|
October 15, 2023
NICK MCCALLUM: Joining us now is Senator James Paterson, Liberal Party frontbencher Senator James Paterson. Thanks for joining us. Do you think the boss will be happy this morning or is happy the right word? Good morning to you.
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning. Look, I think overwhelmingly for those of us who are on the no side of the case, it's really a sense of relief. No one's popping champagne corks or celebrating. I think that would be the wrong approach. But we are relieved because we thought this was an unwise change. We thought there was real constitutional risk and we thought in principle it was wrong to divide Australians in that foundational document. But there's hard work to be done now on working with Indigenous Australians to improve the circumstances which every Australian that I met on the campaign trail agreed with.
DARREN JAMES: And Senator, we've had Professor Mark Rose in, who's an Indigenous professor and has been on a lot of advisory boards. He, at the end he said he would like something like, you know, a war cabinet type thing where politicians from both sides, you know, Aboriginal leaders from both sides of the argument get together and come up with some bipartisan. So we don't have the political bickering and all of that sort of stuff. Is that conceivable in the current political climate?
PATERSON: I'm very open to that and I suspect my colleagues in the Opposition would be open to that too. What I was really shocked with in the campaign, particularly in the last week, was the Prime Minister and others saying there's no plan B, I really hope he was just saying that for political effect because he was trying to persuade people to vote yes. I hope it's not actually true that he never had a Plan B because it has been clear for months the polls have been unambiguous. This was headed for defeat and it's gravely irresponsible for the Prime Minister of Australia who says he cares about Indigenous Australians and the improvement of their circumstances to not have a Plan B. I hope that, you know, suggestions like the professor's are already well on the way, have been thought about carefully and will be shared with the Australian public soon by the government.
HEIDI MURPHY: Any evidence that that's happened?
PATERSON: None that I've seen. I regret to say, and I think it's been pretty clear from Richard Marles appearance on Insiders this morning, they don't know where to go from here and I think that is irresponsible. I mean, they've just spent nearly half a billion dollars of taxpayers money which could have been spent directly on Indigenous Australians and improving their lives. And what have we got from that? Well, the referendum has failed. We're more divided as a country and the some of our Indigenous Australians this morning are hurting very badly.
MCCALLUM: So he's telling the truth. There's no Plan B.
PATERSON: Unfortunately. I fear that might be the case.
JAMES: I hope you're wrong. And I would suspect that there must be people within the government who have figured out what they obviously didn't want to talk about it.
MURPHY: It is a line they used a lot in the last week. Yes, campaigns and the prime minister, there is no plan B.
JAMES: Yeah, and of course, they would say that. So I hope you're wrong. But, Senator.
MURPHY: What you see he was also sort of right. He's saying he hopes there was a plan B. You're saying you agree with him, too?
JAMES: Oh, yeah, sorry. Let me...hang on.
MCCALLUM: I wish we had a plan B.
JAMES: Let me explain myself here.
MCCALLUM: You're on Plan F at the moment.
JAMES: I agree with you about, I hope there's a plan. I hope you're wrong when you say you suspect there's not. Is that clear enough to you now?
MURPHY: Thank you. Continue.
JAMES: Thank you. Now I've forgotten what the question was. Now. So, Senator, therefore, can we initiate then, even if there's a plan B or not a plan B, but plan to come up with a plan B quickly. Now, I know Mr. Dutton talked about a royal commission and talked about an audit, but that will take time. And we've had so many royal commissions, so many audits. Are there things that are ready to go that we can say, let's get into those remote communities and fix these problems, particularly with education and health?
PATERSON: Well, I can only speak for the opposition, but I know that Jacinta Price, as our shadow minister, has been hard at work, not just in the last few months or the last few years or she's been in Parliament, but actually for the better part of decades, which she's dedicated her professional, adult life to, to getting towards the solutions that we need for
Indigenous Australians to improve their lives and well and before the next election, when we'll have the opportunity to put an alternative plan to the Australian people, you will see our alternative vision.
