Subjects: Julian Leeser; Labor’s tax hit on low and middle income earners; the Prime Minister’s Canberra Voice proposal; cost of living pressures; China’s trade sanctions.
E&OE.
PETER DUTTON:
Thank you very much for being here today. Firstly, I want to say thank you very much to Julian Leeser for his service to our Party. Julian has been a lifelong Liberal, a great champion for many causes, including making sure that people from Indigenous communities can have a better future. As you saw in his press conference today, he’s a man of great character, of strength, and the personal attacks that have been levelled against him over the course of the last couple of months, including by the Prime Minister, I think have been quite disgraceful. I think in light of Julian’s announcement today, it’s proper that people, including the Prime Minister, should apologise to Julian Leeser. He’s a person that has our country’s best interests at heart and as he pointed out, he doesn’t leave with rancour and he doesn’t leave with bitterness. He has gone through a process within our Party and his position is at odds with the overwhelming majority of the Liberal Party members in our Party Room.
So, our determination is to make sure that we have local and regional voices because we want to listen to those people in the communities to get the best possible outcome for them. The Prime Minister’s proposal, which is a Canberra Voice, is not going to deliver that outcome and the biggest constitutional change that’s proposed here in our country’s history needs to be scrutinised. I would say to all Australians, please go and get a better understanding of the detail of what it is that’s being promised. The form of words that the Prime Minister has on the table at the moment will see our system of government change dramatically from what we’ve known in our entire lifetime. So, I think it is important that people get a better understanding, a full understanding of what it is that the Prime Minister is proposing and have a look at the detail. Have a look at the opinions of Greg Craven and others who have an intimate knowledge of how this will impact on our system of government, as well as whether it’s going to deliver any practical outcome. I think that’s very important.
Now, a couple of other points around today. Obviously, right at the eleventh hour, right on eve of Easter, the Treasurer makes an announcement that 10 million Australians are going to be slugged by $1500 a year. If the government was proud of this announcement, of this policy decision, they wouldn’t have pushed it out there on the eve of Easter knowing that people would be concentrating on their Easter break and having a few days of work and being away with their families. But already under Labor, families are suffering with higher interest rates, with higher electricity prices, with higher bills wherever they go as a result of the decisions that the government’s made and now they’re $1500 a year worse off under this government. I just don’t think this government has a plan for how to help families. They said before the election, of course, that they would have a $275 reduction in their electricity prices each year and now we find that the government only has a plan to slug families, 10 million Australians, to the tune of 1500 dollars a year. That is a big whack, particularly for families who are paying more and more for their mortgages under Labor at the moment. I’m happy to take any questions.
QUESTION:
How many other MPs, specifically frontbenchers, have expressed concerns over the Liberal Party’s position on the Voice?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I think it’s an important point to make that Julian’s position in this is pretty unique. Julian has a history – he’d worked, as you know, with Pearson and others in years past about the design of a voice. As he pointed out today, he set up an organisation which was designed to bring people together around constitutional change. He has a view in relation to it being in the Constitution. He’s worried about the words, as he pointed out today. He’s campaigning now to see the Prime Minister change the words. The PM’s changed the words three times already or twice from the original version, so there are three forms of words out there and that’s what Julian’s doing. But he comes at it from a unique perspective, and I’ve worked very closely with him. I’ve visited Indigenous communities with Julian. He has an incredible empathy, a desire just to help people and he’s a dear friend and I not only thank him for his service on the frontbench to our Party, but I’m very pleased that he’s going to continue to fight for our cause because he’s been a lifelong believer in the values of the Liberal Party and he’s living them.
QUESTION:
What in Mr Leeser’s argument was not able to convince you?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, as he says, it’s that he’s at odds with the overwhelming majority of the Liberal Party Party Room. Now, if he was in the Labor Party and he had this difference of opinion, he would have to resign from the Party. In the Liberal Party Room, we have the ability for him to have a point of difference but where you have Cabinet solidarity, or Shadow Cabinet solidarity, that precludes you from heading off in a different direction than the decision that the Shadow Cabinet has taken. That’s the history of the Liberal Party and it’s a very proud one. In the Labor Party, they suppress that sort of individualism and in the Liberal Party we believe very strongly in it.
