A key architect of the Voice to parliament has accused the Opposition Leader of ‘being duplicitous’ after he said there was a risk of ‘re-racialising’ the country.
The proposal for an indigenous Voice to Parliament is the result of a 10-year process which saw other models of constitutional recognition “strongly rejected”, says Indigenous leader Noel Pearson. Mr Pearson said constitutional conservatives are on board with the current model after initial rejections of earlier ideas. “That proposal was to create an advisory body to the Parliament, and that’s where we’re at now.”
Mr Dutton made the warning last month, as he opened up debate on the Constitution Alteration Bill, which has since passed the lower house.
During his speech, the Liberal leader warned a Voice enshrined in the constitution would have an “Orwellian” impact, and risked making some Australians “more equal than others”.
Cape York leader Noel Pearson, who has been instrumental in the developing of the proposed model, said he was “disappointed” by Mr Dutton’s position.
Mr Pearson claimed the Opposition Leader’s speech was at odds with what had been expressed privately in the months prior.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said the Voice risked ‘re-racialising’ Australia. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman
“I met with him, I think two or three times with (then opposition spokesman for Indigenous Australians) Julian Leeser … and at those meetings, Peter was very, very clear in what he said to me. He said ‘I do not agree with the race argument. Don’t take me to be making a race argument here’,” Mr Pearson told Sky News.
“He assured me that he did not take the voice to be racial proposition. But of course since Julian’s left the spokesperson role, (Mr Dutton) has come back to make this completely dishonest argument about re-racialising the Constitution.
“That is not the position Peter took to me when Julian Leeser was in the room. He was very anxious to assure me in fact, that he wasn‘t making that argument. I think he’s being a bit duplicitous now in talking about re-racialising the Constitution.”
The Bill will go to the Senate this month for further debate and is on track to be passed.
Once passed, the government can set an official date for the referendum and begin the official campaign.
Voice architect Noel Pearson accused Mr Dutton of being ‘duplicitous’. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman
Mr Pearson also downplayed Mr Dutton’s concerns – which form a major part of the “No” campaign’s argument – about a lack of detail.
Mr Pearson, like Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his government more broadly, have maintained it will be up to the parliament to decide the structure of the Voice.
The referendum, they say, is merely an opportunity for Australians to take up the “gracious offer” extended by Indigenous Australians to recognise them in the country’s founding document.
Mr Pearson said the parliament could replace the initial model of the voice, set to be legislated after the referendum, with a “totally different structure” if the parliament deemed it was not operating as it was envisaged.
“(The constitutional amendment) gives complete power to our elected representatives in Canberra to decide what the voice looks like. And if next year, they want to change it slightly, they can pass legislation to change it,” he said.
“If they want to replace it with a totally different structure, they will have the power to do that.
“So everything lies in the hands of the parliament.”