|
representatives vote 2023-10-16#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-01-26 21:19:43
|
Title
Motions — Prime Minister; Attempted Censure- Motions - Prime Minister; Attempted Censure - Let a vote happen
Description
<p class="speaker">Peter Dutton</p><p>This Prime Minister stated in the course of the last parliament, right through the election campaign, that he would take debates. He was critical of the previous Prime Minister for not taking suspensions, and somehow this would be a government of transparency, the sunlight would shine in and this Prime Minister would run a new system, a more transparent system. But do you think that has happened today? Again, no, it hasn't. It hasn't happened, because the Prime Minister doesn't want to talk about his role in dividing our nation in a way that no predecessor of his has since Federation.</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-10-16.83.3) to suspend the usual procedural rules - known as standing orders - in order to let another vote take place.
- ### Motion text
- > *That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving immediately:*
- >
- > *That the House:*
- >
- > *(1) condemns the Prime Minister for:*
- >
- >> *(a) dividing Australians through his Voice referendum;*
- >>
- >> *(b) failing to listen to all Australians;*
- >>
- >> *(c) wasting over $450 million in taxpayer dollars;*
- >>
- >> *(d) refusing to provide Australians with detail on the Voice;*
- >>
- >> *(e) refusing to compromise in the national interest; and*
- >>
- >> *(f) refusing to follow established referendum procedures;*
- >
- > *(2) is of the opinion that all Australians deserve the very best of what our nation has to offer and that differences of opinion do not diminish our love for our country or our regard for each other; and*
- >
- > *(3) therefore calls on the Prime Minister to:*
- >
- >> *(a) support the Opposition's call for a Royal Commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities;*
- >>
- >> *(b) audit spending on Indigenous programs; and*
- >>
- >> *(c) support practical policy ideas to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians to help Close the Gap.*
<p>It's important to point out that the Prime Minister has taken the nation on a $450 million merry-go-round that has resulted in a situation where he raised expectations for Indigenous Australians. He told them that he could deliver an outcome which he never had capacity to deliver. He said to the Australian people that he was going to ask for their support but then refused to provide any of the detail, which, again, is completely and utterly without precedent. What prime minister takes the country to a position of division? What Prime Minister says to the Australian public, 'I have a proposal before you, the biggest change proposed to our nation's rule book, the insertion of a new chapter in the Constitution,' and then doesn't give the detail? There was no constitutional convention where there was a discussion of views, and Greg Craven's piece in the <i>Australian </i>today is constructive. There's been no point in our country's history where a prime minister hasn't sought a bipartisan position in relation to such a totemic issue. There's no precedent for it whatsoever.</p><p>The Prime Minister wasn't interested in the unifying moment. The unifying moment, as history now records, would have been to ask Australians whether they supported recognition of Indigenous Australians in our Constitution. The Prime Minister didn't do that. He sought to use the goodwill toward that recognition to mask the unpopularity of the Voice. His plan was to speak in this coded language—and you saw him chopping and changing over the course of the campaign as to what that language was, but essentially his proposition was to try and mask the Voice with constitutional recognition. Why did he do that? Because he knew that the Voice couldn't stand on its own two feet. He knew that he couldn't explain the design of it, because this Prime Minister is never across the detail.</p><p>We saw it during the campaign. We've seen it in relation to cost-of-living measures. We've seen it in relation to two budgets now. The Australian public is crying out for support from their Prime Minister, from their government, to help them with cost-of-living pressures, but this Prime Minister has been completely obsessed with the Voice for the last 17 months.</p><p>It came as a surprise to Australians on election night when, having had no real discussion in the course of the last election campaign, the Prime Minister announced that this would be his highest priority. So, instinctively, at the start, Australians of goodwill said, 'Okay, well, do we want to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas? Of course we do. So we support the Prime Minister's proposition. We take it at face value, in good faith'—expecting that the detail was going to be provided, expecting that there would be an understanding of how these practical outcomes could be delivered. But, instead, none of it was furnished. In fact, had there been success in the referendum on the weekend, had the 'yes' vote prevailed, the design process was due to have started this Monday. Now, I don't know whether they've leased office space. I don't know whether people have been employed. I don't know whether design architects have been engaged by the Commonwealth. But think about that proposition for a moment, because I think the Australian people thought about it over the course of this campaign. They were being asked to vote on the Saturday for something that was to be designed the following Monday.