John Howard speaks out against potentially ‘coercive’ Indigenous voice

John Howard says an Indigenous voice to parliament could become a ‘coercive’ body over the government of the day.

John Howard at the National Press Club in Canberra on Thursday. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Gary Ramage

John Howard says an Indigenous voice to parliament could become a “coercive” body over the government of the day.

The former Liberal prime minister also raised concerns over Australians “expending all of their emotional energy” on a referendum and then considering the issues facing First Nations people as “dealt with”.

It follows Malcolm Turnbull reversing his previous opposition to the voice, with the former Liberal prime minister saying earlier this week he now thought “we are better advised to approve the proposal than reject it”.

Mr Turnbull and his government refused to bring forward a voice to parliament and warned at the time that it could become a “third chamber”. Despite his new-found support, Mr Turnbull said he still thought it would be “politically very challenging” for a government to pass a law that the voice opposed.

Mr Howard on Thursday said the level of influence a voice to parliament would have over a government could be considered “coercive”.

“There’s the potential to establish a body that is seen as exercising coercive influence on the government,” he said at an address to the National Press Club. “The Prime Minister has said some contradictory things about this … on the one hand this will be very simple language and nothing to see here. And then … he made the comment that it would be a ‘very brave government’ that would ignore a recommendation from this body. If that’s his opinion, then he must deep down see more to this … than there being nothing to see here.”

Anthony Albanese said the claims were wrong and it was “very clear the government remains sovereign and the voice has an advisory role only”.

“I’d say to Mr Howard, look at the details. Look at the comments that have been made by constitutional lawyers, former members of the High Court, who make it very clear that the voice is simply an advisory body,” he said.

“It doesn’t change any of the parliamentary processes which are there. I don’t think, overwhelmingly, of his (Mr Howard’s) government as a model of how to advance reconciliation in this country.”

The Coalition has said it wants more detail on the voice and will examine closely what form such a body will take.

Mr Albanese said he was being “deliberately non-prescriptive” so political parties including the Coalition would have “a sense of engagement”.

While Mr Howard said he considered the treatment of Indigenous Australians as “the greatest blemish in our national story”, a voice to parliament was not the answer.

“If we expend all of our emotional energy and debate on the voice and then that’s over … we’ll say ‘we’ve dealt with Indigenous affairs, let’s get on with something else’,” he said.

He also stood by his opposition to the national apology.“ The idea that one prime minister apologises for the mistakes of a former one, I just think there is a phoniness in that,” he said.