The Chaser Report - Peter Dutton Applauds "Regressive Voice"

Episode Date: May 22, 2023

You're the voice try and understand it, would someone shut Peter Dutton up whoaaa ohhh ohhhhhhh Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Chaser Report is recorded on Gatigal Land. Striving for mediocrity in a world of excellence, this is The Chaser Report. Hello and welcome to The Chaser Report with Dom and Charles. Stop. Stop. What? Be very afraid. Why? Charles. Charles, Australia is about to be destroyed. Oh.

Everything's over. Everything we've built. Oh, no. Everything we've created. What? Our entire society is, it's going to shrivel and die. You can't leave our listeners on tenderhooks like this, Don. Tell us what's happening. Listen to a podcast, run, new fools, run.

Peter Dutton's just given a speech in the parliament moments ago. Oh, yeah. Before we're recording this. And he warned that the voice, the voice, Charles, it's coming. The voice is coming for us. It's the most, and I quote, the most radical change to Australia since Federation. Well, I suppose in some ways it's true. What?

The idea that we would have to listen to Indigenous people. I know. I know, we have to consult them. Charles, what he said is it's regressive. It's not progressive, it's regressive. It's going to turn back to the clock to the days when we used to consult Aboriginal people on every decision. It's very regressive.

That's what he says. And the Prime Minister, he's dividing us, you see? Oh, people who said Peter Dutton's dividing us. He's not, no, no, not at all. He's simply setting Aboriginal people against everybody else. What Albo is doing is dividing us, you see? Dividing us between racists and not racist. Because the National Anthem, the National Anthem says,

And he said, and he made this argument as well, Australians all let us rejoice for we, it was young and free, then we made it, because it's old cultures. We actually acknowledged Aboriginal Peach Bowl and made it one and free, because we are one and free. And that's enough.

And he's dividing us into people who get a voice and people who don't. Because when this goes through Charles, people like you and me, white people, we won't get any voice in Parliament anymore. Well, I've always been sick of not being consulted on Indigenous issues. I mean, when I look at the Parliament, Charles,

it won't just exclude me. it'll exclude people like Tony Abbott, who, after all, used to be the Indigenous Affairs Minister. Yeah, Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs, I believe. It's actually excluding experts on Indigenous things, like Tony Abbott. When I look at the Parliament Charles now, when I look at the people in there representing me, I see a few people who don't look like me. I see people who aren't white men.

Increasingly, is there a dozen, maybe 20 of them in there now? And this is divisive. Yes, it's very divisive. You know what Peter Dutton's going to happen. to do. What's you going to have to do? He's going to have to seek sanctuary in the ABC so that he doesn't run into any non-white people.

He could. I can't comment on that for reasons of other work that I do. But no, look, this is terrifying. Look, what he says, let me tell you, it's a reckless roll of the dice. And once it's in the constitution, you can't take it out. Oh, really? There has to be a voice. Admittedly, legislation could say that the voice was like one guy.

Yes. You can make it whatever you want. You've just got to have a thing called the voice to parliament. But I'm still, I'm very. But also, they had this process of consultation, right, that looked at the proposal for the referendum. And Peter Dutton calls it a 4.5-day committee, a kangaroo court, led by a government that never wanted to entertain changes to its bill. Charles, the kangaroos are running the country now.

What's going on? I just thought, I thought the voice was, I mean, Julian Lisa helped design this thing, right? Julian Lisa is the most conservative person. We're on the Constitution in the parliament. Yes. He helped design this, right? Yes. But apparently even he is a radical now.

But do you think maybe you're misinterpreting it? Like, it's only been minutes since Petter Dutton said that. Yeah, this is hot off the page, you know, hot off the Hansard pages. Maybe the thing is that when Petter Dutton said, this thing is regressive, the voice is regressive, he was actually praising the voice, saying, oh, this is going back to the old days of regressiveness. Do you see what I mean? Like, because you can't just take Peter. his sort of attitude, yeah, is so different to ours that maybe what he was,

and the idea that we should be scared of it, maybe, you know, even the idea that it divides Australia, maybe he's sort of going, isn't that great? It divides up Australia. It's interesting point. I mean, this is the man who previously warned about African gangs in Melbourne. Yes. And dividing everybody. Yes.

