’m happy to take any questions.
JACINTA NAMPIJINPA PRICE:
Thank you. I’m very humbled, very grateful that the leadership has entrusted me, that Peter has entrusted me, to carry out this job on behalf of Indigenous Australians and also for Australians. I absolutely look forward to working along with my Coalition colleagues within the Shadow Ministry. I’m very grateful that my colleague Kerrynne Liddle has also now the opportunity to work to protect some of our most vulnerable Australians as well, and I absolutely look forward to bringing about better lives for our most marginalised Australians in this country. As I said, again, I’m very grateful for the opportunity to undergo this portfolio in the Shadow Ministry. I have worked hard over many, many years to affect change in an area that I’m deeply passionate about. Right throughout my life, I understand the trials and tribulations of those that are nearest and dearest to me, and I will continue to fight for those, for our marginalised Australians going forward, and I’m very grateful again for the opportunity to do so within this portfolio.
KERRYNNE LIDDLE:
Well, I, too, am delighted to take on this responsibility on behalf of the Coalition, but also on behalf of all Australians. I, too, come from a history of working at a level in the areas that are critical to safe families: in areas of social housing, in areas of employment, in areas of education. All of those things help contribute to making families safer and to enable young people and older Australians to go about their lives in relative safety. I’m delighted to be able to take on this role, to work with my Coalition colleagues, and I certainly look forward to getting started pretty quickly on day one.
PETER DUTTON:
Thanks, Kerrynne, thank you. Ok, I’m happy to take any questions.
QUESTION:
Was Karen Andrews, what was the nature of her stepping aside? Was she asked to leave?
PETER DUTTON:
No, no. I mean, Karen had made a decision that she wasn’t going to contest the next election and she said to me that at the time of the next reshuffle she would be happy to stand aside. She’s, I think, as an engineer, and when you look at her background, her experience over her period in government and now in opposition, she will look forward to the next successful stage of her life.
I think sometimes we underestimate with the travel and the scrutiny and everything else that’s involved in this business, you know, it can take a toll, and that’s the case for all of us, but for Karen to leave at a time of her choosing and in those circumstances, I think speaks to her skill set and the way that she’s been a very significant contributor, not just in the home affairs portfolio when we’re in government, but in opposition when you just don’t have the resources of a department. Her involvement in many discussions around the cabinet table reflected her experiences, her real-life experiences, and she’ll be missed, and I wish her every success.
QUESTION:
Did the opposition’s stance on the Voice have any impact on her leaving?
PETER DUTTON:
No, and I think you’ll see that Karen’s put out a statement this morning to that effect. I think she strongly supports the position that we’ve adopted and I think that’s been reflected in her statement.
QUESTION:
So, she wasn’t pushed out?
PETER DUTTON:
One hundred per cent no.
QUESTION:
What’s your assessment of the NDIS in its current form?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, Bill Shorten is the architect of the NDIS, and if there are flaws in the NDIS, then Bill Shorten has to explain why he designed the scheme in such a way. We’ve been very clear that the NDIS is an incredibly important program. It needs to be properly funded and it needs to be focused on those people with profound disabilities and those that are most in need. The worst thing that you could have in this scenario is a Labor government not administering a program effectively and for that program to become unsustainable or to be put in a precarious position where those who are most in need of the help under the NDIS end up not getting that help or it being provided in a rationed way.
I said in my budget in reply speech in October of last year that we would support the government in sensible reforms. That was not an offer that was forthcoming from the Labor Party when we were in government. So, when Mr Shorten says ‘oh well the Liberal Party should have fixed these things up’. Of course the Labor Party would never support anything through the Senate and we would have required their support to do that. So, if Mr Shorten has design faults in his system, then he should be upfront, apologise for that, and explain how it is he’s going to put the system onto a sustainable pathway.
QUESTION:
Did you raise concerns with Anthony Albanese about child sex abuse in Alice Springs?
