Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to 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.)

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is entirely appropriate that the Leader of the Opposition moves this suspension today, and it is entirely expected that the Labor Party runs away from it. They know why they run away. It's because they know that this issue is dividing Australians. It's dividing Australians straight down the middle. That is what is so awful and what makes us on this side so angry. We know that Australians deserve the truth and they deserve answers. Minister, you may laugh as you sit there, but today what did you do? You ignored questions from quality members on this side of the House. The member for Herbert, a quality and serious individual who represents his community, made a powerful speech on veteran suicide earlier today. He's somebody who brings the passion and conviction of his electorate into this parliament, and you just dismissed him. Also the member for Capricornia, a strong rural woman who stands up for her western Queensland people—Minister, you just laughed it off.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the member for Farrer to direct her comments through the chair and stop personalising this debate.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians are fair-minded and fair dinkum. The problem is that this government is not. They come in here every question time with their confected moral outrage on the issue of the Voice. How about coming in here and providing some details for the Australian people? How about coming in here and answering the questions that we absolutely, on behalf of the Australian people, deserve answers to. Time and again this government has been caught speaking out of both sides of the mouth on voice, treaty and makarrata. The problem is the Prime Minister signed us all up to the Uluru statement in full but refuses to explain what it looks like in full.

We have a prime minister in hiding and a minister for Indigenous Australians who appears to be doing more harm than good, who is just not up to the job, who is all over the shop. This loss of confidence has come through the refusal of members of the government to clearly explain what this voice is about and what it will mean for all Australians. Remember when we asked the minister about the Voice and Australia Day? Remember when she said the Voice would not provide advice on Australia Day, only to be immediately contradicted by legal experts and members of the 'yes' campaign? Time and again she has misled this House and hidden from scrutiny. Remember the millions of dollars allocated to the makarrata commission? The minister did not even appear to know about taxpayers' money being allocated for something this government claimed did not even exist. These are the sorts of questions that we are asking on behalf of the Australian people.

Today, when given the chance to hold to account her own appointee to the Referendum Working Group, Marcia Langton, the minister failed to do so. We saw Marcia Langton label those advocating the 'no' position as either racist or stupid. This is a window into the psyche of the 'yes' campaign and a window into the psyche of the modern Labor Party. They refuse to accept that everyday Australians do not like what they see when it comes to the Voice. This is now a test for the Minister for Indigenous Australians. If she does not remove Marcia Langton from the working group, then she's actually endorsing those views. She's endorsing those views. This is the 'yes' campaign's deplorables moment, and it's really disappointing. We want a fair and honest debate. We don't want personal sledges. We don't want the attacks that are used to morally blackmail the Australian people in the same way that the Leader of the House tried to do with the Leader of the Opposition today, making people on this side accountable for remarks by the 'no' campaign. It's time for the Minister for Indigenous Australians to consider that in question time the job is to answer questions.

Why would we, as a country, not go forward with something that we could all agree on—constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians? This is the appeal that the Leader of the Opposition made, even before the writs were issued to the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister has tied constitutional recognition of our First Australians to a concept called the Voice which he cannot explain, which his ministers cannot explain and which the key minister—the Minister for Indigenous Australians—cannot explain. This is a prime minister who runs and hides and lacks conviction to argue the case. If I was a 'yes' campaigner, I would be so disappointed by the Prime Minister not standing up for the cause that he believes in and not having the courage of his convictions. We in the Liberal and National parties have the courage of our convictions. We ask, on behalf of all Australians, for the detail that this government refuses to provide on the Voice. (Time expired)

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The front page of the Herald and the Age today spelled out the dishonest and divisive strategy of the 'no' campaign. It is as cynical and as shameful as you'd expect—pretend to care, try to impersonate a concerned Australia, do anything you can to sow fear and doubt and, whatever you do, avoid the facts and also, unbelievably, don't even identify that you are from the 'no' campaign. There's no wonder. There is material being circulated around saying—this is just one—'The Voice to Parliament will affect every property owner. The United Nations has given the Australian government a mandate of ownership for all housing, property, farms and businesses countrywide that will come onto effect.' It goes on and says: 'If Indigenous people are to be written into the Constitution, the United Nations will own all Australian land.' That is what is being circulated by the 'no' campaign. The bottom line headline on it is 'The final conflict for all Australians'. That is in there. That is what is being promoted by the 'no' campaign. Do you know who is on the board of the Advance Australia campaign? Tony Abbott, the former Prime Minister.

The fact is that the speech from the Leader of the Opposition followed those instructions to the letter. It's disappointing but in no way surprising because, when it comes to dishonesty and division, when it comes to fear campaigns and falsehoods, this bloke wrote the book. I have news for the Leader of the Opposition. The referendum isn't about him and it's not about me. It's about an idea that came from the people, and it will be decided by the people. If this bloke ever works out how to go back in time, he will be out there campaigning against Federation, revving up the 'no' campaigners to send out telegrams across the colonies warning them of all the horrible dangers of a united Australia.