He wasn't being divisive. He was just warning about a particular racial group. Group, yes. It was just being helpful. No, just very helpful. But look, following Peter Dutton's comments, Linda Burney, the Indigenous Australian minister... Who presumably Peter Dutton doesn't want to listen to him.

Got up, got up and spoke. She blasted Peter Dutton, according to the Guardian, for spreading, and I quote, misinformation and scare campaigns about the Indigenous voice. She said, we've just heard in one speech every bit of disinformation, misinformation, misinformation and scare campaigns that exist in this debate. Now, wouldn't it be better if we didn't have to listen to things...

If we just listen to Peter Dutton, without an indigenous person getting up and talking about indigenous rights. See, because the thing that spoiled it was not Peter Dutton's comments. It was the fact that then he was called out about those comments. Straight away, yeah. Is that what it's going to be like? It's going to be like that. You can't get up and say something.

You're going to have lippy indigenous people. You can't just get up and make false statements about a referendum without immediately being called out by an indigenous affairs minister. I mean, does that rate? Imagine all the. half-truths and mistruths that you won't be able to spread anymore. I mean, oh, Charles, I'm just very worried. I'm just worried.

Because for centuries, our government and the executive. It's been fine. They've been able to make laws about people without having to face up to them. And no one, no one's out there going, oh, look, we're stuffed up. Things have gone wrong with First Nations people. I think everyone agrees that we've done a tip-top job over the last 220 years. Oh, that's what the voice will say. I think the voice will just say, thank you.

Thank you for an incredibly kind That's why they want the voice It's just to be grateful Thanks for the life expectancy you've given us Thanks for the amazing economic benefits that we've had Thanks for always honouring our culture And listening and listening Yeah

The voice is just going to give us a bunch of flowers Yes But what next Charles I mean if this voice gets up If Peter Dutton is ignored If we at our peril Ignore Peter Dutton's solemn warning Are we going to have to you know

have an impact statement for every piece of environmental legislation that's going to be put through. It's the thin end of the weird. Are we going to have to look at consequences every time we have a big radical change? That's right. Like everything. I mean, this is not just environment and indigenous issues, but basically everything. I mean, you'd have to sort of, every time you hand out a government contract, you'd have to make sure it wasn't corrupt under that.

Yeah, no, I understand PWC is handling that process. Oh, they've got a tender in. It's more expensive than the other tenders, but I think it's going to get up somehow. I don't really know how. So it's very scary. It's very radical. I just want to know what's going to happen. I mean, can Peter Dutton save us, particularly when he's so unpopular.

Let's have a look at the history of scare campaigns in Australia over the last 30 years. Oh, this will be terrifying. Every single time anyone runs a scare campaign, they win. Well, I can think of one exception. Name one. I can name one. I can name one. I can name one.

I can name one. Same sex marriage. But was it, and Charles, we were warned during the same-sex marriage debate by former Senator Eric Abetz. If this was going to get up, Charles, it would be a slippery slope and the next step would be people marrying bridges. Yes. And I must say, that has been the biggest disappointment of the last decade, is that we got this gay marriage stuff in. And then we didn't see any bridge marriages, which I was really looking forward to. I was thinking, you know, that's, you know, not every day you go to a wedding where somebody's marrying a bridge.

Like, that would have been really fun. Well, Charles, it's true. I mean, I've been looking for years to leave my wife for the Anzac Bridge. I don't know whether you know. Oh, it's a beautiful bridge. It's the tort cables are just stunning. Very, very, very, very long. It's got curves in all the right places.

