‘Underhand notions’: Linda Burney hits back after opposition’s ‘low’ questions on Indigenous voice
Linda Burney has accused the opposition of using “underhand notions” to undermine the referendum, rebuffing questions on whether the Indigenous voice would give advice on military bases and saying it wouldn’t be giving advice on parking tickets.
The Coalition sought to scrutinise the powers of the proposed voice a day after the constitutional alteration bill passed parliament, using a line of questioning to the Indigenous Australians minister that echoed attacks from the main no campaign group.
On Monday and Tuesday, the deputy Liberal leader, Sussan Ley, asked which areas the voice would not seek input in, and asked if the voice would be able to make representations on military acquisitions or the location of military bases.
Burney on Monday called questions about what matters the voice would interest itself in “red herrings”. She stressed the voice would concern itself with matters that specifically affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, or affect those communities in a different way to the general population.
“I can tell you what the voice will not be giving advice on. It won’t be giving advice on parking tickets. It won’t be giving advice on changing Australia Day,” the minister said.
“It will not be giving advice on all of the ridiculous things that that side has come up with.”
“I will say this to the parliament: they go lower, we go higher.”
Ley complained to the speaker of the house that Albanese was “laughing at me” as she asked that question.
After accusing the opposition of going “low” with its questions, Burney said the voice would focus on matters to boost Indigenous life outcomes.
Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup
“What we have in this nation is a group of people that are poorer, sicker, more incarcerated and die earlier than anyone else,” she told parliament.
“The voice and referendum is about doing things differently, to change those things.”
Coalition members later asked questions about past comments made by Thomas Mayo, promoted by the Fair Australia campaign against the voice, who called to “tear down institutions that harm our people”, adding that the voice would be a step toward reparations for Indigenous people. Mayo, a union official, is a prominent campaigner for the yes vote and member of the government’s referendum working group.
Mayo was contacted for comment. Burney said the referendum was “not about individual statements of people that are involved”, and defended her administration of the process.
“At every step of the way, I have conducted myself with integrity, I have conducted myself properly, and I have conducted myself with honesty. I have embraced every single person in this parliament if they wished to participate,” she said.
“Do not use the ridiculous, underhanded notions that you’re using.”
With the bill now through parliament, focus is now shifting to campaign strategy.
When asked on Melbourne KIIS FM why Australians might be “reluctant” to support the voice at this stage, Anthony Albanese, admitted: “I think they want further information”.
“It’s always easier to get a no vote than it is to get a yes vote in a referendum. History tells us that that is the case … But this is such a sensible reform,” the prime minister said.
Albanese later said the absence of a body like the voice was “a missing piece” in how governments responded to Indigenous affairs.
“At the moment, there is no advisory group, there is no voice on national issues before the Australian parliament,” he told ABC Brisbane.
The Australian Electoral Commission wrote to all politicians on Tuesday, advising them to submit their yes and no essays for the referendum by midnight on 17 July, for inclusion in the official information pamphlet sent out to all homes.
The AEC said the brochure would be about 20 pages long, and would be sent out at least two weeks before voting day. Commissioner Tom Rogers said the AEC would print 12.5m copies, with pamphlets produced in 34 languages and accessible copies reproduced via audio files and large print.
Rogers said the AEC had “no editorial role” in the essays and would produce them verbatim, meaning they would not check them for fact or misinformation. Rogers also warned politicians to be “careful about their language and grammar”.