Do you agree there are no ongoing negative impacts of colonisation?
What's your view on this?
If you look at the history of humanity, just about every race, every religious group, every
country in the world has been colonised, has been invaded, has been attacked and what you
see - even look at England, for instance, we call them Anglo-Saxons.
Why do we call them Anglo Saxons?
Because there are two Germanic tribes who invaded and took over the country.
The question isn't about the ongoing trauma or anything like that, but the question is
how do we move forward?
You cannot go on forever saying colonisation... because it's just fact, it has happened, is
going to stop us from doing things, is going to stop us from improving our lives and keep
us in poverty.
If that's the statement, then I think we are heading up the wrong track.
But to move forward, you need to identify if there’s a problem and what's causing
it.
You yourself have said in the past, Warren Mundine, too many Indigenous people continue
to live in poverty and suffer the consequences.
This stems from past maltreatment and discrimination?
Of course that is.
That is just a fact.
We've got to recognise the problems of the past.
We have got to talk about our history factually and actually do things, but at the same time
we have to move forward.
If we do not move forward, then we are stuck in history.
We've got to move and improve our lives and get things done, and if we don't do that,
then we are just in a trap, a cycle, a Groundhog Day.
But the disadvantage that is there right now, that needs to be dealt with, is it in part
due to those ongoing impacts of colonisation?
Well, if that was the truth, then how can people like myself, how come Marcia Langton,
how come Noel Pearson, how come these people who have been very successful and done great
things?
All those doctors we have.
Plenty haven't though, Warren Mundine, you know that?
I'm not arguing that.
I don't think you heard what I said.
I said we need to face the facts and we need to do things.
The problem with the Voice campaign, and this is one of the lies of the Voice campaign,
is that Aboriginal people do not have a voice, and in actual fact we do.
We will come to that.
Aren't the facts clear in the Close the Gap figures.
Aren't they very clear that there is a gap across health, education, employment, incarceration
outcomes?
In some communities there is.
A Centre for Independent Studies had a study where the biggest gap is not between black
and white, but the biggest gap is between Aboriginals in cities and large provincial
towns and people living in remote and regional Australia.
This is where the problems are.
We have to stop treating all Aboriginal people the same.
We need to be focusing on the ones who are struggling and who are in need of support.
Just on this point of colonisation though.
January 26 marks the day the colony began.
You have argued many times Warren Mundine that we need to change the date of Australia
Day.
You’ve said it’s a day of invasion, a disastrous defining moment for Indigenous
people, that it represents conflict and conquest.
Is January 26 a symbol of that negative impact of colonisation?
Only if we let it be.
January 26 will always be an important day because of the fact that Europeans came to
Australia and set up the colonies here.
We can't get away from that, but we can't become captive of it.
We have to face the facts and move on from that.
Yes, recognise that history.
Yes, recognise the invasion, recognise the good and the bad that is in our history, but
we still have to move on.
Do you still want to change the date?
Yes, I'm a change-the-date person but I come up with a bad idea.
Why?
I said 1 January is the foundation date of our nation in 1901.
Being a good Aussie, I like my public holidays, I don't want to lose one.
Fair enough.
But the problem is...
Why do you want to change the date?
Because we are going through this parental - you know, annual argument which is not helping
us.
We are just arguing and arguing and arguing about this, and this is one of the reasons
why I believe that the idea that the Voice, when it is set up, isn't going to talk about
Australia Day is nonsense.
We need to confront it and talk about it.
We need to have a mature debate.
The problem we have is that when we try to pick a date, like I did, it runs into problems,
and so we have got to really work on it.
But you can see the contradiction here.
The "no" campaign is hopping into the idea of the Voice saying they want to change the
date.
You are one of the leading "no" campaigners, you want to change the date?
Yeah, that's correct, and I've always stood strong on this.
One of the things about this debate, I've always been honest, even though I know people
on my side don't agree with me on these two issues and that is treaties and that is changing
the date.
You support treaties.