Julian had a view about the Voice being enshrined in the Constitution and we’re on the same page in terms of a local and regional voice. Remember the Prime Minister told you right at the start of this debate when he made the announcement of the words, the first version of the words at Garma? Remember he said to you on many occasions, ‘if you want the detail, go and have a look at the Calma-Langton Report’? That was the Report that was set up, it was a bipartisan approach to it but since May of last year, the Prime Minister hasn’t involved us in those tangible discussions. In Calma-Langton – that the Prime Minister made multiple references to – it talks there about having a local and regional arrangement before you go to a national voice. We have agreed with that position. The Prime Minister is now at odds with that advice and that’s why we believe our model has a great chance and a much better chance of providing support to Indigenous people in communities like Alice Springs and it doesn’t change our system of government as we know it. The Canberra Voice has the ability to lobby the Reserve Bank in relation to interest rates. The Canberra Voice has the ability to lobby every government department, every minister, on every issue. Cabinet papers will be contemplated by the Voice. Let’s be very clear about it. That is a very significant change to our government.
We think it is a much more prudent approach to have constitutional recognition, which is what we’ve proposed; to have an arrangement where you can hear from those local and regional people about issues that directly affect them, their kids, their community and that you have an arrangement of the local and regional bodies which are in legislation specifically excluding a national voice from having a say in matters like defence. So, I think that is a more prudent approach and I’m confident that as the year goes on, the Australian public will be asking more questions and more concerns will be raised. But the Prime Minister’s taken a view not to answer those reasonable questions, just to shout at people that if they don’t agree with him that they’re hard-hearted or racist, it’s a complete nonsense and it’s an affront, I think, to millions of Australians.
QUESTION:
Do you expect your frontbenchers to vote no on their ballot papers?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, how people vote in a secret ballot is entirely up to them. I mean, that’s the case in any ballot.
QUESTION:
Isn’t, I guess, an idea of having regional local voices with no national voice, how will that work? Isn’t that like having a train line with no pathway to Central Station?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, it’s like hearing from people in Alice Springs who are desperate to get a better life for themselves, for their kids. You’re seeing it in Darwin, in Tennant Creek, in Katherine, in other parts of the community, Laverton, Leonora, in Western Australia, where when you go to those communities, they’re not in favour of a voice. They want practical outcomes, they want assistance with housing, they want assistance with maternal health, they want assistance with rehabilitation and I want to help those people. I want those outcomes to change as quickly as possible by listening to those local voices. The government under Mr Albanese, is proposing a Canberra-based Voice, which will be the voice of the elites, not of people on the ground and that’s why I don’t think it’s going to deliver the positive outcome on the ground.
Once it’s enshrined in the Constitution, it can only be changed by going back to the people. You can’t out-legislate the Constitution and if there is an unintended consequence, because of the poor wording that the Prime Minister’s chosen, then that won’t help the reconciliation cause. It won’t help those people in Alice Springs or in Leonora and I just think it grinds the system of government as we know it to a halt. I’m very happy for all sorts of proposals to come to a government and for ministers to consider that as part of deliberations but we’re not dividing the country, as the Prime Minister’s proposing. The Liberal Party has put forward a plan which unites the country and we’ve thought about it for a long period of time, came to this debate with a very open mind, determined to talk to as many people as I could about what was the best way forward.
The more you look at the Canberra Voice model, the more you realise that it is going to change our system of government forever – and not for the better – and you’re going to have a situation where people on the ground, in regional and remote communities don’t get the assistance that they deserve. I think we are on very strong ground and I’m absolutely determined to make sure that we can do the best thing by our country and the best thing for our country is to vote ‘No’ to the Canberra Voice.
QUESTION:
I guess you’re short a shadow attorney-general now. I guess there has to be a reshuffle. When can we see the outcome of that?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I’ll give that some consideration over the next few days or next week or so.
QUESTION:
Julian Leeser says ‘no great nation has ever been built by dividing it’. Is that what you’ve done here? And did you misjudge the support of Coalition voters for this proposed voice?