This bloke boycotted the apology. He didn't just boycott it; he stood up, along with only Wilson Tuckey, and walked out of the apology because he thought it was so bad and was going to have such a devastating impact that he threatened to resign from the frontbench on that basis. This bloke's only got one trick and one answer—no. The Herald article today outlines exactly the fear, division, sneakiness and nastiness of what is being projected.

Even the text of the motion captures the bad-faith approach of the Leader of the Opposition. It says:

(2) an unwillingness to consult in relation to the words of the constitutional amendment …

I put forward a draft form of words in my speech at Garma in July 2022. We established working groups. The Leader of the Opposition attended those working groups on two occasions, on 2 February and 16 February. Those groups worked alongside a group of constitutional experts, including senior academics and a former High Court judge. Following their consultation and advice, on 23 March we put forward the updated form of words for the referendum question and the proposed constitutional amendment. During that period, I met with the Leader of the Opposition no fewer than seven times to try to seek agreement. But, of course, at no stage in the process did the Leader of the Opposition suggest any alternative words—none. Then in April, after losing the Aston by-election in a once-in-100-year debacle, and before the joint select committee process had even begun, the Leader of the Opposition went to his party room and came out and said he would be campaigning for 'no' and then changed the words that went to the Liberal party room which spoke about a national voice and went into a press conference and spoke about local and regional voices. He couldn't even tell the truth between his own party room and that press conference that was held. He just said no and cut loose the person who he had personally chosen to be the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs and shadow Attorney-General, someone who had more than a decade of involvement in the process which occurred leading up to the Uluru Statement from the Heart that occurred under the former government in a process appointed under the former government. That happened under Tony Abbott, with that press conference that was held at Kirribilli House way back in 2014. That happened under Malcolm Turnbull, in the lead-up to the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart. That happened under Scott Morrison, and that included, of course, the appointment of Marcia Langton and Tom Calma by the former government to give advice to their cabinet. That advice went to the cabinet not once but twice and was rejected, in spite of the support of the former minister for Indigenous affairs, Ken Wyatt. The Leader of the Opposition comes in here and speaks about that.

We had the legislation. It went to the Senate and then returned, of course, here. The truth is, though, that he sat here on this side of the House and voted for the referendum to go ahead. Under the constitutional arrangements for the referendum, if you're going to support 'yes', you sit on this side of the House and you get to participate in the wording of the pamphlet that goes out. If you're going to vote no, you sit on that side of the House. That's the process that occurs.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He sat here. And there wasn't a single vote on any amendment. There was nothing put forward in the House of Representatives and no divisions in the Senate either, just the process going forward.

Then, after all that's over, he comes up with the idea of a second referendum. If this is defeated, he will go to an election, and if he's ever Prime Minister he will hold a second referendum on a process that no-one wants. Indigenous people themselves determined that they wanted constitutional recognition with substance, not just with symbolism, and that's what the Voice is about.

David Axelrod described democracy as an ongoing battle between cynicism and hope. It's hard to imagine a more perfect demonstration than this referendum. In the cynicism corner is the opposition leader, Mr Dutton. The interjections across this chamber from the former—not once but twice—Deputy Prime Minister and others say all of what it's really about. Those opposite speak about it being all about politics and—as members of the Liberal Party have been quoted saying—all about causing damage to the government. There is no concern whatsoever for Indigenous Australians and closing the gap. There is no alternative plan.

They say they support constitutional recognition—both sides do—and they say that they will legislate for a voice.

Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because it's changing the Constitution.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bowman is warned.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So what is this about? The big distinction here and all of this fearmongering is about whether the existence of a voice—a body—should be enshrined in the Constitution. But within that the other clauses are very clear as well on what the Australian people will vote for.

The first thing is:

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

That's the recognition. Then it says, 'There shall be a body'—the voice. The second bit is, 'The voice may give advice on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.' The third is the primacy of the parliament over the functions, procedures and composition of the Voice. That will be ongoing. That is the clause that is absolutely critical to ensure the primacy of this parliament going forward, yet those opposite are incapable of saying yes.

The referendum is about something very simple: recognition and listening. The Voice is an advisory body only. It does not have a right of veto. It's not a funding body. It won't run programs. What it will be able to do is give advice to parliament and to government in order to get better results. If you keep doing the same thing, you should expect the same outcomes. We have an eight-year life expectancy gap. Indigenous young men are more likely to go to jail than to go to university. An Indigenous young woman is more likely to die in childbirth than a non-Indigenous woman.

There used to be a moderate wing of the Liberal Party. Now there are some brave people who are out there, to their great credit, showing courage, but instead of a moderate wing you now have people who will say to you in private that they support a voice and they hope 'yes' gets up, but they cannot, in the modern Liberal Party and what it's become—a reactionary party, a party with nothing that is liberal and certainly a party that is not conservative either, as it trashes our institutions. (Time expired)

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this debate has now concluded. The question before the House is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.