PM’s response to question on Q&A sought to sow division by suggesting voice would have veto powers, critics say

This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

Malcolm Turnbull was disrespectful, dismissive, and “elaborately dishonest” about Indigenous recognition during Monday’s Q&A appearance, a range of critics have said.

Turnbull was combative during his solo appearance on the ABC’s penultimate Q&A episode for the year, particularly when questioned about why he rejected the voice to parliament proposal put forward by the Referendum Council and the Uluru conference.

Audience member Teela Reid, a Wiradjuri & Wailwan woman and lawyer who was part of the constitutional dialogue process, said the government gave Indigenous people the opportunity to tell it what they thought meaningful recognition was.

Turnbull's Uluru statement rejection is 'mean-spirited bastardry' – legal expert Read more

“We rejected symbolism and reached a national consensus for a representative First Nations voice to advise parliament on the issues that affect our lives,” Reid said. “Not a third chamber and not an advisory council handpicked by you, and not even those MPs that are in parliament currently.”

In response Turnbull said: “I can tell you it would effectively be a third chamber, let me explain why.” He described a hypothetical assembly elected by Indigenous people which advised the parliament on laws affecting Indigenous people.

ABC Q&A (@QandA) Why won’t you respect Indigenous Australians’ desire for a First Nations Voice and take it to a referendum? @TurnbullMalcolm responds #QandA pic.twitter.com/ugaj5YfqoS

“That would mean that that assembly would have the right, if it so chose, to examine every piece of legislation, it would be in effect a third chamber.”

Reid said Turnbull was undermining democracy and Australia needed a leader “with courage”. “In his dismissal of the Uluru statement, [the prime minister] clearly showed no respect to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who participated in those significant dialogues.”

Former members of the Referendum Council have repeatedly rejected the claim that it recommended a third chamber and maintained it deliberately left the detail of its operation up to parliament to determine.

The response to Turnbull’s comments on social media was blistering. On Tuesday morning Bill Shorten said he was shocked by Turnbull’s responses to Reid.

Bill Shorten (@billshortenmp) I was honestly shocked by this - the total disrespect and dismissal of the legitimate aspirations of our First Australians. Turnbull would do well to lecture a lot less, and listen a lot more. https://t.co/X4HpOVtBj1

“The total disrespect and dismissal of the legitimate aspirations of our First Australians. Turnbull would do well to lecture a lot less, and listen a lot more,” the opposition leader said.

Professor Megan Davis, a constitutional law expert and member of the disbanded Referendum Council, accused Turnbull of “bluster” and being “elaborately dishonest” in suggesting the voice would have veto power and would examine every piece of legislation.

Under the council’s recommendations, the voice would consider only those laws under the two constitutional powers regarding race and territories.

The functions of the voice to parliament would be determined by parliament, Davis said. “It’s a major feature of the reform; the decision to defer detail to the parliamentarians. The contours of the voice rests with them.”

Noel Pearson says Turnbull lying over Indigenous voice to parliament Read more

Thomas Mayor, co-chair of the Uluru working group and secretary of the NT Maritime Union of Australia, accused Turnbull of being arrogant and a “whitesplainer”. “He doesn’t want a voice because he doesn’t like collectives of grassroots people,” Mayor tweeted.



Shireen Morris, a senior adviser and constitutional reform research fellow at Cape York Institute, accused Turnbull of being divisive.

She tweeted: “Turnbull trying to divide & conquer unsuccessfully – suggesting words like “token” which [Reid] didn’t say – he did. Trying to create a wedge, but can’t: Uluru is a consensus First Nations position.”

Nigel Browne, the chief executive of the Larrakia development corporation and recently appointed member of the federal government’s Indigenous reference group on northern development, said the proposal “never was a third chamber”.

Former senator Nova Peris said Turnbull was “painfully condescending”.

On Q&A Turnbull accused Reid of placing “little store” by Indigenous members of parliament such as Ken Wyatt and Linda Burney, suggesting she was dismissing them as “tokens”, which Reid denied.

“They’ve both got political positions to make in parliament,” Reid said.

Tweeting after the show, Reid said she had the utmost respect for Indigenous MPs, “but the PM knows they do not represent the interests of First Nations Australians. He should also know it is his task to ‘lead’ on formulating a model of the [First Nations] voice to parliament! The proposal is not a veto on all laws.”



Gemma McKinnon (@barkindji) Does our PM seriously not understand that black MPs are representatives of their electorates and parties? And not elected by our mob to represent our interests? #QandA

Turnbull dismissed polling, cited by Reid, which showed majority public support for the proposed voice. “If it were put up in a referendum it would go down in flames. That’s my view,” he said.

The council’s final report called for a “representative body” to give First Australians “a voice to parliament”.

“No one has suggested there be an attempt to enshrine in the constitution provisions of the kind more appropriately left to parliament,” it said.

“Legislation of the parliament would deal with how the body is to be given an appropriately representative character and how it can properly and most usefully discharge its advisory functions. It is not suggested that the body should have any kind of veto power.”

The proposal was recently endorsed by a United Nations committee on the elimination of racial discrimination.

The council’s report contradicted claims the proposal came out of nowhere, saying it had notified the prime minister and opposition leader in April 2016 of its inclusion as an extra option to consider.

Last month Noel Pearson accused Turnbull of “lying” about his rejection of the proposal because he had previously supported it.