DAVID EPSTEIN, HOST: So we have a few questions for the audience, if you don't mind. The first is a question about sovereignty. There's been a lot of debate, and indeed, suggestions from some people about the order of doing things and perhaps they should be Treaty first, or other actions on sovereignty, before we act on a Voice. Where does the Voice leave sovereignty?
ANTHONY ALBANESE, PRIME MINISTER: Thank you, David. I make two points on that. One, and it is backed up by Justice French in the position that he puts eloquently this weekend and he's written a piece, but also something that was very much confirmed by the Constitutional group that we have advising the Referendum Working Group that includes people such as Justice Hayne, a former High Court Justice, it include Anne Twomey, it includes a range of constitutional experts, is that the vote and referendum will have no impact on the issue of sovereignty. No impact. It is very, very clear. And hence, I think there are a range of issues that have been raised and answered, that I think is answered really clearly and eloquently when you've got former High Court Justices such as the Chief Justice, Justice French. I think that's clear. The other thing is about processes. The Uluru Statement from the Heart made it very clear, ot speaks about Voice Truth Treaty. It made it very clear that their request from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people was not unanimous. So why should we think that any group would have exactly the same views? There are a few hundred people in this room, I'm sure that there are different views about a whole range of things. And it seems to me, though, that what occurred at Uluru was literally thousands of conversations that since then has continued. And, overwhelmingly, the people who issued the statement at Uluru made it very clear that that a Voice enshrined in the Constitution was the first process that they wanted and it's important to respect that. That is what the government is doing. And that's why we think this is such an important step. Recognition in the Constitution has been spoken about since 1967, but particularly since early 1990s and we've never quite got there. And that's why for those who say, 'it is a risk having a referendum, because referendums in Australia, for our UK friends, are pretty hard. And they have not been successful, there hasn't been a successful referendum in this country for half a century. But the risk of not proceeding with a vote is clear; it's a 100 per cent guarantee of not having success, of failure. And I've said before, it's like saying you're worried about losing a grand final so we'll just not run on the field and forfeit. For those people who have campaigned - if you trace this back: 2012 the process kicked off for constitutional recognition, five years consultation to 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart, the parliamentary inquiry co-chaired by Pat Dodson and Julian Leeser, the Calma-Langton report went to the former Cabinet twice - we're in 2023. I always say: if not now, when? How long is it before we say that we're going to put it to the Australian people, which is why we are determined to do just that.
EPSTEIN: In your remarks you touched on the strength of constitutional change versus other sorts of change. And made the obvious point, even when we've had representative bodies we've chosen at times, perhaps because we felt uncomfortable, to remove for various reasons. Pat Dodson touched on similar points yesterday, and went deeper. And he spoke off the impact of some court decisions on the 67 changes that, in fact, enabled governments not merely to ignore voices at their choice, but in some stages, actively act or disregard voices. Why do we have a group of people still saying we should be looking at things in a legislative manner first, and what are they afraid of?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, I think for those people saying we should have legislated many of those people were, of course, in government for nine years and didn't. I'm not critical of that, I'm just saying that, that's just a fact. It's a bit like the new argument that came up a couple of days ago of Constitutional Convention. Why aren't we doing that? We didn't do that in 1967, we didn't have a Constitutional Convention. We have had more process leading up to this than we had in the lead up to the Republic. This has been going on for years. There have been multiple inquiries. So I think it is time to have recognition in our Constitution. It is important that that occur, and the form of recognition, which is how this process leading up to Uluru began that was initiated in 2012, is that they want a Voice to Parliament. This isn't something that was come up with by myself and Tony Burke and Linda White sitting around a caucus room. We weren't part of that process. This is something that people have come up with themselves. So you have seen some rather odd commentary. When I've said, 'Yeah, this isn't my idea' it's like, 'Oh, he's distancing himself from it'. For goodness sake. I wasn't at Uluru. But I respect the processes that led up to that. It's a big call to sound distancing myself from this process. I haven't noticed that myself. So I think this is important. And I'll make this point. Last Friday, the Statement of Intent that was signed by Premiers and Chief Ministers did not come from the Commonwealth. It came from them, it came from State and Territory leaders across the political spectrum. And when they were asked about it at the press conference after the National Cabinet meeting, Dominic Perrottet said clearly, 'this should be above politics'. And that is what all of the Premiers and Chief Ministers agreed. There is progress. There is a young woman in my electorate, Cheree Toka, a young Indigenous woman who started a campaign in a petition, from the bottom up again, about the Aboriginal flag flying on the Sydney Harbour Bridge. It was said that the world was going to end if we did that. The Government and Opposition in New South Wales united to make sure that happened. And guess what? The Australian flag and the Aboriginal flag looks pretty good. It hasn't undermined anyone's rights. It hasn't hurt anybody. Just a simple symbol of of who we are and the fullness and richness of our history. And I sincerely hope that we can get as much support across the political spectrum as possible. I make this point: I get the same vote as everyone in this room. This is something that has come from the bottom up, from the people. And we're going to give the people the vote. And I am heartened by churches and faith groups I've met with across the spectrum, FECCA, the ethnic communities, sporting organisations, Cricket Australia, Tennis Australia, the NRL, the AFL, basketball, netball, all out there saying yes, and that they want to campaign for for a yes vote. Business organisations: the BCA, Australian Industry Group, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Minerals Council of Australia, individual corporations - I met with some of the resources companies in Perth last Wednesday - all out there campaigning. The trade union movement, both the peak, but individual unions and workplaces talking about this as well. Individual businesses are there talking to their workforce about why this will be a moment of respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, for non-Indigenous Australians a chance for us to all be a part of a moment that embraces the fullness and richness of our history, and for the world to look at Australia as a more mature nation, committed to reconciliation. My door is open, still. It will remain open for consultation and for engagement. As I said, no one's come up with any different words that are being proposed. We're part of the process as part of our democracy, but at the end of the day it's going to be a decision for Australians. And I'm heartened by the local campaigning that's not driven by any political party or any particular ideology, it's driven by people out there who who want this to happen, knocking on doors and making phone calls and getting out there in a really positive way. And that's why I say it can be the moment of national unity, this vote going forward.
EPSTEIN: One last question, and it may well have been partly answered in your last answer, actually, when you were talking about at the National Cabinet last week, where there were discussions about a whole range of policy issues, but also about this tremendous national endeavour. And in noting that I acknowledge the presence of the ACT Chief Minister, welcome Andrew. But we had someone ask, what about the claims that the campaign for this national endeavour is going to distort the political debate in at least the first quarter of the year and preoccupy the political debate in the short term? And what does that do for government? And in the longer term will twist or distort the considerations of government if it were to be implemented?
PRIME MINISTER: No, we're very focused on the responsibility we have of government. And that means addressing the cost of living challenges, it means addressing our national security issues. It means addressing the implementation of the changes that we received a mandate for last year. Ten days paid domestic and family violence leave came into place on February 1. Cheaper medicines came into place on January 1. Cheaper childcare will come in on July 1. We will be creating the National Reconstruction Fund and the Housing Australia Future Fund in the Parliament over the coming weeks. We will be responding to the Bell Inquiry with the legislation to stop myself appointing myself to be the Finance Minister, the Treasurer, et cetera. So we're doing all of that. Which is why this campaign won't be driven by parliamentarians. It will be driven by the community. And that's what we say, already, out there, as well. So my government has a very broad agenda of economic, social and environmental reform. And that will be our focus. But at the same time, how about we get this done as well?
ENDS