Prime Minister, welcome to the program. Good to be here at this rather
extraordinary venue. No, it certainly is. Look,
you said PM that you wanted to come here to listen. Can I ask what have you heard?
When I met with the Dilak Council yesterday, which is elders from the 13 clans in northeast
Arnhem Land, there was a common theme. They want constitutional recognition. They want a voice,
and they want it so that they can get better outcomes on education and health and housing
for their people and for future generations. When you talk about constitutional recognition.
I mean, this is the form of recognition that Indigenous Australians said through the
Uluru Dialogues that they wanted a voice in the Constitution. Peter Dutton has been arguing if
we had a more simple form of recognition, it'd enjoy much more public support. Is that possible?
Well, that's a contradiction in Peter Dutton's position, of course. He says that he supports
constitutional recognition, so both sides do. He says that he supports a legislative voice,
so both sides do. The difference here is he's saying, don't put it in the Constitution. The
reason why Indigenous Australians have asked for it to be in the Constitution is that they
want a form of constitutional recognition that has substance, not just style, that can't be
just dismissed on a stroke of a pen. And you can't say you want a voice? Because I would assume that
Peter Dutton supports legislating it, because it's a good idea, because it will make a difference.
Because it clearly won't be divisive. Otherwise, why would they say they are going to legislate it.
But in terms of recognition in the Constitution, is this it? As far as
you're concerned as prime minister, it's this style of recognition through a voice or nothing.
Well, importantly, it's the request of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people themselves.
So you couldn't do something else. It hasn't occurred in a vacuum. You can't
say you want to listen to Indigenous Australians and that's why you want a voice and Peter Dutton
says he wants a voice but legislated, but then not listen, at the very first point,
to the form of recognition that they want. I think this is important. 20 plus years ago,
we had the Republic referendum and plenty of Republicans thought we don't like this
particular type, we'll get another go at it. Just to be clear, you're saying to Australians,
if this goes down, that's it. There's no other constitutional recognition on your watch.
Well, importantly, Indigenous Australians are saying that.
And you as well? I'm saying that I've listened to
Indigenous Australians. And this is something that has arisen from them. What I'm doing,
by having the great privilege of being Prime Minister is seeking to fulfill their request.
So you're not going to come back if this goes down with some other type of recognition.
No, we know that this is a once in a generation opportunity. Many people in the
Republic referendum thought it would come around again. And that's why I say to those people,
including people who say it doesn't go far enough. So therefore, I'm going to vote no, don't think
that other issues can be advanced by a no vote. A no vote will be a vote for more of the same
And no recognition? Well, that is what
Indigenous Australians have said. Including, of course, the great Yunupingu here, who I discussed
these issues with him extensively. He wanted to make sure that recognition had that substance,
that it wasn't just a style issue of putting words in the Constitution,
that it had an ongoing impact of having better outcomes. That is what it is about.
So really, this is a crash through or crash moment for recognition.
Well, this is an opportunity is the way that I see it. And if we don't do it,
Australians will ask themselves, is it good enough, that there's an eight year
life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non Indigenous Australians? A suicide rate that is
twice as high? If you have a daughter, she is more likely to die in childbirth than a non Indigenous
woman. So if you have a son, he's more likely to go to jail than to university, we need to do
things better. This is a gracious offer that has been worked through over a long period of time.
So let's talk about how you improve some of those practical outcomes. Because that's been
your focus here and the speech that you gave at Garma. A lot of people are still trying
to understand how this would work. How would a voice fix some of those problems you identify?
Well, I'll give you an example right here in this local community. The Dilak council here,
made up of 13 clans in this vast region of Northeast Arnhem Land have come together,
for example, and they've done a lot of work on bilingual school [which] has been established. Now
we've announced funding on Friday, to extend that to the tertiary level, it's a bilingual school,
which is making sure that young, Yolgnu people from these communities are going to go to
school more, are being retained at school for longer providing those opportunities in life.
And so is this the model that you're looking at for Indigenous Australians? It is a successful
model here. But in some ways, it's not usual because you do have greater autonomy here, whether
it's through the community run education, whether it's through the community owning the Bauxite mine
as well, is this the model of greater autonomy for Indigenous Australians that you're looking at?
Well, it's not one size fits all. And the principles that are there in the Yes,
pamphlet, make that very clear. But it also makes clear that one of the principles is
working with existing organizations so that that might work differently in a remote community,
from a community in in urban Australia. So greater autonomy isn't necessarily
the answer everywhere? No. But listening, is the answer.
And what we're talking about here of a voice is an advisory group, made up of Indigenous Australians,
selected by Indigenous Australians giving advice on behalf of Indigenous Australians
on matters that affect their lives. Can you achieve these benefits in a
community like this without a voice? Because there is no voice at the moment. But Dilak
council is, as you say, is getting on with it. What we're trying to do here is to take what are
the success stories that are there in Indigenous Australia, we know that that's the case. But
they're the exception. What we want to do is to close that gap in so many areas that remain. And
of the closing the gap targets, only four out of 19 are being met. Now, I think governments
of all persuasions whether they've been led by Labor Prime Ministers or Liberal Prime Ministers
have wanted to do the right thing, have wanted to make a difference. But the truth is that
the outcomes haven't been delivered. If it's going to make that sort of
difference. Would you legislate a voice if the referendum fails?
