Peter Dutton reveals why Australians should vote No in the upcoming Voice referendum

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton reveals why it will be important for Australians to vote No in the upcoming Voice referendum.

Our Constitution, institutions and democracy have been the source of our stability and progress for 122 years.

A Voice would be the most consequential change to our system in history. There is no similar constitutional body anywhere in the world. And there is nothing ‘modest’ about the proposed change before us.

Whether you are an Indigenous Australian, were born Australian, or have come from around the world and become Australian, we are all Australians. And because we are all Australians, we are treated equally under the law.

A Voice will change this fundamental democratic principle. It will confer a privilege on one set of Australians purely based on their ancestry. All of us recognise the significant disadvantages facing many Indigenous Australians, especially those living in remote communities in the outback.

But a Voice will not deliver the change and improvements we all desire. The Voice will be more Canberra bureaucracy which hoovers up more taxpayer dollars which gives more of a platform to activists. In January, I wrote to Mr Albanese on behalf of Australians. I respectfully sought information in response to 15 reasonable questions about how the Voice would function.

Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: Martin Ollman

Weeks out from this referendum, we are none the wiser. If the referendum is successful, only then will the Government spend six months working out the details. If you want to alter our Constitution, details should come before the vote, not the vote before the details.

Why isn’t Prime Minister Albanese providing details? Either he hasn’t considered the unintended consequences – in which case he is being reckless. Or he is withholding information because the details will turn more Australians off his proposal – in which case he is being tricky. The fact that our best legal minds remain divided on the Voice shows that this constitutional change is risky.

The Prime Minister is being deceptive when he says the Voice will be controlled by parliament and only advise on matters relating to Indigenous Australians. The very words which would be included in the Constitution mean that no issue is off limits to the Voice and that the High Court – not the parliament – will determine the Voice’s powers and remit.

The Government could have established and tested the Voice through legislation. But the Prime Minister refused to walk this cautious road. Remember the disastrous Western Australian cultural heritage laws? They could only be scrapped because the WA parliament could repeal that legislation. But if anything goes wrong with a constitutional Voice, we are stuck with it.

This Voice comes with a no returns policy. Why are so many Voice advocates uncompromising in their demand for a permanent Voice in our Constitution? Their own words expose their true objective.

Thomas Mayo (appointed by Mr Albanese) said the Voice is ‘a black political force to be reckoned with’. Teela Reid said the Voice is ‘the first step in redistributing power’. The longer version of the Uluru Statement mentions the goals of ‘self-government’, ‘self-determination’, ‘reparations’ and ‘a financial settlement’.

Does this sound like a ‘gracious request’ as the Prime Minister suggests? Activists are focused on using the constitutional power of a Voice to pursue an agenda driven by resentment and retribution – not the noble goals of reconciliation and improving Indigenous lives.

Putting a Voice in our Constitution will take our country backwards, not forwards. It will drive us apart, not bring us together.

Voting ‘No’ is not to turn our backs on disadvantaged Indigenous Australians. Rather, voting ‘No’ is to reject a bad idea and changing our country for the worse.

Originally published as Peter Dutton reveals why Australians should vote No in the upcoming Voice referendum