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

We're here at this time of the day because the government refused to take this debate during question time, which would be the normal course of events, but I don't think the Australian public would be surprised at all by that decision of the Prime Minister. It's clear to the Australian public now that they have been deceived by the Prime Minister. It's clear that detail around the Voice has been deliberately kept from the public. It's clear from the minister's own answer to a basic question today about the composition of the Voice—as to whether it would be elected, whether it would be appointed, how people would make up that body. None of that basic detail was even known to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Australians, I think, are bemused. Many people are sad. It's an unfortunate set of events that the Prime Minister has presided over here.

The reality is, as we march toward 14 October, there are many Australians who have a reasonable question to ask of the Prime Minister, of the referendum working group, of the minister, as to how the Voice would work in practice. There are many concerns, for example, around the breadth of the words being proposed to be inserted into the Constitution, but the question really is whether the government has any intent to provide that detail ahead of 14 October. So far it's obvious from the minister's contributions or lack thereof to this parliamentary debate, and the Prime Minister's own obfuscation, the way in which he's refused to answer basic questions to members of the press gallery or in here, that they are going to go to 14 October with millions of Australians, in an unprecedented way, unable to gather the detail that is relevant to the decision that they want to make.

I have the utmost respect for Australians, and people will decide for their own reasons, based on their own judgements and their own research, to vote yes or no. I strongly advocate that Australians vote no, because I believe very strongly that this is not a proposal that's in our country's best interests. We've come to this position without any constitutional convention, without a contest about the proposition being proposed. The words haven't been tested in a constitutional convention. There is a split within the legal community as to the interpretation from the High Court about the breadth of the application of the Voice. It's clear from the words proposed by the Prime Minister to the Australian public that there will be a very liberal interpretation—and open to a very significant wide interpretation otherwise—by the High Court. That is indisputable. The minister can come in here and say—I'm sure with sincerity—that the Voice only applies to education, to closing the gap in relation to very important indicators, but the fact is it goes well beyond that. There are no words in the words being proposed to the Australian people at the moment which limit it to those particular aspects. That's why all Australians at the moment, when they look even in a cursory way at what's before them, know that this has a much broader application and, therefore, a much more significant impact for the way in which this parliament contemplates legislation, the way in which the budget is compiled, the way in which the government can make decisions around awarding of contracts. The Voice will have a say in every single element of that executive power being—the minister shakes her head, but on what basis, Minister, do you shake your head? You're holding up a book, a pamphlet, that looks to be about 14 pages long in A5. Maybe it's double-sided, but it's not going to trump the Constitution.

This parliament, even in a moment of unity when it comes together and we all sit on one side—the Liberal Party, the Labor Party, the Greens, the Independents—can't outdo the provisions in the Constitution, so let's have an honest debate. It's clear at this point that the Prime Minister does not want an honest debate, and we saw that at the end of question time today when the Prime Minister tabled a Sydney Morning Herald article critical of the 'no' campaign. He was pleased with himself—there was no doubt about that—but there was another story on the referendum today that didn't make it into the PM's act.

What the Prime Minister didn't do today was table the Bunbury Herald front page, which features a member of his own referendum working group, not a lay contributor to this debate but somebody who was appointed personally by the Prime Minister and Minister Burney. The story reads: '"Racist or just stupid: Voice to parliament no voters are siding with either racism or stupidity," Professor Marcia Langton told a referendum forum in Bunbury on Sunday. If the Prime Ministers didn't have the Bunbury Herald on hand—maybe he didn't, but I suspect it is a great read—then surely he could have tabled the Australian's lead article, which had this headline: 'No voters branded racist, stupid by prominent voice campaigner Marcia Langton'. But did he table that today?

Opposition members: No!

No, because we have heard from this Prime Minister in a biased way in relation to this debate, which I don't think is becoming of his office. In question time the opposition called on the Minister for Indigenous Affairs to condemn Langton's comments. Did she? No. Given the opportunity to expressly condemn those comments, she did not condemn those comments. This is Professor Marcia Langton, who was appointed by the Prime Minister and Minister Burney as the head or the chair of the referendum working group. The principal adviser to the Prime Minister of this country goes out suggesting that millions of Australians, including one in three Labor voters who are going to vote no or are indicating they are voting no on 14 October, are 'racist or just stupid'.

The Prime Minister doesn't condemn those comments. He doesn't table the article. I have never seen anything like it, and I've been in this parliament for over 20 years. When you go back through the history books of this country, there is not a prime minister who has treated the Australian public with more contempt. This Prime Minister is dividing the country unnecessarily. This Prime Minister is going to a referendum without explaining it in detail to the Australian people. This Prime Minister is reading the published polling, as we all are, and seeing the internal polling, which frankly reflects what we're seeing in the newspapers across different banners, different media groups, but all consistently saying that a 'no' vote is likely to prevail on 14 October. But does the Prime Minister take a step to stop the referendum from going ahead? Does he turn it into a unifying moment for our nation? No, he doesn't! He doubles down, and he stands before the Australian people as the first Prime Minister in our country's history who would seek to divide our country right down the middle.

This Prime Minister has taken a proposition that was supported 60-40 by the Australian public and turned it into something more akin to 40-60. That takes a special talent, and it shows how the Australian public are treating this Prime Minister. They don't see a competent government when they look at the Albanese government. It is not just in relation to this. Look at the detail around the Prime Minister's relationship with Alan Joyce. Look at what has happened in relation to Qatar Airlines. Look at what has happened over the course of two budgets, where they have taken economic decision after economic decisions that has resulted in Australians paying more for their energy at a time when they can least afford it. Australians at the moment are looking to their Prime Minister to lead in a time of need. Instead, he is dividing in a way that he thinks will deliver political advantage to him and the Australian Labor Party, and it should be called out. This Prime Minister is knowingly and wantonly going to the referendum on 14 October, which will divide our country, and he should be condemned for it. Is he here in the chamber to contest this today? Of course, he is not. He never is, and he never stands up for the Australian people. (Time expired.)

See this speech in context