Subjects: Indigenous Voice to Parliament; the Liberal Party’s position.
E&OE
PETER DUTTON:
Thank you very much for being here today. The Liberal Party resolved today to say ‘yes’ to constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians, ‘yes’ to a local and regional body so that we can get practical outcomes for Indigenous people on the ground, but there was a resounding ‘no’ to the Prime Minister’s Canberra Voice. It should be very clear to Australians by now that the Prime Minister is dividing our country and the Liberal Party seeks to unite our country. We want to make sure that we can get the best possible outcomes for Indigenous Australians and we do that through recognising Indigenous Australians in the Constitution, and by providing for their say, their voice, to be heard by government in a very clear way – but at a local level. Having a Canberra Voice is not going to resolve the issues on the ground in Indigenous communities.
It’s also important that we will continue to engage with the government in relation to legislation and the committee process that’s underway at the moment, but the Prime Minister has so far changed the wording to be put to the Australian people on three occasions. The latest version against the advice of the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General, and it’s clear that he’s not going to change the wording of that proposal.
We’ll work constructively, there’s a process I might point out in relation to the committee for the ‘yes’ and ‘no’. We need to have a dialogue with the government about what that means in terms of people being nominated, as has happened in past referenda around whether they can then be part of the message, the writing of the booklet, etc.. So that process is a mechanics one, but we’ll go through that process. But our inclination is to support that Bill and we’ll work in a constructive way through the process with the government.
Sussan, I might ask you to say a few words, and then I’m happy to take some questions.
SUSSAN LEY:
Thanks Peter. And look, today is not a no from the Liberal Party. It’s a day of many yeses. Yes, to constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians, yes, to local and regional voices, yes, to better outcomes for Indigenous Australians, yes, to Australians having their say – even if the Prime Minister is determined to continue his my way or the highway approach, and yes, to uniting this country behind doing everything that we can as a Parliament to strengthen outcomes for Indigenous Australians.
But it’s a no for dividing Australians, and over my 20 years as an elected representative, whether it’s been a local member for rural and regional Australia or as a Minister and now Deputy Leader of this proud Party, I’ve always held the deepest commitment for helping address the disadvantage that I’ve seen around me in Indigenous communities.
Peter mentioned Alice Springs, we all have examples we can draw on. I visited that community recently and I was taken to meet a family that was living on a concrete slab. I still remember the dirt, the heat, the dust, and they’d been living there for two years and they moved to Alice Springs to access health care and they were stuck in this cycle of instability. It made me very upset and very angry, and it would make every Australian very upset and very angry. Now, thanks to Senator Kerrynne Liddle, their plight made it to the front page of the newspapers and some of you here may have even covered their story, but when I visited them weeks later, they were still there on that concrete slab because at the local level, solutions had not worked, no matter how much pressure came from national newspapers.
Then I went to Darwin and I spoke to a women’s service about the tidal wave of need facing their service and the sheer scale of demand and I heard about the violence and the pain. But they faced uncertainty when it came to funding. They couldn’t plan for the future because those at the top had not seen the situation on the ground, and the point here is that local voices matter and progress on these issues requires building consensus from the ground up on a region-by-region basis.
There’s no moral high ground here. There’s no monopoly on good intentions. Australians expect their leaders to work together. But sadly, if you look at the Prime Minister’s approach, that is not what we have seen. With every public statement this Prime Minister has made, it seems to have only hardened his resolve that it’s his way or the highway. He’s attacked journalists for asking basic questions. He’s attacked the Opposition for seeking the clarity that we want, to see how arrangements would actually work.
So, I stand here today disappointed with the Prime Minister, disappointed with his approach. It’s his timeline, it’s his question and his refusal to meet anyone else halfway on anything is breathtaking in its arrogance. He refuses to contemplate, even for a moment, that what he has decided is the right path forward and also the personal offence that he takes whenever he’s asked a simple question, the indignation he responds with, it’s unbecoming of the consensus that we all need to draw on.