</p><p>The whole concept of cart and horse comes to mind here, but this Prime Minister stuck steadfastly with it. Why? I mean, why was he not able to explain it? Why did the design not start until after the vote had taken place? We know that he hadn't read the full detail. We know that he hadn't engaged properly to understand what it was that was being proposed. Whilst he stood at one point in this chamber waving around the Calma-Langton report—remember that—when we asked him for the details upfront, he said, 'Why don't you read the Calma-Langton report?' As it turns out, he'd never read it, because the Calma-Langton report didn't recommend going to a referendum, the way the Prime Minister did, at a cost of $450 million. The Calma-Langton report recommended that local and regional bodies be formed and provide advice to the government. That wasn't what the Prime Minister adopted. He went against even the advice of those experts that had put the model together.</p><p>Why did that expert body consider going to local and regional arrangements before going to a national model, which they'd recommended against? It was because they knew, as he did, that the Australian public wouldn't support it. Noel Pearson himself is on the record as having said this quite prophetically a number of years ago: the Australian public would not support a referendum question put to them that went to a model that hadn't been explained or hadn't been in practice to demonstrate how it could provide the outcomes.</p><p>This is no flippant situation that we're dealing with. This is a Prime Minister who made a conscious decision, ultimately searching for his Redfern moment or his apology moment. He wants to be one of the great leaders of the Labor Party. He sees himself as Bob Hawke. He regularly sees himself in the mirror as Bob Hawke. This bloke is no Bob Hawke, let me tell you that much. This bloke is not Bob Hawke. But I'll tell you who he is. Every single day the incompetence displayed by this Prime Minister and his ministers on rising electricity prices, on rising insurance bills, on getting less and less when you turn up to the supermarket for every dollar that you spend, has him looking more and more like his mentor: Kevin Rudd. K-Rudd, A-Albanese—A-Disaster-Albanese.</p><p>This Prime Minister is no light on the hill. There's no question about it. This Prime Minister is a fading light, a flickering light on the hill. He is a flake, and he doesn't have the capacity to show the leadership this country deserves. If this Prime Minister was a Hawke figure, if this Prime Minister had any of the capability or capacity of Bob Hawke, he would stand up and take responsibility for the reckless course that he has taken our country on over the course of the last month and a bit.</p><p>This country didn't deserve to be divided. Indigenous Australians deserve more from their Prime Minister. They didn't deserve to have their expectations raised unfairly and without any opportunity or likely prospect of success. We stood in this chamber and we advised the Prime Minister respectfully, having asked question after question for the detail, that this would not pass on the vibe. The Prime Minister decided instead to go down a path to divide our country and spend $450 million that could have provided endless support to Indigenous communities, to those kids. This Prime Minister does not deserve the support of the Australian people.</p> <p class="speaker">Maria Vamvakinou</p><p>Is the motion seconded?</p> <p class="speaker">Sussan Ley</p><p>I second the motion. I'm delighted to support the Leader of the Opposition in this suspension of standing and sessional orders. In so doing, I condemn this Prime Minister for his divisive and incompetently managed referendum. I condemn this Prime Minister for refusing to hold a constitutional convention, making no effort whatsoever to achieve bipartisanship, wasting $450 million of taxpayer money and proceeding with his personal vanity project when it was so, so clear that it was going to go disastrously wrong. This is the referendum that Australia did not need to have.</p><p>The Prime Minister's incompetence has split Australia right down the middle, and still he refuses to apologise. I listened carefully on Saturday night. I heard a reluctant acknowledgement of taking responsibility and then an immediate blame-shift because that's what this Prime Minister does. He doesn't understand that, when you are at the top of the country, you get to take responsibility. Instead of accepting blame, his response was a bit like, 'Oh well, we tried.' He made this outrageous claim that this was an election promise and therefore it was delivered. It was a rare moment, actually, when the facade cracked and we finally saw the Prime Minister admit that this was always about the electoral politics. Today he kept a straight face and he bemoaned the fact that referendums don't succeed without bipartisan support. But Prime Minister, in the Liberal and National parties, we decided more than six months ago that we wouldn't give this referendum bipartisan support.