JAMES: But that's the point I'm making though, and I get that I understand it. But rather than let's make it a part of our election campaign, can we in two years or whenever and get some political mileage out of it, why not come up with something and say, let's do this now, let's do it together, Let's make Aboriginal affairs, rather than being a, you know, a political pie throwing contest, let's actually make it something that we all work together and put it above politics. Is there any chance that could ever happen?
PATERSON: Well, I'm hopeful of that. And Peter and Jacinta have already put two ideas on the table, which is two more ideas than the government has put on the table, who are walking around saying, they've got no plan B. So we'll continue to be constructive about this, will continue to propose things which we think will make a real difference that are focused on practical issues like housing, like safety, like health care, like education, things that we know that Indigenous Australians are asking for and that someone like Jacinta Price is uniquely placed to advocate for and implement because she is an Indigenous Australian, has lived that life and represents that community in the Parliament.
MURPHY: Senator, you may say you're willing to be constructive, but the Yes campaigners, the ACTU, I'm sure the Greens, the Labor Party will say Peter Dutton was a destructive here. He was an element in this defeat he is causing now the divisions going forward. Do you think the Coalition will cop political backlash, electoral backlash from voters for taking this this no stance so strongly?
PATERSON: Well, I think it's a very interesting argument to make that the political party that was on the side of 60% of Australians is the loser out of a contest. I think it's the political party whose just divided Australians by for a proposition that was rejected. And fascinatingly it was Labor voters in their millions which have rejected the Prime Minister's agenda. I mean these are people who voted for Albanese to be Prime Minister only 18 months ago and millions of them rejected his signature domestic policy initiative, which he spent the last 18 months focused on almost to the exclusion of anything else. So I don't buy this analysis that's going around.
JAMES: I also don't buy that. But I also don't buy that putting before the Australian people a reasonable and it's been rejected, but no one is saying it was total, while a few people are saying it's totally unreasonable, but it's a reasonable proposition, it's not divisive to put it to the people and nor is it divisive, I don't think, to oppose it. If you oppose it, it's we shouldn't be afraid to at least throw change out there, because if we don't throw change we are never going to get anywhere and debate it, we're never going to get anywhere. So there's nothing divisive about putting it out there. There is nothing divisive, I think, about opposing it.
PATERSON: Well, I understand the point you're making, but it's got to have a reasonable prospect of success. It's got to have some chance of succeeding. I mean, this is nearly a half a billion dollars of taxpayers money which has been spent. And this is the lives of Indigenous Australians who were put to a ballot. And now many feel this morning that they were rejected and that's a terrible thing and it shouldn't have been done lightly and I think it's been clear for months that this was likely to fail. But we warned the Prime Minister.
JAMES: But Senator, you're asking someone, you're asking someone just to give up. And that's not the way.
PATERSON: That's not what I'm saying at all. No, that's not at all what I'm saying. The Prime Minister had a lot of pathways available to him, he had different wording that he could have put forward that would have increased the chance of success. It could have compromised about providing more detail. He could have compromised on an amendment. He could have separated the question. At every point, he chose a pathway away from bipartisanship, away from compromise and he is the author of its demise.
MCCALLUM: Do you think we'll see another referendum in our lifetime, Senator James?
PATERSON: I'm sure that we will. I'm sure there'll be other proposals that people will bring forward, but I think people will be reluctant to do it any time soon. My own view, which I had on the public record for many years, which was once shared by people like Noel Pearson and Marcia Langton and Linda Burney, is that the race powers in the Constitution are problematic, they are anachronistic. They were introduced in 1901 for discriminatory reasons, primarily at the time for targeting Asian migrants, but have been used against Indigenous Australians since 1967. And I don't think a pluralistic, modern, liberal democracy in the 21st century should have a power to make laws about people's race. So I hope if we ever contemplate this again, if we ever do this again, that we look at the race power and how we can reform it.
MURPHY: Peter Dutton did say a couple of weeks ago, if it was defeated he would have his own version of a referendum if elected. Is that still the plan?