Why?
I say treaties in the plural sense because we have got to recognise Aboriginal culture.
Aboriginal culture is our First Nations, and the first thing we learn about life is that
one nation cannot talk about another nation's country, only those traditional owners of
those countries can talk about those countries, and therefore when you talk about a state
treaty or a national-type treaty, it doesn't make sense in our culture.
So why do we need a whole bunch of treaties?
What's the reason?
Because we need to move on.
We've got to face the reality that there are 26 million other people in this country who
have come here and helped build this country in economic and other ways, and as a friend
of mine, Mick Goody used to say if you are looking at sovereignty and other issues like
that, then I hope you have a good repatriation program because there are 26 million other
people in this country.
What are you going to do with them?
But what are treaties going to solve?
It needs to resolve the issue of sovereignty, it needs to give certain protection of Aboriginal
culture and Aboriginal heritage on these lands and we are moving very strongly in that position
with the Land Rights Acts and the native title acts where Aboriginal people have a major
say on what happens on their land.
Through that process, 55 per cent of Australia now is in Aboriginal ownership.
We will probably get up to 70 to 80% in the next 10 to 20 years, I predict, but we need
to resolve these issues and stop these fights.
Do you think those treaties are more likely to happen if people vote "yes" or vote "no"
on October 14?
I have serious problems if it is a "yes" vote because these people are looking at putting
on top of the First Nation native title and land rights stuff, another body of bureaucracy.
We don't need another body of bureaucracy, we need to recognise those traditional owners.
We are more likely to get treaties if people vote "no"?
Yes.
Because on 15 October, if it is a "no" vote, that's when the real work starts.
As Jacinta said, the senator, she said we gotta have accountability.
We are spending billions of dollars every year and according to Closing the Gap we are
still not going places.
We have to deal with that.
So the message is vote "no" and the treaties process will really begin?
And also the real things about accountability, in education, in jobs and that needs to be
done.
Now, if we can do just three things - accountability, jobs and education - then we will resolve
most of the problems we've got.
Let's talk about the arguments for and against the Voice.
Australia has had various Indigenous advisory bodies over the years.
You led one of them for several years.
Yes.
This was the Indigenous Advisory Council, 12 members hand-picked by the Prime Minister
of the day, all taxpayer-funded, all able to provide advice to matters involving Indigenous
Australians.
Was that a successful model?
I don't know about being successful.
What we did was achieve things.
Some people get confused about it.
We were not a representative body.
We were black and white on that council.
We had experts in different areas from business to community groups and etcetera, and that's
what it was.
It was to be advising the Prime Minister's Office and Cabinet in ways that we could improve
things and the biggest thing we got out of it was the Indigenous Business Strategy which
is now worth $8.7 billion and it cost the Government virtually nothing to set up.
And that advisory body wasn't an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy full of elites?
No, we didn't have a bureaucracy.
We were just a committee, and what we did was advise and so we were given certain projects
to look at and we did that.
We saw the Forrest Review in regard to employment and business.
We seen a whole wide range of that.
In fact, those committees exist for every minister today, and they have been existing
for ministers for quite a while.
So why can't the Voice do something like that?
Well, the difference between us and the Voice, as I said, we weren't a representative body,
we were made up of all different races.
And we were experts in these areas of what needed to be done.
And also we weren't in the Constitution.
We were totally outside that.
This is one of the problems I had, and this is one of the problems why I stepped away
from the Uphold & Recognise movement was because I didn't see - why did we have to have it
in the constitution because that creates a position that Aboriginals are always going
to need help and are always victims, and I didn't agree with that.
So what do you want to see in the Constitution?
We know Peter Dutton is talking about a second referendum if this one goes down, symbolic
recognition.
You've put up your own idea of also recognising migrants and refugees.
Is that still your view?
Everyone who has come to this country, First People and everyone else, has contributed
to this country, and made it the great liberal democracy and economic powerhouse that we
are today, and I think people need to be recognised for that.