In recent days, Anthony Albanese has sought to weaponise the good faith of the Shadow Attorney-General over many years and that’s been totally inappropriate, and I want to pay tribute to Julian Leeser. He’s worked tirelessly for his entire life for the betterment of Indigenous Australians and the way the Prime Minister has sought to weaponise that work has been disgraceful. In a civil society, in a respectful political discourse, it’s okay for Australians to question the wisdom of a government’s proposed approach and the Prime Minister should actually be encouraging these questions because it leads to a higher quality debate. He shouldn’t be shutting it down at every turn. You don’t get a blank check on the Constitution, but that’s what this Prime Minister is demanding, and all we’ve been doing as Members of Parliament, as a Liberal Party, is simply seeking answers and more details on what are very significant proposals for change.
So I make this plea today; this needs to be a respectful debate and that starts with the Prime Minister. If he can’t show basic decency and respect when asked very simple questions, how can he possibly ask the Australians that are opposing him to do any differently? The Prime Minister bears a huge responsibility on his shoulders to ensure that this debate is conducted with civility, and I believe his demeanour needs to change today. We’ve been very clear from day one – we’ve engaged in the process in a respectful way with a determination to see the best possible outcomes for Indigenous Australians. The onus is on the government to demonstrate how Anthony Albanese’s Voice proposal can improve the lives of Indigenous Australians without dividing all Australians.
PETER DUTTON:
I should have mentioned in my remarks; Julian’s had to head back to Sydney for Passover, so he’s on a flight out already I think. Now, who would like to start? We’ve got plenty of time. We’ll start here and we’ll go round.
QUESTION:
You’ve just described this as a Canberra Voice and saying that it’s not going to help communities on the ground, but Canberra, meaning Parliament, yourselves, the government, they control funding, they design the policies, they implement those policies. So, in this scenario where you only have local and regional voices, who takes their ideas and their proposals to Canberra? Who gets the funding? Who advocates for these policies?
PETER DUTTON:
Well Clare, we’ve been up to Alice Springs, we’ve been to Darwin, we’ve been to Laverton, to Leonora, we’ve been up into East Arnhem Land, and when you look at a place like East Arnhem Land, there is already a very strong presence on the ground as we know – in Yunupingu’s own land – where they’ve been able to bring together Dilaks and they’ve made decisions around how the housing will be built, around jobs and around harvesting of timbers up there for the construction company, the negotiations with Rio Tinto, etc. etc. It’s a functioning arrangement and they may or may not benefit from an element of a local voice. I think they’ve got a very strong local voice now and it’s clear that they have the ability to advocate on their own behalf.
In contrast, you go to somewhere like Laverton or to Alice Springs, and as we’re seeing now – I mean I wrote to the Prime Minister in October of last year asking for a Royal Commission in Alice Springs and warned then, that somebody would be killed as a result of the dysfunction that we were seeing – the travesty, particularly where young kids are involved and women who are suffering domestic violence rates at an unconscionable rate in our country.
So, in Alice Springs for example, I do think it is a much more powerful model to bring together those women and those community elders to address immediately what needs to be done on the ground and provide that support to them, and of course, there can be a structure for that to come through, to be able to coordinate with government departments or through Prime Minister and Cabinet, but it is a much more practical way of helping those who are most in need.
Every Australian wants to see a better outcome for Indigenous Australians, but the Prime Minister’s divisive Canberra voice is not going to deliver that – that’s the issue. As many elders have said, as we’ve moved around the country, they’re not in favour of the Voice because they don’t believe, as one Aunty said to me recently at a function I was at, ‘we don’t want 24 academics. They’re not going to be our voice’, and we need to take their advice. We went to the last election with a local and regional voice. That’s essentially the policy that we continue on with. It’s been well worked through. It was a recommendation from the Calma-Langton Report.
