Greg Craven ‘beside myself with rage’ after Indigenous voice to parliament No pamphlet quotes him

The pamphlet quotes the prominent Yes campaigner warning the indigenous voice could offer advice on everything from submarines to parking tickets.

Constitutional lawyer Greg Craven has had his comments on potential risks posed by the voice retaining the power to advise executive government displayed prominently on the Liberal Party’s website. Picture: Supplied

Conservative constitutional lawyer and prominent Yes campaigner Greg Craven says he’s “beside myself with rage” after one of his quotes criticising the government’s preferred model for an Indigenous voice to parliament was used in the official No pamphlet.

Professor Craven told The Australian he would now formally lodge a complaint with the Australian Electoral Commission against No material quoting him, after he communicated with Peter Dutton’s office before the pamphlet was released expressing his “extreme opposition” to his words being used as part of the No campaign.

 

PDF: The No pamphlet

“I am beside myself with rage. I’ve never found myself in worse company,” he said of the No pamphlet.

“Putting those words up effectively without any acknowledgment that I’ve consistently said I’ll support and campaign for the voice is simply deceptive.

“It’s perfectly obvious to anyone in this debate, including the No case and for that matter the opposition, that I am implacably committed to the voice and I will campaign for it. That’s because I’ve always said that from the beginning and because also since the (constitutional amendment) words in dispute were settled I’ve gone out of my way to make my position clear.”

The No pamphlet states: “In the words of a constitutional law professor who supports the voice: ‘I think it’s 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 … We will have regular judicial interventions.’ (Professor Greg Craven AO).”

The comments were made by Professor Craven in March, as he was arguing the government’s proposal should be amended to clarify it would be up to parliament to decide what obligations the executive government has to consider and respond to the voice’s representations.

Professor Craven said his only real option now was to campaign even harder for the Yes case, as he did not believe there was any real remedy the AEC could offer.

“Some of the most dedicated No campaigners have their own interesting history of where they stood. Peter Dutton originally said that he would be looking at it carefully and had an open mind. Now apparently it’s constitutional illiteracy,” Professor Craven said.

“Warren Mundine was one of the chartered signatories to Uphold and Recognise. Apparently those changes of position are fine but the thing I would say is I’ve never changed my position. I’ve always been in favour of it.”

Opposition Indigenous Australians spokeswoman Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who was the authorised chair of the No case put in the pamphlet, said Professor Craven had some very pertinent concerns early in the conversation about the voice.

“It’s only right that we should be able to promote those concerns that somebody on the Yes side has with this constitutional change,” she said.

“Contrary to claims being made, the No case does make a point of stating that Professor Craven is a supporter of the voice. I don’t understand why anybody that has such concerns would want to support the Yes campaign going forward.”

Queensland Liberal senator Paul Scarr, who was deputy chair of the No case, said Professor Craven did not deserve an apology because there had been full disclosure of his support for the voice.

“One of the reasons for voting No in relation to this referendum is that this proposed voice will have no limit on the scope of what it can engage in. That is the point which Professor Greg Craven alluded to in the point which he is quoted on,” Senator Scarr told Sky News.

“It’s absolutely vital that the Australian people understand the ramifications of this proposed change to the Constitution. And one of those changes is that this voice would be able to make representations and engage on any issues at both a parliamentary level but also an executive government level.”

Prominent No campaigner Warren Mundine said Professor Craven could not deny he said the quote and should move on.

“You live and die by what you say,” Mr Mundine said.

“We’re trying to have a normal, non-vitriolic debate. He comes out with that nonsense. He just needs to calm down and move on because what was put there was factual. He said it. He’s just spewing because he got caught out.”

Professor Craven said the No side had adopted a high-risk strategy.

“What it means is you’ve got one of your main pieces of evidence loudly saying ‘no, no, no, that’s not true’. I would’ve thought that would be problematic to the No case, just as I think it would be problematic if people went back and looked through the records of people like Dutton and Mundine and said ‘why have you changed your position? What’s happened to make this (the voice) so terrible?’” he said.

The Opposition Leader is on leave, though Coalition sources noted he had no control over the No pamphlet, was not on the committee that helped write the essay and did not put the material together.

The sources said Professor Craven had taken issue with Liberal Party and Coalition promotional material against the voice and he had asked that material specify he was a voice supporter - which the pamphlet does.

The Liberal Party material was updated on Tuesday when a new website was launched.

Mr Mundine said he accepted he was involved in Uphold and Recognise but then he discovered the voice would be a “big bureaucracy and not going to change a single thing on the ground”.