But have you seen what they've done to the Anzac Bridge just in the last couple of days? Oh, they're putting up the signage. Yeah, they're putting up signage on the road so the big trucks will now get stuck under the signs. makes it all hotter. Yeah, yeah. It's just, it's just, they're just bedecking. They're just bedecking the bridge for my nuptials. Big trucks can't even fit.

Or maybe, maybe it's a dishy little footbridge. It would have been a better option. I mean, of all that, that was an, so that kids scare campaign didn't work in the end. The people of Australia overwhelmingly endorsed same-sex marriage. That is true. So what was different? Why did that? Was it because it was just a palpably stupid campaign that, that, that, that,

Nobody believed because nobody trusts the Liberal Party. The problem was that there were no arguments against it. The problem was, as I recall, that whenever someone made an argument saying that Satan sex marriage would ruin everything, it was just stupid. It wasn't convincing at all. They just, given, unless you found gay people terrifying, there was nothing really to argue. Are there convincing arguments against the voice? Like, is there something, what are the arguments against the voice?

Well, it seems to be, Charles, the main thing is, it's one of these things that the right like to do is a very clever piece of rhetorical judo. It's kind of the Karl Rove thing. We argue that instead of achieving the thing that you're going to achieve, it will achieve the opposite. Ah, yes. The argument's in favour for the voice is that it will create equality

and kind of redress the appallinglyness of colonisation. You know, coming up and just grabbing a country, right? It'll just be a first step along that way. We're a first step to actually making First Nations people more equal. Because you can't do things, you know, like the whole idea is nothing without, what is it? Nothing about us without us. Nothing about us without us. Because then, you know, the history of Australia is we keep making these laws about indigenous people

without actually consulting them. I mean, when's that ever happened except for the NT intervention and a million. So there's that. And it's important to note that it's just about asking. This is the thing. It's not like there's a veto. It's not like there's a treaty. Okay, I get all the thing in favour.

What's the argument against? Well, this is what I'm saying about how they use the logic against the point. So it's meant to be about promoting equality, right, to raise up first nations people. And they're saying it will destroy equality because right now we have equal rights in front of the law. But once the voice gets up, a certain group of Australians will be allowed to have a voice to parliament. But what about parliamentarians? They've already got a voice to parliament. Like, I didn't say that was a good argument.

I just said that's the logic that they're using. So, wait a minute. By their logic, MPs shouldn't also have a voice to parliament because that's prioritising MPs above other people. That's true. That's true. When Peter Dutton speaks to parliament, he gets a biased, unfair, unequal voice. I don't have. Look, and I support anything that prevents Peter Dutton from having a voice to parliament, I would

support. So in some ways, I mean, maybe. we need a sort of radical restructure. You want to do it, Athenian style. Get rid of parliamentary. Everyone gets up in an assembly. I mean, by everyone we mean all the men. But let's say we had a modern version of that.

All citizens assembled and just we all got to speak. And New Zealanders or not New Zealanders? No, I don't think so. I mean, Charles, let's be clear. This is not a slippery slope to a voice for New Zealanders, okay? It's only for First Nations members. We're not going to have a Kiwi voice. I think that that is what the people are fearing.

I think that what the government now has to do and the pro-voice campaign has to do is pivot all their ads away from all that. I don't know whether you've seen them, but they're sort of very cheesy, warm, fun, you know, positive ads, right? And instead, run a reassurance campaign that New Zealanders are not going to get a voice. That's good.

Because you know what's going to happen, Charles. If this gets up, if the voice gets up, it's a slippery slope. Yes. It's the same as Cory Bernardi Warner. So we're going to have a voice for. for Bridges before long. Bridges are going to get a voice in Parliament representing her position. Imagine how boring, you know, speech from a bridge would be.

It would be very tedious. Oh, I've got some, I've got some bolts. I've got some strain in my steel. And then only after that, to be clear. The tensile strength of my cables is not what it used to be. To be clear, to be clear, it is only after that the voice for Bridges was legislated that we would think about a voice for New Zealanders. Right? Let's get the priorities clear here.