The government has decided to go with a national body and to exclude a local and regional voice. Just be very clear on this; the Prime Minister is proposing that we not have a local and regional voice. He’s proposing a national voice and the Liberal Party has a proposal here which I think unites the country, doesn’t divide the country, and the Prime Minister has gone down a path where he sees political opportunity and in an attempt to wedge, and I don’t think that’s in our country’s best interests.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, you’ve often cited Noel Pearson in your public speeches and comments about the Voice. He’s backed this for many years, for more than a decade. He’s part of the working group process, which is itself a grassroots group of people brought together. What’s your message to him and to them as you really turn your back on their work?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I have the utmost respect for Noel and the other Indigenous leaders that we’ve met with, but I’ve met plenty of Indigenous leaders who aren’t in favour of the Voice, and I’ve spoken to plenty of women in Indigenous communities, not here in Canberra, but I’ve gone out into the communities. When the Prime Minister refused to turn up to Laverton and Leonora, it was very clear that he wasn’t willing to listen to the voice of those Indigenous people on the ground. That’s why we shouldn’t be voting for a divisive Canberra voice. That’s the issue. We should be listening to what people are saying on the ground, and Noel Pearson, to his credit, and to Richie and others who are involved in Cape York, they have been able to deliver educational programs and other policies that they’ve influenced over a long time, but I have a difference of opinion.
I strongly support constitutional recognition and we have as a Party supported constitutional recognition back to John Howard’s days as the leader of this Party, and we continue with that. I’m prepared to sit down this afternoon with the Prime Minister to work out the wording of constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians and put that to the people this year. But the Prime Minister has sought to conflate constitutional recognition with the Voice because he sees political advantage in that and I think that is divisive. It’s not a system that, to be honest, is going to serve our country well, and in the end, what is most important for me in my position and for the Prime Minister as the leader of the other great Party in this country, is to do what is in our national interest.
The system that they’re proposing – the most significant change to the Constitution proposed since Federation – does seek to disrupt our government in a way that I think won’t be well accepted by Australians and we’ll go through some of that detail. But we’ve put forward a positive plan that unites, it doesn’t divide, and I think that’s very important to consider. I’ll just come around.
QUESTION:
Can you address that question of unity. Your former Liberal colleague Ken Wyatt, the first Indigenous Australian to be elevated to the Indigenous Australians portfolio. He’s just heard the news. He’s deeply disappointed. He wanted Indigenous Australians to have a voice to the Parliament. How do you look Ken Wyatt in the eye and explain why you’re not hearing his voice and those of others who have seen this as the only way forward?
PETER DUTTON:
Well again, I have the greatest respect for Ken Wyatt. I’ve listened to his voice, I’ve listened to Kerrynne Liddle, I’ve listened to many Indigenous leaders for whom I have a great deal of respect, otherwise. They have a contrary view to Ken’s view, and we live in a democracy where we can consider the views of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
My responsibility as the Leader of the Liberal Party is to act in our country’s best interests. I don’t believe a voice that’s enshrined in the Constitution, as the Prime Minister is proposing, against the advice of the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General, it ends up being litigated in the High Court for years to come, it goes into every aspect of government consideration and decision making – that’s the advice of Marcia Langton (*Megan Davis) – and they’re very clear that it’s that way by design. This is not just confined to elements that affect Indigenous Australians. As Marcia Langton (*Megan Davis) pointed out on the weekend, we are talking about the Voice being able to have a say to the RBA, to the Governor-General, to many other elements.
Our proposal is to have a local and regional voice to listen to those local elders who live in the community and to listen to what is going to make a practical outcome in terms of maternal health, in terms of a restoration of law and order, a reduction in domestic violence. They are the basics that we haven’t got right, and despite the fact that we spend billions of dollars…I’ve been a proud member of this Parliament like Sussan, for two decades. I have not been a part of a discussion and I’ve not seen any evidence of any discussion that the Labor Party’s conducted over that period, of any bad intent in relation to resolving these issues of closing the gap, but it hasn’t worked, and creating another national body out of Canberra, as the Prime Minister’s proposing, divides our country, it doesn’t unite it and it’s not going to deliver the outcomes on the ground.