PETER DUTTON:
Yes, I did, and I made reference to that in the Parliament, so you can check the Hansard in that regard. In the end I think some of the commentary, frankly, from a couple of the Northern Territory Ministers and the Prime Minister, it’s not about them and it’s not about me, it’s about how we provide a brighter future for the kids in Alice Springs and elsewhere. There is a systemic problem in Alice Springs and other parts of the Northern Territory and indeed other parts of the country, and a big part of the decision to put Jacinta Price into this portfolio and Kerrynne Liddle into her portfolio is because we do want to provide a brighter future for those kids. We can’t have a situation where we have young children being sexually abused – the impact psychologically on them, the difficulties it creates within a home environment.
As we know, in Alice Springs at the moment, there are very significant issues and I just think instead of running off on red herrings and trying to create these distractions, if the Prime Minister doesn’t understand that there’s a problem in Alice Springs, then he should fly there tomorrow, because on my visits, the local residents have been very clear, very frank in their advice, and we’re seeing now reports, even in relation to a Northern Territorian Federal MP, that there was an incident recently where the police just didn’t have the ability to respond, a lack of resources, whatever it might be. Our call for the Australian Federal Police to go there and supplement the work of the Northern Territorian Police, it’s not about a political advantage, as I’ve seen some of the Labor people comment. It’s about making sure that you can restore peace and law and order and from there provide support through the programs to get kids back to school, to get the housing situation improved, to make sure that there are employment opportunities. That’s our motivation.
I’ve been involved in child protection from the age of, I don’t know, 21, 22. As a young police officer, I worked in a sex offender squad and the thought of young girls or boys being sexually assaulted makes me feel sick to the core. The only motivation I’ve got here is to work with the Prime Minister and that was the essence of our discussion. I sat down with him and said that we would support measures, legislation, funding, whatever it took, to provide stability into a community like Alice Springs, and that’s the only motivation that we have.
QUESTION:
Marion Scrymgour says the police failed to respond to five calls of help when a man was bashed in Darwin last month. That may be the incident you might’ve been discussing?
PETER DUTTON:
That’s correct, yeah.
QUESTION:
Is that proof that the AFP (inaudible) should be sent in?
PETER DUTTON:
Look, again, it’s not a problem of Labor or Liberal making. This is a problem that’s been around for a long time. So, my offer of support to the Prime Minister is purely about how do we address the acuteness of the problems now.
We spoke to residents in Alice Springs last week who’ve decided to leave Alice Springs. Speaking to one of the people on one of the councils or the board for a local school, their numbers are coming down – in part, because people are leaving worried over security issues. The incidence of break and enters, one business we went to had been broken into 18 times in January alone. The incidence of domestic violence referred to, where as I understand, the allegation, an indigenous woman was being doused with petrol or that was what Marion had seen or had been advised of. She tried to intervene, to her credit, and the police were obviously off doing other tasks.
I think the capacity for the Northern Territory Police to respond to these incidents, I think they’re overwhelmed and that’s why I think the Australian Federal Police should go there to supplement the NT police, because if we don’t, we are going to see more deaths in the Northern Territory and they are preventable if we have a law and order response on the ground and that’s what we would encourage the government to do.
QUESTION:
Jacinta, quick question; in your opinion from being on the ground in the NT, what is the connection between the ‘no’ campaign and also what you’ve seen on the ground? Will a Voice to Parliament in its current form, in the question that’s due to be proposed, affect change?
JACINTA NAMPIJINPA PRICE:
Well, I think there are examples of Indigenous leaders in communities who are coming out and saying now that they don’t have any idea what the Prime Minister’s proposal for their ‘yes’ campaign is. They don’t know what the Voice is. They don’t feel like they will be represented by yet another model that they see as being run by those who have had long-held positions within, you know, the Aboriginal industry, if you like. Those calls are coming from them for this push for the ‘yes’. But those people on the ground in communities don’t know what this is about.
My concern is also there are those in communities who will be exploited for the purpose of this Referendum going forward. But I think, as you’ll see more and more locals, if the media are prepared to go out to those communities, have those conversations, they will find that a lot of those people in those communities don’t know what this all means and how in fact they’re supposed to be empowered through this model. Just like the delegation that came to Canberra said to us that, ‘well, we have representatives in Parliament who are there, who are paid by the taxpayer to represent the views, the opinions, the concerns of those’, because Indigenous people in remote communities also elect us into Parliament. So, they are calling for us to do our jobs and do our jobs a lot better. Those that I’ve spoken to are not interested in this yet again, another bureaucracy.