No, we would never think. Like, I think, I think that's a real risk is if, yeah, like, let's hope that nobody listens to this podcast from the no-camp. Oh, yeah. Because imagine if they ran a scare campaign against a voice for New Zealand. See, I just think, if you're going to look at minority groups, like saying that that was where it was going to end up. Yeah, the whole of Australia.

Yeah, we'd just turn against it. The Chaser Report, news you can't trust. I mean, if we're giving minority groups, and I hope they're a minority group, I don't actually know anymore, but I hope they are. Who? When's they going to be a voice for racists? When's they going to be a chance that when a policy is suggested, a racist gets to get up and make a false statement about it? It's Pauline Hanson. She already has a voice to Parliament.

Oh, and Mark Latham's in the... Not that we're calling them racist, because we want to sue. No, they're definitely racist. That's just a thing that's been said by people who've looked at what their words of... about it up to and have concluded that they're racist. Sure, Dom, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

It's not but they're racist. Yeah, no. It's just that if you follow their arguments, you dislike certain racists. You see, I wouldn't want to call them racist. That would be, that would be prejudiced of me, wouldn't it? No, it wouldn't it be based on the sum title of their output? It hasn't been the most edifying debate so far, has it, Charles. I mean, we thought initially at the start of this, there was a chance that Peter Dutton

would actually engage in the substance of the debate from a position of actually wanting Did you? No, did you really? Did anyone really? That was how it looked. That was how it looked for the wild. That's what Julian Lisa, I think, probably expected to happen. Yeah, well, he's an idiot then.

No one thought, Peter, don't. But the guy who wanted to stop the boats and talked about African gangs and who used to be a Queensland cop was going to turn around and a leader civil rights movement for First Nations people? What the fuck? The guy who left Parliament of a church. during the apology. Yeah, yeah.

And to be clear, Charles, in hindsight, it's not because he didn't agree with saying, sorry, it's because he wasn't, he was worried it wasn't going to be practical enough to help people, First Nations people in need. Remember that? Isn't that his exact same argument about the voice, that it's not practical enough?

Yeah, and look, to be fair, to be fair to Peter Dunn, it must have been so, can you imagine how upsetting it was for Peter for the nine years that he was in government, he was in government on the government benches as a senior minister, unable to help, unable to achieve practical outcomes. He was just, every day went to Parliament thinking,

how can I just muck in and make outcomes better for First Nations people? And he was stymied in that, Charles, stymied. Yes, well, the thing that really needs to happen is clearly nothing. I mean, that's Peter Dutton's answer. Like, we've got this terrible problem. So the current proposal should not happen. I don't think he wants nothing to happen. I think he wants the people of Australia to just rise up.

Oh, yeah. And spontaneously put him in government. Because if that doesn't happen, I mean, basically, the stakes are high for Peter Dutton. Yes. If the people of Australia don't take to the streets in their millions and demanding a Dutton government overnight, he's going to get knifed by one of his colleagues, isn't it?

He's not going to last until the election at this rate. Oh, you reckon? No. But what if he triumphantly prevents the voice from happening? Like, what if he leads a successful... Or do you think that it's just not going to happen? Well, I don't know. It's true.

If he manages to get the no case over the line, that'll stave them off for a little while, but the polls aren't going to improve. People aren't going to suddenly like him because he stopped the voice. Because the voice is going to get... Isn't the voice going to get a majority nationally? It's just a question of the small states.

I mean, we're just getting serious now rather than looking. I'm very scared, Charles. Remember when I was very scared? Oh, yeah, that's right. You're scared about... I'm very scared. I've got to maintain the same character throughout the course of an episode.

Yeah, look, I don't know. I mean... But imagine his satisfaction. Charles. Imagine petted up in satisfaction if, if he prevails if the referendum fails, if the answer is no, no voice, to be able to just get up the day after the referendum and just think about just the slight possibility of listening to First Nations people. Just consoling them. And being able to say, being able to say, I stopped that.