So, I just put this proposition to you. Nobody’s canvassed this yet. If there is overreach in what the Prime Minister is proposing in his wording, if it does go too far and the High Court interpretation is more liberal, as the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General have advised, what happens then? You can’t out-legislate that. So does the Prime Minister then go back to the Australian people to seek to narrow the words, which wouldn’t be good for reconciliation and that is a very real prospect. If they overreach now and they need to confine and tighten the words again of the Constitution because it does grind government down to a near halt, then I think that is not in our country’s best interests and it’s why there needs to be questions that are answered.
You’re putting reasonable questions as we are. I think tone is incredibly important in this debate. I will not tolerate – from any of my members or any of the public debate – any comments that are derogatory towards Indigenous Australians or anybody who is advocating a ‘yes’ position. This needs to be a respectful debate and I’ve treated the Prime Minister with respect during the course of my engagement with him and my public commentary and our questions in the Parliament, and there are reasonable questions when the Prime Minister is proposing the biggest change to the Constitution since Federation – and it is right that the questions be answered. Bob Hawke would answer those questions, Paul Keating would answer those questions, John Howard would answer those questions, and Anthony Albanese is refusing to answer those questions.
QUESTION:
You have just said that the Prime Minister is ignoring the Calma-Langton report and that co-design process by not committing to regional and local voices. Aren’t you doing the same thing by not committing to a national voice. That report was very clear that the two layers needed to work together.
PETER DUTTON:
Well, my priority is for the local and regional voice, the Prime Minister has been very clear that he says no to a local and regional voice, and he continues to say no to constitutional recognition. He’s made it clear that if the question he’s proposing in October of this year doesn’t get up, that he won’t entertain constitutional recognition and that he won’t legislate for a voice. We’ve been clear that we don’t support his Canberra voice. It’s divisive and it’s not going to deliver the outcomes to people on the ground. Our proposal is a local and regional voice so that we can listen to those women and listen to those elders on the ground and get a better outcome.
QUESTION:
Just on the back of Aston, do you think that your position today is something that might lead to further electoral failure?
PETER DUTTON:
No.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, can I clarify, will you be actively campaigning – and to Ms Ley as well if I can – actively campaigning ‘no’ against the Voice in this Referendum?
PETER DUTTON:
Yes, I will be. I don’t believe this is in our country’s best interests. I’ve spent literally months, like many Australians, trying to understand what it is the Prime Minister’s proposing. We can’t get the basic detail out of him and I think that is a deliberate strategy. Now, we’ve held off waiting to see if there was any advice provided. They’ve taken a deliberate decision not to give the advice. We now know that the wording put forward in its third form is inconsistent with the advice of the first law officer and the Solicitor-General, that is a very important point to make.
We’re not saying that Indigenous people shouldn’t be heard in relation to matters that are important to them – quite the contrary. I’m emphasising that the voice does need to be herd, that an advisory body structure needs to be established. We’re willing to work with the government in a bipartisan way on the legislation so that their voice can be heard. Because what I fear with the Voice is that it changes our system of government forever and that we end up with no practical net benefit to people in Indigenous communities and that would be the worst of both worlds.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, we understand that this position now is binding on frontbenchers, not of course on backbenchers, but in ’99 with the Republic there was an open vote for frontbench and backbench – Peter Costello for a Republic, John Howard for the Monarchy. Then on same sex marriage there was an open vote. What’s your reasoning in breaking with that precedent and taking a different approach here?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, generally the precedent has been, and in both parties, I mean obviously there’s a different scenario in Labor because you can’t express the sort of view that my backbenchers can – in the Labor Party you cross the floor, you’re expelled from the Party, as you know – where as part of our culture within the Liberal Party, since its formation by Menzies, is to allow people to have their say and their voice and we do that. But this is a very significant issue. It’s not an issue of conscience, similar to the same sex marriage debate. I believe very strongly, as does the Shadow Cabinet, the broader Ministry and our Party Room, which endorsed that position, that it is a binding position in relation to the executive of our Party…
QUESTION:
But it’s not as big as the Republic. The Republic was a bigger change…
PETER DUTTON:
With respect, I actually contest that. I think this is a very, very significant change and I don’t think Australians yet understand the full impact of what the Prime Minister is proposing and why would they? Because he won’t explain the basic detail to them.