PETER DUTTON:
As Julian’s pointed out, his position is at odds to the vast majority – the overwhelming majority, I think he used in his words – of our Party Room, and we respect that. I mean, that’s the case in workplaces, that’ll be the case in families around the country where people will have a different view, and I respect that. I respect that people have arrived at a position of ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ or for the vast majority of Australians, to be frank, they don’t know yet what the Voice is. So, I think as more people understand that, as they get the detail, they’ll ask the questions and surely at some stage the Prime Minister has to answer the questions.
I’d point out in Julian’s statement this morning, his criticism of the approach taken by the Prime Minister. If anybody in this debate is dividing the country, it’s Anthony Albanese. When Malcolm Turnbull was Prime Minister, when Scott Morrison was Prime Minister, when Tony Abbott was Prime Minister, they provided a bipartisan arrangement and all of the Calma-Langton work was done on a bipartisan basis. There was significant engagement with the then opposition – the Labor Party. From May of last year, as Julian pointed out today, that stopped. When Mr Albanese was elected Prime Minister, he stopped engaging, and he’ll say, ‘oh, you know, you’ve met with me, you know, on a handful of occasions’. It was essentially as a courtesy, so he could tick the box and say he’d spoken to me before he went out. In the last case, the cameras were already assembled when he asked me to come in, and that’s not consultation – it’s just a courtesy so that he can say to the press conference that he’s spoken to me. There was no significant engagement at all, and I think the Prime Minister is dividing the country at a time when we should be uniting it, and that’s exactly what the Liberal Party is seeking to do.
QUESTION:
Just on China, we’ve seen the news, breaking news, that the trade sanctions on Australian barley will soon be lifted. Why do you think Labor has been more successful in de-escalating and ending trade disputes with China?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, China is an incredibly important trading partner for us and I’m very pleased if sanctions are lifted – they shouldn’t have been put on in the first place. I think a lot of Europeans – you’ve seen the activity of NATO over the course of the last few days – they’re very concerned about what they’re seeing in our part of the world, and I think we need to be very conscious of that. The world needs to unite, not to be divided, particularly the West and western democracies need to stand up together to make sure that peace does prevail in our country. I’ve spent a lifetime protecting the community, firstly as a police officer and protecting our country and its interests for my entire time, over the course of the last two decades. As Defence Minister, we arrived at the AUKUS decision, which, to the government’s credit, they’ve now implemented because it’s in our country’s best interest to do so.
I’m not pulling punches, I’m not going to give you cute, mealy-mouthed words. I call it as I see it, and I do that because I believe it’s in the best interests of our country. We want peace to continue in our country. We want the status quo in relation to Taiwan. We want to work with China as a valued trading partner. We want to see the jobs and the economic activity continue to flourish, but we don’t compromise on our values as a country, and we’ve supported the Prime Minister and the government in their outreach to many countries in our part of the world and across the world otherwise, and that will continue. It’s important and in our national interest to do that.
QUESTION:
You’re publicly campaigning for the ‘No’ vote. What does that look like, and do you expect the same from your frontbench?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, for me, I’m driven – to be honest, I think I’m fairly transparent – I’m driven by what is in our country’s best interests. That’s the test that I’ve always applied. I applied it in relation to AUKUS. I applied it in relation to many migration decisions where we allowed sick kids to stay, where we brought Yazidi women into our country, where we uplifted people from Kabul, whatever it was, the overarching test for me is, is this decision in our country’s best interests? Honestly, after having studied this issue for months and months, after having spoken to literally hundreds of people around the country, after visiting very desperate situations in some regional communities, I do not believe that the Canberra Voice is in our country’s best interests.
You change the Constitution and you change the country. We live in one of the most stable democracies in the world and the underpinning of that is the Constitution. It’s the rule book, if you like. I know that people, you know, are motivated by sort of a ‘feelgood’ or ‘a vibe,’ I understand that. But you need to dig a bit deeper and look at what it is that’s being proposed here. It’s allowing a national voice that’s appointed, not elected, to essentially be another arm of the government, to scrutinise, to lobby, to influence every decision of government. Now think about that for a second. Is that in our country’s best interests? We all have a gripe about our system of government – this level’s doing good, you know, this level’s doing bad. There are all sorts of debates around public policy and that’s a healthy thing. But you apply another layer to the decision-making process, it will dramatically change the way – and I don’t believe for the better – that our country operates.
