[Theme Music Starts]

RUBY:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ruby Jones. This is 7am.

This week, Opposition Leader, Peter Dutton, stood to address parliament on the bill that will allow a referendum on the Voice to parliament.

What he said in that speech has alarmed many, and at least one spokesperson for the Voice said Dutton’s words have been echoed in the abuse he’s received from racist opponents online.

Today, columnist for The Saturday Paper, Paul Bongiorno, on what Dutton’s rhetoric will do to the debate on the Voice.

It’s Friday, May 26.

[Theme Music Ends]

RUBY:

Paul, this week we saw another milestone as the government prepares for a referendum on the Voice. Legislation was introduced that would set up the referendum, which of course led to debate in Parliament about the Voice once again. So, tell me about what we heard and the tone of that conversation this week.

PAUL:

Yeah, well, Ruby, we're really getting to the business end of the referendum. The Constitution sets down rules for what is needed for a referendum to be held. And the Leader of the House, Tony Burke, began the week by pointing out that for the referendum to get up, it will need an absolute majority in both houses of Parliament. It also is required that any member of the House or the Senate who wants to speak can speak. And as a result, they've put all the other, well most of the other business, of the government and of the Parliament to the Federation Chamber, and they've given over the main chamber — the big green one — to the debate and the discussion on the referendum.

Archival tape – The Clerk:

“A government business order of the day number one Constitution alteration Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 2023. Resumption of debate on the second reading.”

Archival tape – The Speaker:

“The question is that this bill be now read a second time, and I call the Leader of the Opposition.”

Archival tape – Peter Dutton:

“Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker.”

PAUL:

The key moment of the week, though, was when Opposition Leader, Peter Dutton spoke. He led off, in fact, the whole debate after some of the technicalities were got out of the way. And as one of his backbench members said to me, Peter went for broke. And I suppose when you think about it, if you're going to oppose the referendum, there's no point in being mealy mouthed about it.

Archival tape – Peter Dutton:

“Changing our constitution to enshrine a Voice will take our country backwards, not forwards. The Voice is regressive, not progressive, and it should be very clear to Australians by now that the Prime Minister is dividing our country, not uniting us.”

PAUL:

Not only did Peter Dutton oppose the referendum, but the speech he put together, was a speech that really did go to misinformation, to unfounded scares. Dutton said that the proposed Voice to Parliament will re-racialise the nation. So, you had to make up a new word to make this point.

Archival tape – Peter Dutton:

“The Voice, as proposed by the Prime Minister, promotes difference. And it's sadly a symptom of the madness of identity politics which has infected the 21st century. The Voice will re-racialise our nation, at a time when we need to unite the country. This Prime Minister's proposal will permanently divide us by race.”

PAUL:

And what he's getting at there, he claims that the 1967 referendum took race out, because it recognised Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia on the census, and it paved the way for them to be allowed to vote. However, in 1967, what they call the race power, wasn't eliminated, it was in fact extended, giving the Federal Parliament the powers to make special rules for Indigenous Australians, special laws for them. And that's still the case. Dutton said changing our constitution to enshrine a Voice will take our country backwards, not forwards.

Archival tape – Peter Dutton:

“It's an overcorrection. The Voice will embed new procedural rights in our Constitution, rights which are conferred only on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice. It will have an Orwellian effect, where all Australians are equal, but some Australians are more equal than others.”

PAUL:

Now, this drew quite stringent criticism from a guy called Dennis Glover, a former speechwriter for the Federal Parliament. Glover in the Sydney Morning Herald, pointed out the absurdity of this baseless scare. He wrote how a body like the Voice, that is designed to offer advice on social reform to our elected parliament will become a dictatorship, is beyond fanciful.

RUBY:

Right. So there's no doubt, Paul, that Peter Dutton's rhetoric is heating up. It's becoming more aggressive, and it does seem inevitable that these battle lines would harden. But tell me about how Dutton's comments are being received.

PAUL:

Well, Dutton's comments in many ways shocked some people that he went the way he did go. Peter Dutton is looking for a big win over Anthony Albanese, and that's why he is contexting his speech and his arguments in the way that he is. It's Dutton versus Albanese. There's a calculation here, of course it's probably easier to defeat a referendum than to win an election, because to defeat a referendum, all the ‘No’ side needs is to get three states to vote ‘No’. Linda Burney, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, well, she immediately followed Peter Dutton on the floor of the House and she said…

Archival tape – Linda Burney:

“We have just heard in one speech every bit of disinformation, and misinformation, and scare campaigns that exist in this debate.”

