‘Too much noise in referendum debate’: No campaign arguing about everything but Voice to Parliament, says Liberal MP Julian Leeser

Liberal MP Julian Leeser has claimed those that are campaigning against the Voice are “arguing about everything but the constitutional amendment”. 

Both the Liberals and the Nationals have been opposed to the enshrinement of an advisory body to inform parliament on policy and laws affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. 

Liberal leader Peter Dutton has argued against the proposal over its “racially divisive” and “risky” implications and is instead pushing for legislating local and regional advisory bodies.

But Mr Dutton’s Nationals counterpart David Littleproud offset this argument this week, when he confirmed his party would not commit to legislating any Voice, even if that meant being at odds with the senior Coalition.

The opposition’s lack of agreement on the Voice comes amid fierce debate in recent weeks ranging from the length of the Uluru Statement from the Heart document to whether the referendum is about treaty. 

Speaking to Chris Kenny on Monday Mr Leeser said while he respected that his colleagues have “taken a different view” there was “too much noise” in the referendum debate.  

“We’re hearing things about submarines and parking tickets, we’re hearing about welcomes to country,” he said. 

“I’m waiting until we have complaints about dot paintings.

“None of those things are relevant to what we’re actually voting on, we’re voting on one new section to the constitution, to recognise Indigenous Australians.

“To create a new body so we can listen better to them, so we can get better outcomes, save the Commonwealth some money and ensure that we’re actually shifting the dial in education, employment, healthcare and housing.”

Asked by Kenny about whether the Uluru Statement was a one-page or 26-page document, Mr Leeser responded that it was “not relevant”. 

“The Voice was developed before the Uluru Statement,” he said.

“It was developed by Indigenous leaders like Noel Pearson talking with constitutional conservatives like myself…and others, about finding a way forward to recognise Indigenous people in the constitution and find a practical way to improve outcomes on the ground. That’s what this is all about.”

Kenny asked whether a successful Voice referendum would immediately lead First Nations to seek treaty or reparations to which Mr Leeser replied with a blunt “no”.

“The Voice is a mechanism for consultation with Aboriginal people,” he said. 

“In relation to treaty that is under a completely separate body, the Makarrata commission.

“Even if the referendum is unsuccessful the government can still proceed to treaty.

“Treaty and reparations have nothing to do with what Australians are voting for on referendum day.”

However, Mr Leeser said there was some “heart” in the No side’s campaign against the referendum. 

“If there was a real problem with the provisions put forward then the No campaign would have a laser like focus on the constitutional amendment,” he said. 

“The fact that people arguing the No case are arguing about everything but the constitutional amendment indicates that when Australians actually look at what they will be voting for, it’s a small section of the constitution.

“Importantly it’s a section that provides us a pathway to make better policy about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by actually listening to them so that we are ground-truthing those policies in the community.

SOURCE: SKYNEWS