In relation to backbenchers, I’ve seen some reporting, I said in the Party Room this morning for those on the backbench, I think, my honest assessment after the contributions across the three meetings we’ve had this morning, there might be three or four people on the backbench who will want to advocate a ‘yes’ position or campaign…and within our Party, that’s within the limits, but the vast majority, I mean, if you’re talking about the mood that was in the Shadow Cabinet or in the Shadow Ministry or indeed in the Party Room, overwhelming majority of the position that we’ve adopted – no question.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, if the Referendum does succeed on the wording that is currently proposed in the amendment. Are you consigning the Liberal Party to irrelevance? Are you staking the Party’s future on this decision?
PETER DUTTON:
I think what we’re saying to Australians is that we want to hear a better way for Indigenous Australians who are in the most dire of circumstances. I know it’s hard enough to watch it on television when you see the footage that’s coming out of Alice Springs and elsewhere at the moment. It is gut wrenching when you’re on the ground speaking to women, to mothers, to grandmothers, to aunties, to sisters, to little boys and girls about their experience.
We live a privileged life in our country, particularly those of us who live in capital cities. In regional areas at the moment, not all, as I point out, there are some communities where leadership is shown and there is incredible outcome in terms of the schooling programs, health outcomes, etc, but there are large swathes of indigenous communities in our country that are not going to benefit under the Prime Minister’s proposal. In fact, I think they’re going to be left behind for another decade. What we’re proposing here as a Liberal Party is an opportunity to unite our country, not to disrupt the system of government as we know it, and also to be able to put ourselves in a position where we can improve the outcomes for Indigenous Australians on the ground.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, the Uluru Statement from the Heart explicitly calls for a constitutionally enshrined voice. The processes leading up to Uluru, thousands of Indigenous people all over the country over many years rejected symbolic recognition in the Constitution. It rejected a legislated voice. All three things that you’ve just outlined here. If you actually believe in the concept of an Indigenous consultation body, how do you stand up here and not take the advice of Indigenous people, thousands of people, that put into this process when you were actually setting up an Indigenous consultation body. What do you say to the people that were involved in that process?
PETER DUTTON:
Well firstly, I don’t think that’s an accurate reflection of the position that many people have held over a period of time and the time at which there was introduced into the conversation the concept of a constitutionally enshrined voice. I mean the Prime Minister to start with, didn’t have constitutional recognition, it was about the Voice and many people, including Noel Pearson and others have had differing positions in relation to constitutional recognition over the years. That’s the reality.
But my focus is on helping those children, in particular, but women and families more generally in communities. I want the violence to stop. I want the education to start. I want the jobs to start. I want to restore a normal life that they expect and that we take for granted in the capital cities to be a part of their future. I don’t want to see another generation of Indigenous Australians condemned to what the current generation is suffering and I believe very strongly from speaking with a very broad range of Indigenous leaders on the ground, that they fundamentally support the position that we’re proposing.
QUESTION:
Both yourself and the Deputy Leader have referred to this as the ‘Prime Minister’s question’. He consulted with the Voice Working Group, there were people behind him when he announced the question. Specifically, who have yourself, the Deputy Leader, the Shadow Attorney-General, consulted in coming to your conclusion outside of the Party Room?