PATERSON: There were three important preconditions to that. Firstly, that the voice be voted down. Obviously it has. Whether we win the next election, that's to be determined. But thirdly, and critically, that there is bipartisan support and consensus for it, we are not going to put the Australian people through another referendum without prospects of success. So it will depend on the willingness of the Labor Party, but also Indigenous community leaders to endorse that proposition. There is no point proceeding if it's certain to fail.
MURPHY: And just quickly on your chances of winning the next election, some of those huge votes in the inner city suburbs, the teal suburbs, former Liberal strongholds, will very firmly yes, you've got no chance of getting some of those seats back on the basis on the strength of that vote, I would suggest.
PATERSON: Look, I think you'll see the vote in a number of those seats continue to trend down as already was late last night as the postal votes are counted in the coming days, which will be heavily no. And there's no doubt that they will still be yes, voting seats, but nowhere near as much as are predicted to be only a few months ago. I mean, Monique Ryan the member for Kooyong, did a survey of her electorate and claimed at one point only 11% of people in Kooyong were voting no. Well it's going to be much closer to 40%, and maybe above 40%. And I think that shows that these areas were competitive, certainly that are more supportive than any other areas, but actually they're quite competitive.
JAMES: But Senator, you can, you know, play with the numbers as much as you want. It's still not good news, is it, for those? Former jewels in the liberal crown to be at the moment. So anti what the Liberal Party has proposed.
PATERSON: Well, they were less in favour of the voice than Labor seats were against that. If you're going to run that argument, then you have to go and look at a place like Gorton or Calwell or McEwen, which are Labor seats, which voted even more strongly no, than the seats voted yes. If its a problem for us then its a problem for the Labor party too.
JAMES: I have no doubt it. Yes, I agree it's a problem for the Labor Party. But the people in those teal seats, the argument is they can afford to vote on values rather than their hip pocket. So if you're a strong values voter. That's an issue because you are unlikely to be altered by whatever happens with the economy.
PATERSON: It's certainly true to say that affluent Australians were the most open to this proposal and most willing to vote for it. And yes, they do in some ways have post material concerns. They're so financially secure, they're so advantaged compared to other Australians that they don't have to worry so much about paying electricity.
JAMES: Traditionally they used to be Liberal supporters. Traditionally those sorts of people used to be very strong Liberal supporters.
PATERSON: And the point I would make is that that's not all of Australia and we really learnt last night, middle Australia, the suburban Australia, outer suburban Australia, in regional Australia are not like those seats. This is a tiny minority of Australia and yes, I believe the Liberal party should aggressively compete in those seats. I think we can win those seats. Maybe they will not be safe Liberal seats ever again. Maybe they'll be marginal seats. I think we can compete there and I think we should.
MCCALLUM: And one final question for me. You would have been happy with what happened across the Tasman overnight, James?
PATERSON: Yes, although be careful not commenting on the domestic affairs of other countries, but certainly the National Party of New Zealand is the sister party of the Liberal party.
JAMES: Hang on, what have we spent all week talking about?
MURPHY: No he said other countries.
JAMES: Well, no, I mean...
MCCALLUM: These are these are our allies. These are our brothers and sisters in arms James.
PATERSON: Well, hang on.
MCCALLUM: Are you disassociating our country from New Zealand as an ANZAC? That's the very ANZAC of you?
PATERSON: Well, I hope not making a comparison here with Israel and Palestine.
JAMES: Absolutely I am, But you said you don't want to talk about issues in other counties.
MURPHY: Domestic affairs in other countries.
JAMES: And that's, and Hamas and Israel is is a very huge domestic issue which has dominated the news.
PATERSON: It's an international issue, actually. This is a listed terrorist organisation in Australia that poses a threat to the free people the world over. And it's not an election. It is the worst loss of Jewish life since the end of the Holocaust. And it's not comparable in any way to what happened in New Zealand. I'm just being diplomatic about our friends across the ditch. They've got a right to make their own decisions.
MCCALLUM: All right then. Okay. Thanks for joining us. Senator James Paterson, Liberal Party frontbencher.
ENDS
