Peter Dutton sends six-page brochure to constituents outlining No case against the Indigenous voice to parliament

Peter Dutton has sent a six-page brochure to constituents outlining the No case against the Indigenous voice to parliament.

Peter Dutton has sent a letter and six-page brochure to his constituents in Dickson, a marginal Queensland seat, outlining his case against the Indigenous voice to parliament. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Peter Dutton says the High Court will determine the powers of the voice, not the parliament, and Australia will be “stuck with negative consequences” if the referendum succeeds, in an extensive brochure showcasing the central arguments of his No campaign.

A six-page pamphlet was sent to residents in the Opposition Leader’s marginal Queensland electorate of Dickson within the past fortnight, which was delivered with a letter from Mr Dutton that states: “The government has overlooked the concerns of many legal experts. It is pursuing a voice that covers all areas of ‘executive government’ … Many legal experts warn this voice could risk years of litigation. The High Court would determine its powers, not the parliament.

“This voice is legally risky, with unknown consequences. It’s divisive and permanent. Yet when Australians raise reasonable concerns, they’ve been dismissed.”

Mr Dutton holds Dickson on 1.7 per cent and has tried to turn next month’s Fadden by-election, which the Liberal National Party is widely expected to win, into a mini-referendum on the voice.

The Queensland Independent Remuneration Tribunal has ruled state MPs can’t produce material about the voice referendum using their electorate and communication allowance.

Yes supporters conceded federal MPs using public funds for big electoral mailouts in Queensland – the staunchest No state so far, according to Newspoll – would not help their case.

Ken Wyatt, the first Indigenous Australian in a federal cabinet. Picture: Colin Murty

Ken Wyatt, the first Indigenous cabinet minister who quit the Liberal Party over its stand on the voice, blasted the “mindless commentary” coming from his former colleagues and said they needed to start using common sense on how the advisory body would work.

He said the Yes camp needed to explain why Aboriginal people wanted a constitutionally enshrined voice, as he lashed some of the Coalition’s parliamentary questioning last week on what would and wouldn’t fit within its remit.

“I saw some of the questions at question time. I have never known of any Aboriginal group to ever want to talk to the RBA about ­interest rates. I’ve never known of them to want to talk to Defence about defence expenditure. I just found the questions childish,” Mr Wyatt said.

“The intent was just to have guaranteed structures for a voice and to fight for the things that are part of Closing the Gap, so that there’s a better outcome in life ­opportunities, longevity, and a focus on improving in areas of education, wealth creation, incarceration rates.

“It’s about everyday fundamental things, it’s not about what the Coalition has been banging on about in the chamber.”

The subheadings of the Dickson brochure, which was funded using Mr Dutton’s electorate printing and communications budget, include: “risky’”, “unknown”, “divisive”, “ineffective”, “costly” and “permanent”.

“The Liberal Party supports ­regional voices, with powers clearly defined by parliament,” the brochure says. “However, the Albanese government wants to go much ­further – enshrining a voice in the Constitution, with few limits to its scope and few details.”

Yes23 declined to respond to the brochure’s claims without having seen the document.

Mr Wyatt said the No camp commentary would be viewed similarly to the debate about the 1992 Mabo High Court decision.

“I know there was a premier who said ‘there goes our back yards’ because of the Mabo High Court decision. Nobody in Australia ever lost their backyard. What it did was set out a parameter as to how mining companies would work with Indigenous Australians,” Mr Wyatt said.

Age Discrimination Commissioner Kay Patterson on Wednesday criticised a lack of process to achieve bipartisanship in the lead-up to the referendum.

She told the National Press Club that the highest human rights order was that the debate was dignified and respectful, and people weren’t called names like “racist” or lambasted from one side or the other.