PETER DUTTON:
Well Charles, as I say, we had a very impactful visit to Alice Springs and we spoke to people within the community, in the town camps. We went to their homes, we went to the local school, we spoke to the teachers, we spoke to elders in Leonora. We had a very significant town hall meeting in Leonora. We spoke with Indigenous elders in Laverton. We were up in East Arnhem Land, as I say, and speaking with leaders up there. We’ve had a number of private conversations with Indigenous elders and I feel very confident, I’ve got to say, in the position that we’ve adopted.
We do believe in constitutional recognition. It’s a very important policy and I want to sit down with the Prime Minister to work out the wording so that we can introduce it sooner than later. I want to hear those local voices, and that’s an integral part of what we’re proposing here and I think by doing that, the Liberal Party’s proposition here today in opposing the Prime Minister’s Canberra voice, we’re actually uniting the country and bringing people together on something that practically is going to work, but not disrupt our way of government.
QUESTION:
So they specifically told you…
PETER DUTTON:
I think we’ll keep, we’ll do…
QUESTION:
Can I just clarify Charles’s point if I can, Mr Dutton?..
PETER DUTTON:
No, no, we’ll go to Phil and then we’ll come back. You’re going to defer, Phil?
QUESTION:
Thank you. So they specifically told you when you had those meetings in communities they wanted you to actively campaign ‘no’ for a Voice to Parliament?
PETER DUTTON:
Absolutely. No question. I mean, we met with Indigenous leaders who were strongly in favour of the Voice, no question about that, particularly in East Arnhem Land – that was the general consensus, I’d say in Arnhem Land – but elsewhere, absolutely without hesitation, they don’t believe that a body of 24 people selected predominantly capital cities. One Indigenous lady said to me and I’ll quote her, ‘I don’t want 24 academics representing us because they just won’t be our voice’. She was an Indigenous Elder, a person who actually was taking in foster children for whom I had a great deal of respect, her own story, and she couldn’t have been any clearer to me.
QUESTION:
Your decision to take this position today and to actively campaign for a ‘no’ vote will put you at loggerheads with the PM and whether you’d like it or not, it is going to be seen as a political beauty contest between the two of you…
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I think we both lose, if it’s a beauty contest Phil…
QUESTION:
Speaking metaphorically, but are you prepared for the connotations that will be drawn if the Voice does get up, in that it will raise questions about…
PETER DUTTON:
Phil, I’ve taken a decision today that I believe is in our country’s best interests. I think standing up for what we believe in, standing up for our values, not just as a Party, but as a country as well, I think that’s integral to our thinking and the position that we’ve arrived at. I honestly believe that you’ve got a situation that the Prime Minister is promoting at the moment that is not going to unite and we’ve already seen that it’s dividing the country and he refuses to answer the most basic of questions.
When you ask him questions, he refuses to answer them and to the extent that he’s answered questions for us in the Parliament, they haven’t been accurate and they’ve been corrected afterwards. I think it’s disingenuous at best, and I think the Australian public will make their own mind up, but what we’re proposing is reasonable, it’s measured, it’s going to result in practical outcomes and I believe give those kids and women on the ground in Indigenous communities the best possible chance.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, two questions, if I may. Firstly, do you want a separate question on constitutional recognition of First Nations, a question separate to the Referendum on the Voice, and secondly, you say that you’re not in favour of the Canberra voice, but would you be in support of a Canberra voice if it was expressly stated that there is no obligation on the Executive Government to consult the Voice?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, the first answer is no. I believe that, look, you know, I mean, the Prime Minister spoke about this the other day, but I think that – there’s polling out today – I think the numbers are very soft because I just think people have an inclination doing whatever they can to support Indigenous Australians, and that’s how I feel, it’s how Sussan feels, it’s how most Australians will feel; but there’s a hesitation within a significant bloc of Australians about whether this is going to provide a practical outcome.
