Jeff Kennett: Pat Dodson’s stance on the Voice is an insult to all Australians

Every week someone tries to shame Australians into backing the concept that one group should be given access to government that is different to all others. These comments can’t go unanswered.

I am sorry, but some of the comments regarding the referendum on The Voice to the federal parliament cannot go unanswered.

Every week someone is making ludicrous comments trying to shame Australians into supporting the concept that one group of Australians should be given access to government that is different to all others, in fact the vast majority of Australians.

The Constitution is and must be for all Australians equally.

The latest to enter the fray is Indigenous elder Pat Dodson, an individual I respect. He is also a federal Labor senator, and I also respect his choice of politics.

(I understand Mr Dodson has been ill, and I wish him a speedy and full recovery).

Mr Dodson reportedly said last week Australia would have no integrity in criticising China over its human rights record if the Voice referendum fails, warning the country needs to have “clean hands” on the international stage. He also believed Australians were “better than those running the No case”.

Senator Patrick Dodson has entered the fray on the Voice. Picture: Martin Ollman

Taking the latter first, so much for freedom of speech - a fundamental tenet of our democracy. Of the parliament in which Mr Dodson serves. Of the very basic concept of a referendum that allows all Australians to cast their vote according to their views.

If you vote No Mr Dodson considers you a lesser person than those who vote Yes. Thousands of Australians, black and white, are contemplating voting No to a single question that itself discriminates.

We do so because we believe our Constitution should treat all Australians equally, now and for the future.

As to Mr Dodson’s comments about our international reputation, comparing Australia’s human

rights record today with China’s — it has no intellectual merit. Again, just more fear tactics.

Australia simply does not have the mass human rights atrocities that occur in China today.

Certainly, white settlement over 200 years ago resulted in great pain and loss of life and country. We have addressed that in part with Mabo and other decisions and acts. But

current generations can’t be held to account for deeds almost 250 years ago.

Of course, many issues here in Australia can be improved for many Australians, but to compare Australia today with the human rights abuses in China today is just wrong.

Mr Dodson is entitled to his view, but he cannot expect to have his comments go unchallenged.

Pat Dodson should convince his leader, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, to split the proposed referendum into two questions.

Australia gets more publicity internationally when the country is subject to bushfires, floods, shark attacks, and whether there will be a sequel to Crocodile Dundee, than we do about any other issues.

We must live for today and tomorrow.

If Mr Dodson really is concerned about our international reputation, he should start advocating for two questions to be asked at the referendum.

One on constitutionally recognising our Indigenous and Torres Strait Islanders as the first settlers on this continent, which I very much support, and a second question for establishing The Voice to parliament through its inclusion in the Constitution, which I do not.

At least that way any international observers would know we Australians formally recognise and give credit to the first settlers on this continent,

Mr Dodson is one of 11 Indigenous members of the federal parliament. If they don’t have a voice in parliament what chance has an advisory body?

Mr Dodson should convince his leader, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, to split the proposed referendum into two questions. If Mr Albanese does not agree it will be the PM and his inflexibility, not those who oppose the single question, who will be responsible for the referendum’s failure, and any international impact.

The current proposal is all or nothing, which is divisive and runs the risk of achieving absolutely nothing. We should aim to achieve at least recognition of our first settlers in the Constitution.

Tasmanian Indigenous man Michael Mansell has recently supported the splitting of the single question into two. Picture: Peter Mathew

In fact, Michael Mansell, a Tasmanian Indigenous man, has recently supported the splitting of the single question into two.

He has suggested The Voice be established by legislation outside the Constitution.

The PM should not confuse his personal popularity and that of his government with public support for a change to Australia’s Constitution, which if supported would introduce

preference based on race.

This is a concept thoroughly rejected by the United States Supreme Court for universities selecting students partially on race.

Mr Albanese is also wrong in thinking that ethnic communities will support his changes. They left countries and came to Australia because we are a tolerant society, where minorities or majorities do not rule over others, where our Constitution treats all people equally.

Where opportunity is available to all.

Have a thoughtful day.

Jeff Kennett is a former premier of Victoria