The problem with having just recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in
the Constitution as First People, 90% of Australians want that to happen, but the problem is there
is going to be another battle within the Aboriginal community about that.
So you are saying recognise everybody in the Constitution?
Well in a sense we are because if you are a citizen of this country, you are recognised
in the Constitution, and so Aboriginal people are there now today, but it doesn't say specifically
about that.
Now - look, to me - and I think this whole thing has been hijacked.
A couple of good things have come out of this: One is the Australian public want Aboriginals
to be recognised and, two, that they want practical outcomes.
They are sick and tired of getting the annual Closing the Gap Report and the Productivity
Commission report and things are not working in a lot of areas.
So what is symbolic recognition going to deliver in terms of practical outcomes?
Well, I wouldn't underestimate symbolism.
When I sat in the Parliament that day, the Sorry debate, the Prime Minister got up and
led it and the Leader of the Opposition seconded it.
To me that was a very powerful day because, for the first time, we really recognised what
happened to the stolen generation and a government of Australia apologised for that, and so I
had - I will be honest, I had a tear in my eye.
I thought about all of those people who had suffered in the past and some people who are
still suffering today and I thought that was a very good healing process.
The issue now is we need practical stuff, real stuff that is going to make the difference.
I want to ask you about racism which has been a bit of a feature this past week.
Look, you recently accused the Prime Minister of unleashing horrible racist abuse, and you've
spoken about the toll it has taken on you during this campaign.
Linda Burney has also spoken about the appalling racist abuse she has copped.
Has the level of racism brought up in this debate surprised you at all?
Unfortunately, no.
The intensity of it, yes.
In the last 12 months, I've never seen so much racism and comments and attacks then
I have seen since I was a kid.
It's dreadful and the reason I raised the Prime Minister is that if the Prime Minister
was going to bring this referendum forward and he is talking about uniting the people,
he shouldn't have used derogatory terms against people who didn't agree with them.
What was that?
He was calling people Chicken Little and all of us were out of touch and we were mean.
So if you say someone is out of touch, is that racist?
I didn't say it was racist.
I said what he did was that he opened the door for other people to come and make comments.
Right.
Have you had to kick any more people off your campaign for racist remarks?
Look, I've been very strong about these issues.
People know that and you notice that people - some people aren't talking anymore.
Like Gary Johns?
Yes.
We had...
Why is that?
Because we had a cup of tea and we talked about it.
What did you say to him?
My thing is about - my thing is that I talk to everyone - racist, non-racist and everyone,
because if we are going to eliminate racism, or try to eliminate racism, then you've got
to talk to racists.
You have got to talk to everyone.
You've said to him, "You really have to stop talking."
Well, it was a team effect.
We need to sit down and talk about everyone and talk to everyone and I'm going to talk
to every Australian and convince them about our argument about not being racist.
Was Gary Johns being racist in some of his remarks?
Look, I think he had an opinion, and I don't agree with all of his opinions.
You can call it out.
The problem we have is once you start talking about race, it never ends well.
And we've seen that on both sides of the aisle and it has been pretty dreadful.
We have got to stop talking about race and actually get back to the referendum and start
talking about those issues.
Finally, Warren Mundine, are you keen to replace Marise Payne in the Senate as a Liberal senator?
Me, I'm focusing on a couple of things at the moment.
I've just come back from a day's break with my family.
Did you have a chat about becoming a senator with the family?
I haven't had a chat with anyone about this.
I'm not focused on anything that’s irrelevant.
Have you had a conversation with Peter Dutton?
I have not had a conversation with Peter Dutton.
I’ve never had a conversation.
To me that’s irrelevant.
To me the Senate campaign, who will replace Marise Payne, my thing is about we need to
focus on defeating the Voice.
Scott Morrison reckons you would be a good replacement for Marise Payne.
Does his endorsement help?
Well, I hadn't noticed any of that stuff because I've been too busy.
Warren Mundine, appreciate you joining us this morning, thank you.
Thank you.