TRANSCRIPT
6PR WITH OLIVER PETERSON
6 April 2023
E&OE.
Oliver Peterson
The Liberal Party Room has decided it will oppose the voice to Parliament. Here is leader Peter Dutton:
Peter Dutton
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.
Oliver Peterson
So that was the explanation from the Liberal leader Peter Dutton. His colleague and WA Senator Michaelia Cash joins me on the line now. Good afternoon.
Senator Cash
Good afternoon, Oly.
Oliver Peterson
So it’s a ‘no’ or is it a ‘yes’? Or is it a ‘yes’ with a ‘no’? I’m a bit confused.
Senator Cash
So, the Liberal Party’s position, which we’ve formulated today, is we oppose the Prime Minister’s Canberra based Voice bureaucracy model enshrined in the Constitution. On that, I want to be very, very clear – we’ve come to this decision with the best interests of our nation and Indigenous Australians at heart. The referendum, as proposed by Mr. Albanese, poses a profound risk for our country, but what is worse, there is no evidence it would do anything to improve outcomes for Indigenous Australians. And what the Liberal Party of Australia wants is better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. And yes, there is a much better way to do that, that would deliver those outcomes now.
Oliver Peterson
So you’re saying ‘no’ to the model that’s been put forward by the government. So, you’ll be part of that ‘No’ campaign? Is that fair to say, Senator?
Senator Cash
Correct. We will be part of the ‘No’ campaign. I will be campaigning for the ‘No’ campaign. I do want to be very clear, there is a much better way to deliver outcomes, in particular, for local and remote Indigenous Australians like the ones in Laverton and Leonora who are screaming out for their voices to be heard. So today, we reaffirmed our commitment to local and regional advisory bodies to ensure locals are able to provide grassroots advice to bring about local solutions for Indigenous Australians. We want local solutions, practical solutions, and we want to see them now, and Oly, as you and I know, you don’t need a referendum to do that.
Oliver Peterson
Some of our listeners have said anybody who says no will be told that they’re a racist. What would you say to that?
Senator Cash
I say shame on those people who are actually going to say that to people who vote ‘no’. I personally object to the fundamental principle of inserting a race-based division into our Constitution. I personally believe it’s wrong and sends the message that Australians are divided by race – a message that will become more destructive over time. I look to what my colleague Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price says. She rightly asked this, Oly: “does the Voice mean that Aborigines expect to be marginalised forever?” Ultimately, we have come to our decision with the best interests of our nation and Indigenous Australians at heart. I just want to quote for you what Greg Craven says. Greg Craven is a respected constitutional lawyer, who he himself supports the Voice and was actually involved with the original proposal of the Indigenous Voice. Now this is what he said: “I think the model,” as he says, “put forward by Albanese, is fatally flawed, because what it does is retain the full range of review of executive action. This means the voice can comment on everything from submarines to parking tickets,” and then he says this, “we will have regular judicial intervention.” So what Mr Albanese is proposing to the Australian people is basically to hand over powers to the High Court of Australia, because we are going to end up in litigation. How does that help the local and remote Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander Australians who are begging for action now? What our proposal would do is give them a voice today. We want to see local and regional voices heard, because if you’re talking about moving the dial, in terms of outcomes for Indigenous Australians, that is what Indigenous leaders in remote communities are calling for. They know they will not be served best by a Canberra based or capital city-based voice, and that’s what Mr. Albanese is proposing. As a Western Australian, let me assure you, they will not be served well by a Canberra based voice.
Oliver Peterson
Do all of the Liberal Party members today, as they gathered there in the meeting, are they all on board with now the ‘No’ campaign?
Senator Cash
It was an incredibly principled and sensible discussion. I have to say in the Liberal Party Room, we do have very sensible and principled discussions. The decision was made that the Shadow Cabinet and the Shadow Ministry are bound by the decision, but as always with the Liberal Party, our backbenchers are entitled to a free vote. That is a fundamental difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. We do allow our members to have a free vote. But the majority, I think there were only four or five [who aren’t], are absolutely committed to this process. So, it was a very principled, practical and sensible position that we reached today. I think the deeply flawed, and quite frankly, dishonest way the Albanese Government’s proposed constitutional referendum has been framed means we cannot support their proposal going forward.
Oliver Peterson
Could it be tweaked so it might have the Liberal Party support?
Senator Cash
You’ve already seen three versions, Oly, and Mr. Albanese has made it clear that the ability to advise executive government will stay, despite his own Attorney-General trying to water that down. I wish Mr. Albanese would release the Solicitor-General’s advice in relation to the Voice – that is what so many Australians are calling for. It’s interesting that Mr. Albanese is happy to release Solicitor-General legal advice when he thinks it will advantage him politically, so the fact that he is not releasing the Solicitor-General’s legal advice on the Voice does suggest he does not support his argument. But also, the whole process that he has gone through has been shoddy. Some of the normal processes that should have been followed if you are proposing a referendum to change our Constitution, they’ve just been thrown out the door. There’s been no constitutional convention to examine the changes. There’s been no public process at all. It’s all been behind closed doors talk. He won’t release the Solicitor-General’s advice. And on top of that, they still hadn’t answered the very sensible questions that Peter Dutton posed to him back in January of this year. How can you ask the Australian people to tick off on such a far-reaching change to our Constitution, but you refuse to provide them with all of the relevant information? I think it’s wrong, and I think the Liberal Party position to set up local and regional voices, which as I said, were called for by Indigenous leaders in remote communities, and which responds directly to their needs on the ground, could be delivered tomorrow and does not involve changing our Constitution. If you really want to see practical on the ground change for our Indigenous Australians, that’s the model you support.
Oliver Peterson
Michaelia Cash, I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.
Senator Cash
Great to be with you, Oly.
Recent Comments