PAUL:

Burney cited a number of high powered constitutional experts, former Chief Justice of the High Court and others, to debunk the claim that the Voice was a reckless and dangerous threat to the way we are governed.

Archival tape – Linda Burney:

“It makes our system of government stronger. It makes a practical difference on the ground. It improves people's lives, it’s constitutionally sound, and it sets the balance right. And the solicitor general's opinion makes it clear.”

PAUL:

Burney said the solicitor general believes the amendment to the Constitution will be, and she quoted, “an enhancement to that system.” And the solicitor general says it seeks to rectify a distortion in the existing system.

RUBY:

Right. And it's worth remembering, Paul, that we're still actually months away from a vote, and we're likely to see this conversation intensify as we get closer and closer to that moment. And this language, it takes a toll. We've seen several indigenous people this week talk about that, including people like, Voice campaigner, Thomas Mayo.

PAUL:

That's right Ruby, Thomas Mayo was a signatory to the Uluru Statement from the Heart. He's from the Northern Territory, and his heritage is Torres Strait Islander. And he says that Peter Dutton is licensing hate speech. He says that he's never been abused online as much, and he says it's definitely coincided with the Coalition's official ‘No’ stance. Mayo noted, trolls are running the exact same line as Dutton did on Monday, and quote, “It's like Dutton's let a whole lot of racists off the leash to sow doubt and confusion amongst voters.”

Ruby I’d have to say that Peter Dutton is certainly playing with fire in his desperation to score a win over Anthony Albanese. He's, as it were, scratching that dark underbelly that does exist in the nation, exists in any nation of fear, prejudice, and racism. I think that the columnist, Nicki Savva, put it pretty deftly a couple of weeks ago, in The Age, when she wrote “not everyone who votes ‘No’ is a racist, but all racists will vote ‘No’”.

RUBY:

We'll be back after this.

[Advertisement]

RUBY:

Paul, the way that Peter Dutton has been talking about the Voice this week, how has that actually been going down within his party? Because we know that of course not everyone agrees with the position that Dutton has taken. So is he getting much pushback?

PAUL:

Well, there has been pushback. It has to be said off the top, of course, that Peter Dutton's party room, the overwhelming majority of it, amongst the conservative Liberals who dominate the Liberal Party room, and of course The Nationals, will they back Dutton to the hilt, in opposing the referendum? But there are some standout exceptions. The Liberal member from Tasmania, Bridget Archer, well, a couple of hours after the Dutton speech she got up in the Parliament, and contradicted him.

Archival tape – Bridget Archer:

“I do think it's critical to address some of the concerns about the question in the referendum. No, the Voice will not have veto power, nor act as a third chamber. It will simply, and reasonably, give advice on laws made specifically for and about Indigenous Australia. To claim otherwise is a deliberate and harmful misrepresentation of the facts. And I'm disappointed to have seen this wilfully perpetuated by some.”

PAUL:

She says she will campaign hard for the ‘Yes’ vote in Tasmania, and this is a very significant promise from her, because Tasmania has the same weight as every other state, and yet it's five times smaller than, for example, New South Wales. So if someone is high profile, and as well-respected as Archer, promising to campaign hard for the ‘Yes’ vote in Tasmania could well thwart the ‘No’ case's ambitions.

Archival tape – Bridget Archer:

“I've also heard the argument that the Voice is, at best, tokenistic. Well, to me there's nothing more tokenistic than supporting the recognition of our First Nations people, and falling short of providing a permanent platform to ensure their voices are heard now and for generations to come. If you support constitutional recognition but you oppose the voice, what exactly do you hope to achieve? You can't have the symbolic without the practical. They are intrinsically linked.”

PAUL:

But Ruby, you're right. There's no doubt that the Dutton position has caused enormous problems within the parliamentary party. The Senate leader, Simon Birmingham, a key moderate, well, in two interviews he's given this week, on Insiders on Sunday, and then on RN breakfast, he's had to squirm around what his position would be.

Archival tape – Patricia Karvelas:

“Do you agree with that? Will it re-racialise Australia?”

Archival tape – Simon Birmingham:

“There'll be many things said in the context of the voice debate. I’ve written a long-ish piece in relation to my stance on this, which I've said is somewhat nuanced, and I've indicated I intend to either act contrary to the party decision on this, but nor will I intend to actively or aggressively campaign on it.”

PAUL:

He said that all sorts of people are making all sorts of comments, and he's not going to respond to every comment. And that's where Patricia Karvelas made a very strong point.