We believe in enshrining in the Constitution recognition for Indigenous Australians. We believe in a local and regional voice, put it into legislation. Stop the excesses of a Canberra Voice. We don’t want the Canberra Voice having a say on defence, on the RBA decisions around interest rates, on environmental approvals and outcomes, on every element of a government decision making under this proposal by Mr Albanese is going to be affected. It will cost billions and billions of dollars. It will require literally thousands of public servants. Is that what Australians have in mind? I don’t think they do. I think at a superficial level people understand that we need a better outcome for Indigenous Australians. We all have that in our hearts, but we believe we’ve got a better pathway to get there that doesn’t disrupt the future of our country and that’s why I’ll be campaigning ‘No’.
QUESTION:
The last two Liberals to hold the Indigenous Australians portfolio, Ken Wyatt and Julian Leeser, have resigned in different ways over the Voice. These were the two people arguably most engaged on these issues. Why are they wrong and the other members in the Party Room right?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, Madura, again, I mean, there are plenty of Indigenous voices in our country who are campaigning against the Voice at the moment. There are many people who, as you go into regional communities, get out of the capital cities, I’d say to a lot of our journos and go and speak to people in Leonora, speak to the women who are elders in that community – not in favour of the Voice. They want better outcomes for their kids and their grandkids. They want the violence to stop. They want the domestic violence to come to an end. They want better outcomes and so do we. They’re not interested in the Voice. They don’t want another layer of bureaucracy. They just want a better life. And we believe that our policy unites the country, doesn’t divide it and that’s why we’ll be campaigning for it and it’s why there are many Indigenous Australians across the country who’ve had a look at this model and are advising their fellow Australians to vote ‘No’ and, you know, they’re not insignificant in number.
QUESTION:
Which Indigenous leaders did you consult with? What Indigenous communities, I guess, did you consult with in the development of (inaudible) local and regional voice model?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I’ve been to Palm Island. I was at Leonora in Western Australia. We went to Laverton in Western Australia. I’ve been up to East Arnhem Land. I’ve met with Indigenous leaders in Canberra, delegations including from the Northern Territory. I visited Alice Springs, as you know. We called on the Prime Minister to have a royal commission into what was happening in Alice Springs. It is a national tragedy. There is still nothing that the Prime Minister’s done to help those boys and girls who are being sexually assaulted in that community. The crime rates are still rampant. I’ve been to Darwin and I’ve consulted literally with hundreds of people across those visits. I’ve been out to many more regional communities, I might say, than the Prime Minister has. He’s flown over Leonora and Laverton when we were there, refusing to go there. So, we’ll continue all of that engagement, but…
QUESTION:
Do you think that it’s more comprehensive than the work done by the people that crafted the Uluru Statement to the Heart?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, again, I mean, so Tom Calma and Marcia Langton put a report together that suggested that you should have a local and regional voice before a national voice. The Prime Minister ignored that and he told you constantly all the detail is in the 300 pages or so in the Calma-Langton report. He’s ignored that. So, your question to him should be why did he ignore the advice of the experts that went around and spoke to communities and consulted and engaged with those stakeholders?
Our policy seeks to unite the Australian people. It’s in our country’s long term best interests because it doesn’t disrupt our democracy and it will more quickly and more comprehensively deliver better health outcomes, better education outcomes, better outcomes in those local communities that the elders there want and for those of us in capital cities want as well. But it won’t delve into issues like defence and like the Reserve Bank decisions around interest rates, like Treasury’s work in taxation policy and many other areas, in fact, all other areas of federal government responsibility – that’s the difference.
So, I’m very happy with the position that we’ve got. I believe it represents the overwhelming view of our Party Room. I believe that there are a growing number of Australians who are very concerned about what the Canberra Voice would mean and the fact that it wouldn’t deliver the outcomes that are being promised to people in Indigenous communities. But I just say this to the Prime Minister. This should be a respectful debate. You can form a judgement, ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, in relation to the Voice based on your life experiences, based on your facts as you’ve studied them and based on your own judgement. It doesn’t make you a racist. It doesn’t mean that your view is worth less than the next person. It can be a respectful debate. There are Indigenous Australians who are in favour and against the Voice and I think we should be respectful of everybody in this debate.
Thank you very much.
[ends]