QUESTION:
Do you think there can be any lessons learned from the model that’s been adopted recently in South Australia regarding the Voice?
JACINTA NAMPIJINPA PRICE:
Absolutely. I think it is utterly ridiculous that it is being left open for individuals to declare their Aboriginality. Just based on that, the fact that, you know, a citizen of South Australia can write a statutory declaration and claim to be Indigenous is deeply concerning. Another matter that is of great concern, which has been talked about by a lot of Indigenous people around the country, are those who claim to be Indigenous who aren’t necessarily Indigenous. You will see in South Australia a dramatic increase in the number of Indigenous people within its population, no doubt, because of that particular model.
Actually, I might also allow Kerrynne to speak about her thoughts on the particular model here in South Australia.
KERRYNNE LIDDLE:
Well, I guess what we have currently is we have some legislation that’s just very recently been passed, so we don’t actually know how effectively this model will work. I agree with my colleague Jacinta. I raised concerns about some of the definitions that were used in that legislation. Apparently they used the Corrections Act and they used the Sentencing Act. I would have said they were highly inappropriate definitions when you look at the choices that were available to the state government in terms of the definitions they could have chosen. They could have chosen the national one that’s been in place and used by governments for a very, very long time, in fact, for around 40 years, but they chose not to. I think I’ve also had it raised with me directly from constituents concerned that they didn’t have enough information. They were not aware that this would result in the removal of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee. So, I think this government has a lot to answer for in terms of the consultation process that it undertook as part of this process, and there are lessons for that also in this National Voice proposal.
PETER DUTTON:
The only point I’d make to that, of course, in South Australia, the Labor government’s taken the decision to put the Voice into legislation, not change the Constitution here in South Australia. I think it’s a very important point. The Labor Premier, and it’s the case in other jurisdictions where they’re talking about a similar model – South Australia’s the first. Each Labor jurisdiction has taken the decision not to change their Constitution but to allow for their voice in their respective states to be in legislation, and that’s exactly what we’re proposing, because the Prime Minister now is up to three forms of words, maybe a forth – we don’t know yet. If you put that into the Constitution, I just think we need to understand this very fundamental point. You can’t out-legislate the Constitution. If you put a broad form of words into the Constitution that ends up being litigated for years and years and years in the High Court, then that is not going to deliver outcomes for anyone. I suspect it’s part of the thinking for the Premier here in South Australia and elsewhere as to why they haven’t enshrined their voice in the Constitution because they’re worried about the import. When you look at successful models elsewhere, they’ve not been put into the Constitution. But that’s the decision that Anthony Albanese’s made and that’ll be the debate over the next few months.
QUESTION:
Are you maintaining an open mind with the parliamentary inquiry into the Voice?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, we’re happy to contribute in a constructive way to the parliamentary committee, but the Prime Minister has made clear that he’s now going to release a form of or a version of the advice from the Solicitor-General, but it’s a sanitised version of the advice. So, in the one breath the Prime Minister says, ‘I’m going to release the advice from the Solicitor-General on the wording that is being proposed, but you won’t see the whole opinion because the whole opinion is Cabinet in confidence’. Now the Prime Minister is either transparent or he’s not, and I think a lot of Australians are starting to cotton on here. How on earth do you propose a change to the Constitution – the biggest change since Federation. You ask people to vote on the Saturday and then starting on the following Monday for six months there will be a consultation phase about the design of the Voice. So people won’t even have the model of the Voice known to them when they’re asked to vote. It could take very many different forms.
I don’t understand how the Prime Minister has arrived at that decision, but that’s the decision he’s arrived at and I think it’s worth noting, but he’s not going to release the full advice from the Solicitor-General. He’s going to issue a sanitised version and I think Australians should get the advice, but the Prime Minister’s gone into that committee process saying that he’s not going to split the view of the Referendum Working Group and he’s rejected the advice otherwise of the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General, and I think it’s incumbent on him to explain why that is the process. It’s the cart before the horse and I think it’s why a lot of people are very suspicious about what the Prime Minister is promoting here.
Thank you very much.
[ends]