Archival tape – Patricia Karvelas:

“And it's not just… I'm going to politely push back a little bit here. You say “not comment on the comments of people in this debate.” He's the leader of the Liberal Party. He is the opposition leader. And it's not just some bit player. He's a really key person on your side of politics. He's your leader, and he says it will re-racialise Australia. Do you agree with him?”

Archival tape – Simon Birmingham:

“Patricia and… I have outlined the approach I'm taking to this referendum…”

PAUL:

And of course, this point goes to how important and what a setback in a real way for the ‘Yes’ vote it is, when the alternative Prime Minister of the country takes this position, to so resolutely argue and argue in the way he has against the ‘Yes’ vote.

RUBY:

Yeah, I suppose what this really challenges, Paul, is the government and the organised ‘Yes’ campaign, they've hoped to have this uniting message, and really try and ignore a lot of this rhetoric. But, with the Opposition Leader putting these arguments at the centre of the debate, how long can the Government afford confrontation on this?

PAUL:

Well, that's a very good question. The Government has been warned, you know, from polling done that it's important, it's vital, to keep the whole Voice debate above partisan politics. If it degenerates into nothing more, as Dutton is trying to do, of Liberal versus Labour and Labour versus Liberal, you know, politics as usual, then that will harm the chance of the referendum. Linda Burney herself said this whole issue should be above politics. But I have to say that The Greens don't seem to be quite as constrained as the Labour Government in this. One of the strongest push backs in the Parliament was a speech made by Greens leader Adam Bandt.

Archival tape – Adam Bandt:

“There are those in this Parliament who want to deny justice to First Nations people. The Leader of the Opposition has taken this opportunity to divide instead of unite, to continue a long tradition of seeking to use race to win votes.”

PAUL:

And he outlined a history of Peter Dutton's dealings with, and arguments against, racial minorities in Australia. He left no stone unturned, before he threw it, I'd have to say. Adam Bandt equated Dutton's approach with that of One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson. But he said, and I think this is a strong point, he said, “it's coming from someone who wants to lead this country.”

RUBY:

And Paul, you know, the reason that we heard all of this in Parliament this week was because of this bill to enable a referendum to be held. And that bill, the referendum bill, it will pass. It has enough support in the House and the Senate to do so. So once that happens, what are we likely to see? What's next?

PAUL:

Yeah, what's next after what we saw this week? A very good point. In many ways, I shudder to think. By the way, there's no doubt that the legislation will pass because the Liberals and the Nationals, they've decided they won't move any amendments against it, and they will wave it through. So the constitutional requirement of an absolute majority in both houses will fly through what we're seeing already. There'll be strong campaigning from both sides. Noel Pearson, of course, one of the authors of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, says, “Once we've got this technical debate out of the way, once we see locked in the words of the referendum, then it's down to business, then it's down to arguing whether you want ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’”

In my view, Ruby, this referendum is more than just about whether we give due recognition with some weight to the special position of First Nations people in our country, in the history of this continent. That's very important. It'll be a moment of reconciliation, will be a moment where we can all work together to a better future, as the Uluru Statement urges. But it's also asking us what sort of leadership, what sort of national leadership do we want? Do we want the sort of national leadership that appeals to our better nature, to our better angels, or one that appears to our fears, and our prejudices?

RUBY:

Paul, thanks for your time.

PAUL:

Thank you, Ruby. Bye.

[Advertisement]

[Theme Music Starts]

RUBY:

Also in the news today…

The family of Clare Nowland, the 95-year-old woman who died after being tasered by a police officer, have released a statement following her death this week.

The family told the local newspaper that, quote "Our beloved Clare passed away whilst surrounded by the love and support of her family."

Going on to describe her as a beautiful Mother and great Grandmother.

And

Florida governor Ron DeSantis was unable to announce his campaign for president as planned yesterday, thanks to a twitter glitch.

Billionaire Elon Musk invited the Republican to announce his candidacy exclusively on the audio chatroom function of twitter 'twitter spaces', but the event was stuck on the status 'preparing to launch' for 25 minutes.

DeSantis, who will take on Donald Trump for the Republican nomination, has supported legislation that makes it easier for books to be banned from schools in his state.
7am is a daily show from The Monthly and The Saturday Paper.

It’s produced by Kara Jensen-Mackinnon, Zoltan Fecso,

and Cheyne Anderson.

Our technical producer is Atticus Bastow.

Our editor is Scott Mitchell. Sarah McVeigh is our Head of Audio. Erik Jensen is our editor-in-chief.

Mixing by Andy Elston, Travis Evans, and Atticus Bastow.

Our theme music is by Ned Beckley and Josh Hogan of Envelope Audio.

I’m Ruby Jones, see you next week.

[Theme Music Ends]