I'm the one, like he's going to get a little statue like Scott Morrison's little boat. You know, he's going to have a little statue of First Nations people and go, I stopped their voice. Stop them from speaking. But we're going to listen to these people at one point, but I stopped it. I mean, he could probably retire then, couldn't he? Job done. Yeah, job done. Job done.

He doesn't need to be Prime Minister, as long as he can stop. I hope he understands that, because it seems very unlikely to happen. But look, just getting back to the fear, I think you're right. I think we need Peter Dutton to be, I don't know whether there's some sort of constitution, maybe we can change the Constitution to make it happen, that he gets drafted into the Prime Minister to stop this terribly scary thing. They did it with Whitlam and Fraser. I mean, the Governor-General could jump in and make it happen.

Because I'm thinking, I think Australia will be divided. I think Bridges will keep on being married. I know. I think Indigenous people will feel more respected. I mean, just terrible things will happen. It's not quite heading in that direction given Stan Grant's just left a public life because he's been handed out of it by racists. So there is that thing that's happened.

Even if the voice gets up, there's not much danger, I think, of an outpouring of respect and affection for First Nations people that hasn't happened before. I think it's all going to be the same Australia, isn't it? Oh, that's true. Yeah. Oh, yeah. I mean, you're right.

We'll just... I know, that might seem a bit bleak, but it's just... Poor Stan Grant. Have you read his articles? Like, they're just so... You just feel so sorry for all that his family's been through, and that's the trap, Charles. They want you to feel guilty.

Now, my understanding is, A lot of the sort of, you know, fever pitch criticism of Stan Grant came after his appearance on the coronation stuff, wasn't it? Yeah, he actually, it was really inappropriate what he did. Well, he outlined the history. He made the point that there were people here before the Royal Family grabbed it and that there was trauma resulting from that act. I know.

What a joke. What a doubt. You can see why none of the ABC management backed him in. What a downer. Controversial. Can you imagine, like, it's the biggest party for King Charles. Charles III, and this guy is just getting out going, oh, we were here first.

Ooks, a bit awkward. I mean, I know it's been nice for you, Charles, but for us it was kind of multi-generational trauma. Pick another day, Stan. Pick another day. It was the King's party. It's become a bit bleak again in this podcast, isn't it? Yeah, there was a period in about 2020 and 2021

where we got really bleak for a while. It got very depressing. It got very depressing. We're back there. I don't know why. It's just pondering race relations in Australia somehow, Charles, as a, it's just, it's been the mood. Yeah.

Okay, good. Well, when the voice gets up, we'll allow ourselves, if it gets up, we'll allow ourselves a moment of, yeah, a moment of just actually thinking. Yeah. I mean, Stan Grant, we'll probably have come back by then. So who will, whose voice will even be listened to? Because whoever is in the voice,

whoever actually is the voice to Parliament, whichever group gets to make those representations, they better have thick skins because, oh my God, they're going to come for them, aren't they? His corpse is going to shit on them from a great height over the hour. Well, I wonder whether, because Peter Dutton's going to be sort of out of a job, basically, is what you're saying. Maybe he should represent Indigenous people. Tony Abbott's style.

I mean, Tony Abbott could do it as well. Tony Abbott could be the voice to Parliament. It could be Tony and Peter. Because Peter Dutton, if you listen to what he says, he says he's going to talk to a lot of first-nacious people across the country. He talked to one. When pressed to say who it was, The details have been scant. But he's definitely met some Indigenous person somewhere who said no,

and that he's really clung to that no. So there you go, that's, we've all wanted to know what the model's going to be. It's Peter Dutton and Tony Abbott. I love it. Okay, unless we've resolved that. Our Gears from Roe, we're part of the iconoclast network, and tomorrow we've got an upbeat episode about the Nazis. About the scourge of Nazis in Victoria.

Catch you then.