</p><p>The Prime Minister's a well-known political hack. He's a student of political history. He knew that we would not support this referendum, but he chose to proceed anyway. It's just not good enough from our nation's leader. As I've said for months, if I were an advocate of the 'yes' campaign, I would be so disappointed with this Prime Minister. I would be so disappointed in how he handled this referendum and made his case because Australians across this country have been confronted with an arrogant prime minister whose first words as national leader were to write a cheque he should have known he was never in a position to cash.</p><p>His first pledge on election night was to enact in full a proposition which was completely unfamiliar to the Australian people. It was a commitment he made with a mandate that was manufactured from a technicality but not transparency. It was a promise he made to our First Australians that he could never keep. In the 18 months since, time and again the Prime Minister has arrogantly placed ideology over practicality. He tried to wedge his political opponents for electoral benefit, but what did we see this Prime Minister do? He took a 65 per cent majority for yes to an almost 65 per cent majority for no, directly because of his decisions. He ignored all warnings. He failed to course-correct. He made it clear that it was his way or the highway, and he forced Australians to choose the highway. He's taken us to a moment of national disunity, and it's hurt our country.</p><p>Indigenous Australians and many people across the community have walked a long way in this process. I want to acknowledge those many people who have invested a great deal in good faith to this effort. But, in putting his own political legacy before a long walk of reconciliation, the Prime Minister sprinted ahead and left Australians behind. It's a familiar theme. He charges ahead on this, and he leaves Australians behind. He's left Australians behind every single day since he became Prime Minister. The Australian people have responded clearly in rejecting this divisive approach. Now the Prime Minister should apologise. He should apologise for how he has mishandled this process.</p><p>This suspension motion is not just about condemning the Prime Minister, important though that is. It's about a better way as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. It's about practical things that we can get on with right here and right now: a royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities—how can this Prime Minister today arrogantly dismiss that suggestion with a jeer and a sneer that we're all so familiar with in this place?—and a careful audit of the expenditure on Indigenous programs, the money that comes from government and goes out into the community. Every taxpayer deserves the best value for their dollar, but, most importantly, every Indigenous Australian deserves the best value for their dollar.</p><p>We have never ever stepped back from what we have always said in Indigenous Australians policy: we will support practical policy ideas that improve the lives of Indigenous Australians, that help close the gap and that allow us to come together and forge a better path forward to deliver a better future for this country, because Australians should be proud of our country. We're fair minded, good hearted, compassionate people, and we care. We care about the future of this country and the future of our Indigenous communities. It was outrageous that we did not go ahead with this suspension earlier and debate this important issue for the Australian people. Shame on the Prime Minister!</p> <p class="speaker">Matt Thistlethwaite</p><p>The government respects and accepts the decision of the Australian people that was made on the weekend in the referendum. This referendum was an idea that came from First Nations Australians. A voice to parliament was an idea that came from First Nations Australians, and the referendum was always about keeping faith with those First Nations Australians and the Australian people and delivering on the commitment that the government made, prior to the last election, to hold a referendum of the Australian people on the issue of a voice to parliament. We maintained that commitment on the weekend.</p><p>Now, the issue of constitutional recognition of First Nations Australians is something that was established by the previous coalition government. It was a process that was started by the Abbott government. There were literally thousands of consultations that took place across the country by First Nations Australians, culminating in a constitutional convention at Uluru in 2017. The Uluru constitutional convention was very clear with the Statement from the Heart and a request of government to hold a referendum of the Australian people to enshrine a voice in the Constitution. This government delivered on that commitment. We delivered on that commitment on the weekend, and the one thing that you can say about the Prime Minister out on the weekend is that the Prime Minister is a man of his word. He did what he said he would do in the lead-up to the last election.</p><p>Contrast that with the leader of the opposition.</p><p>Opposition member s interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Maria Vamvakinou</p><p>The member for Kingsford Smith will resume his seat. Order! I can't hear. There's too much noise. The member for Kingsford Smith has the call.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|