Is it there another layer of bureaucracy? Will it deliver outcomes that we haven’t seen before, despite the good intent I spoke of earlier? You know, they’re all reasonable questions and the Prime Minister is not proposing to answer any of those questions. So, it makes it difficult, and in that circumstance, if he believes that the Voice is going to be defeated, then I believe it’s absolutely incumbent on the Prime Minister to either pull the vote or delay it, because if it’s only for his own political purposes, that he sees an opportunity to wedge with the voice going down, then that is not in our country’s best interests.
So, I think there is a lot of game playing by the Labor Party at the moment, but my proposal is to put to the Australian people constitutional recognition and I’d be happy to sit down with the Prime Minister…
QUESTION:
The question Mr Dutton, is whether you would support a national voice if there was no obligation for the Executive Government to consult the Voice.
PETER DUTTON:
Well Andrew, again, we’ve got a form of words before us. It’s the third form. The Prime Minister said…
QUESTION:
But that’s your expressed complaint, isn’t it?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I just think the committee can go through its work. I don’t think the Prime Minister’s got any intent on changing anything and that’s, you know, it’s one of the concerns you highlight within the form of words, but I doubt very much that the Prime Minister’s going to change.
QUESTION:
Can I just clarify what Andrew was saying. Given that the Prime Minister is unlikely to split it and you’re not going to push for a split, how can you campaign for constitutional recognition if it’s going to be tied to one vote, to the Voice, and you’re going to be campaigning ‘no’. And then just on that, sitting down with the Prime Minister, what amendments are you going to put forward to the Bill? Do you have specific amendments? Were they agreed to at Party Room that you’re going to bring forward and say, ‘this is the question we want’?
PETER DUTTON:
Well again, we’ll sit down in good faith and see what the submissions say, and we’ve appointed people who are genuinely interested in improving the Bill that the government’s proposing, and we’ll look at that, but we don’t support the government’s proposal at the moment. I’ve been very clear about that. The form of words that they’re proposing to put to the electorate, we don’t support those.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, the Liberals ‘yes’ to constitutional recognition, would that be symbolic recognition of First Nations people only, or do you favour including migrant and multicultural communities, as Warren Mundine has suggested?
PETER DUTTON:
I believe that there needs to be a bipartisan approach to it and I’m happy to sit down with the Prime Minister and look at the pros and cons of different forms of words. As the constitutional lawyers have pointed out in recent weeks, it needs to be a very tight form of words, lest it give rise to other difficulties in the High Court’s interpretation and the expansion of what it was first believed to provide for. So, I’m happy to have that conversation and look at the legal advice and sit down with him in a constructive way.
QUESTION:
Oh thanks Mr Dutton. Just to put a finer point on Phil’s question, you’re now making a public statement you’re going to actively campaign against this Referendum. So, if the Referendum gets up will you resign?
PETER DUTTON:
Well Mark, again, people can draw their own conclusions around, you know, what people should do and the Canberra bubble will always have those sort of questions. I think the fact is that we have taken a decision that we believe is in our country’s best interests. You can propose the same question, I presume you have to the Prime Minister, about whether he’ll resign and they’re questions that you can legitimately put, but my motivation here is to make sure that we do what is in our country’s best interests and the Liberal Party today has taken a very strong position that we don’t support the Prime Minister’s divisive Canberra voice, but that we do propose an arrangement which recognises Indigenous people in the Constitution. It also means that we can listen to local voices so that we can get the best possible outcomes – including in WA, where there is very significant concern, particularly in those regional communities where they don’t support the Voice and the Prime Minister is not listening to those words.
So, listening to a local advisory body, people who are living in that community, not in capital cities elsewhere, I think it gives us the best chance of working a way forward to help Indigenous Australians and I also think that it’s the less risky approach because there is an enormous amount of risk in what the Prime Minister’s proposing with the breadth of words that he has in there, that ultimately will mean a very significant change to the system of government in our country and I think as this debate goes on over the next few months, people will realise that.
Thank you very much.
[ends]