Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

This week the parliament has been on view to the Australian public. The public are very curious about a very significant issue confronting our nation—that is, the Voice—and the question will be put to the Australian people, presumably in the first or second week of October. I think the Australian public were watching this week, expecting answers from the Minister for Indigenous Affairs and, indeed, from the Prime Minister, perhaps even from the Attorney-General. There were over 20 questions put to the Minister for Indigenous Australians and not a straight answer given. Let's be very clear about it: there was not one straight answer. The Australian public viewing this week in question time could be none the wiser in terms of the operation of the Voice if it is voted upon successfully in October of this year.

This is the most significant proposal to amend the Constitution since 1901. This is the insertion of a new chapter into Australia's rule book. When the forefathers established the Constitution, they put in place a double test. If there was to be a change to the Constitution, it required a majority of states and a majority of Australians. They didn't do that lightly. They didn't think a 51-49 proposition would be viable to change the Constitution of our country. They thought through it and put it into black-and-white lettering in the Constitution that that double test would be required, because they wanted to protect the sanctity of that document. They wanted to make sure that the stability that we have thus enjoyed since 1901 as a democracy, as a country, went into perpetuity. They wanted to make sure that, through any event, internal or external to our country, the rule book would be the guidance for this chamber and for the other place. There is no law that can pass this House, no law that can be agreed to by this parliament—even if there is every member of this House, 151, sitting on the one side in support of the bill—that can be passed that is in contravention of that national rule book. The Constitution has primacy over this place. To the extent that there is an inconsistency, the High Court will deal with it. They will rule on it. We saw it only a couple of years ago in relation to section 44, where, almost inconceivably in the minds of many Australians, people who were sitting in this parliament were ruled to be ineligible because of their heritage.

The High Court can sit for years in relation to a particular question that might hinge on a single word, a single sentence or a single paragraph within the Constitution. So, if the proposal is before the Australian people that there should be a change to that rule book, a change to the Constitution, a change to the way that government operates in this country, it needs to be for good reason. I think that's why millions of Australians at the moment, even if their instinct is to support the Voice, or to support a situation that might improve the lives of Indigenous Australians—they would instinctively do that—have a significant hesitation in their minds. And the deliberate strategy of this government is not to answer that question or to allay that concern that millions of Australians have. In fact, we've seen from the Prime Minister, quite openly, contempt towards Australians. The Minister for Indigenous Australians has used language suggesting that some Australians aren't smart enough to understand the proposition being put to them. It's completely shameful. I think it's completely regrettable that our country has been put into a position where we are being divided, not united.

Let's look at a little bit of the history in relation to this debate. Previous governments—Liberal governments, Labor governments—have worked with the opposition of the day to try to find consensus around these issues, to try to find a bipartisan way forward so that we can have the '67 moment, so that we can have 80 or 90 per cent of Australians coming together at a point of national unity. That's what we all crave, because we want a better outcome for people in Alice Springs, in Laverton, in Leonora, in Tennant Creek. We want those kids to lead the same life that we expect to be provided to our kids in capital cities, in outer metropolitan areas, in regional areas. We want an outcome for those Indigenous Australians. We want improvements in life expectancy—of course we do. We want to see educational standards improve. We want to see every Closing the Gap statement and measure improve. Every Australian has that in their hearts, but the question is whether the Voice can provide that.

The Prime Minister has said that, if the Voice fails, it will tarnish our international reputation. If the Voice fails, he says, it will set back reconciliation. Well, I agree with him on the second point, and this is the point that we need to concentrate on now as a country. It's clear in all of the published and private polling that the government will not achieve success at the time of the next election in relation to the Voice in October of this year—at the constitutional election. It is clear that there is a lot of emotion in this debate and the government wants Australians to vote on a vibe. That much is very clear.

I believe very strongly that reconciliation will be harmed in this country if the Voice fails, and it's incumbent on the Prime Minister to address this very important issue. It's incumbent on the Prime Minister to recognise the facts in relation to this debate. The Prime Minister stepped away from the bipartisan approach when he came into government and he saw a wedge. He saw a wedge opportunity: if the vote went down, he could blame that on the coalition parties. That's the political objective, the underbelly of this debate. That's the reality.

If the Prime Minister is going forward with a constitutional change that he believes is going to fail, that will set back reconciliation, then it is incumbent on this Prime Minister to stop that course of action. The best outcome achievable, according to many pundits and many experts observing this debate at the moment, is that the nation is split evenly down the middle in October of this year. It should be incumbent on any Prime Minister to provide the leadership to prevent that from taking place.

We have proposed that there should be constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians. We believe that that is the 1967 moment of unity for our country. We believe that Australians could stand together in October of this year, supported by the Labor Party, supported by the Liberal Party, supported by the Nationals, supported by the Greens, the teals and the Independents—every member in this place. We believe that's the moment that the Prime Minister should grasp, because the Australian public is not ready to vote for the Voice. The Voice hasn't been explained to them—that has been very clear—and, as I say, it's a deliberate strategy to starve the Australian people of that information.

Consider this reality. The Prime Minister's proposal is that people will vote in October, presumably the seventh or the 14th at this point. They will be asked to vote on the Voice to change our nation's rulebook. The design of the Voice will commence on the following Monday. Australians are being asked to vote before the Voice has been designed. Six months of consultation will take place, we're told. The construction of the Voice, which will be the most significant change to our Constitution in our nation's history, will take place after people have been asked to vote. There are no words that the Attorney-General can include in his second reading speech that will override the words inserted into the Constitution. Let's be very clear about that. The Attorney-General knows that. This legal nonsense that was put forward by the government this week that some sentence inserted by the Attorney-General into the second reading speech will somehow override the provision in the Constitution is a legal nonsense. This Prime Minister owes it to the Australian people to be honest with the Australian people and to stop being tricky. Stop being tricky, Mr Prime Minister.

What we are seeing at the moment is a government that is deliberately keeping information from the Australian public. It is hoping that, because of their goodwill that the government seeks to exploit and because of the vibe of the thing, it will pass. This will be the most significant change made to the way in which our government operates in our country's history. The Prime Minister of the day has the option before him now to work with us, to say to the Australian public that we will go forward in a unifying, not dividing, manner in October this year. That is the hand of friendship that we extend to the government today. We proposed to legislate the Voice. Let's do that. Let's sit down and work together on the drafting of that and make sure that Australians can understand how it works—good and bad—but let them be informed. Don't treat the Australian public with such contempt. That's the duty of the Prime Minister of the day, and at the moment he is sadly lacking in his fundamental duty to the Australian people.

See this speech in context