If the referendum fails, it will be a clear sign that it doesn't have the
support of the Australian people. You wouldn't legislate a Voice?
I'm focused on success in this referendum. You are but would you legislative a voice?
I'm focused on success, not on hypotheticals of what will occur if it is not successful.
Surely, if it's going to deliver all this practical benefit,
you'd be crazy not to, wouldn't you? Well, the former government said they would
for a long period of time, of course, maybe they were waiting for their fifth or sixth or seventh
term to get around to it. And what we're doing is putting in place practical measures. But we
will take... The verdict of the Australian people in a referendum is something that has to be taken
into account, whether they support it or not. But I say this, that that they do have the opportunity
not just to do something for Indigenous Australia, but to do something for all of us as well. I mean,
we're here on the land of the Yolgnu people, we're celebrating in part a culture that's 65,000
years old as part of the Australian story, but the Australian story isn't finished. What Australians
will have in coming months is the opportunity to write the next chapter, to write the next
chapter that's more inclusive, that celebrates the connection that we have of sharing this continent
with the oldest continuous culture on Earth, but also makes practical change to close those gaps.
Prime Minister when you spoke here at Gama, last year, you made what you called a solemn promise
to deliver the Uluru statement in full. You didn't repeat that promise this year, why not?
I support the Uluru statement being implemented in full. It's a gracious document. That's my
position. But what I spoke about today and concentrated on is what is actually before
the Australian people in this referendum. And what's there is pretty clear, it's recognition
through a voice in order to achieve better outcome. That's what they'll vote on.
You referred a few times to the late Yunupingu. As his daughter has said one
of his most important final acts was to give the word deliver the word Makarrata to the
Uluru statement. It's a very important word, it means the coming together after conflict,
you've already committed money to a Makarrata process. What's that money being spent on?
Why wouldn't anyone? Why would someone disagree with the idea of Makarrata, which is a Yolgnu
word for coming together after conflict? What that's about is just advancing reconciliation.
So where's the money going? And that's what it will do. Well,
at the moment, what we're concentrating on is, of course, the referendum that will be
coming up, that's about Voice. Sure but on Makarrata, nearly a
million dollars has been spent. What's that money going toward?
Well, that's about establishing a structure which will happen but we've said that our concentration
at the moment is very, very clear. And what the no campaign insists on doing is talking
about anything but what is in the question before the Australian people. I'd say to your listeners,
have a look at what the question is. Have a look at the Yes and the no pamphlets.
The Yes pamphlet with its optimistic appeal for hope and a vision for the future. And the
no campaign quoting people, misquoting people. For Yunupingu a big part of his life was the push
for treaty. As you know, he was involved in the Barunga statement 35 years ago,
the call for treaty with the Commonwealth. That statement sits on display in Parliament House.
I know you see some of this debate is a bit of a distraction. But can we just ask, to get from you,
what is your approach to treaty? Where does it sit in your priorities as prime minister?
Well, my priority is the referendum. That's my priority but treaty, of course,
are being advanced in different places But at the Commonwealth level?
Well, treaty is occurring. There is 400 Indigenous nations in this country. So we're not talking
about centralis ed operations here. In Perth in 2015, the WA Liberal Premier Colin Barnett,
came together with the Noongar people with a really comprehensive agreement. Queensland have
said that advancing its bipartisan... So you don't see the need for
Commonwealth level treaty down the track? What I see is a concentration on the referendum.
That's my focus, getting a voice, getting a voice as requested and getting constitutional
recognition. And the Uluru statement from the Heart was actually very clear that the
priority is getting a voice to Parliament. And that's the form of constitutional recognition.
When we spoke here last year, you were still hopeful you might get bipartisan support, you were
hopeful we might see a sort of 1967 referendum result, more than 90% of Australians voted in
favor of recognizing Indigenous Australians in the census. We know the polls show something very
different now. You remain confident, though. Why? What are you seeing that the polls are missing?
I'm confident about the generosity of the Australian people, and that the Australian people
will focus during the weeks leading up to the referendum, have a look at what is there, weigh up
what voting yes means, what voting no means. It's unfortunate that the leader of the Liberal Party
has chosen to try to secure a political advantage at the expense of the need for Indigenous
Australians to get that recognition. But I did think that it was a positive sign when Julian
Leeser was appointed Shadow Attorney General and Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians,
who wouldn't? He was one of the architects in terms of the legal fraternity giving advice as far
back as 2012. Now that hasn't occurred. But that doesn't mean that we retreat. As I said today, in
my speech, the Australian Coat of Arms has on it, the kangaroo and the emu. They don't go backwards.
We go forwards as a nation, and this is an opportunity for Australia to go forward together.
Okay. So even though the polls might put in doubt the prospects of a victory, it's full steam ahead.
Well, no constitutional change has ever been easy. And I was very conscious about that. I'm
conscious of what the history shows us with eight out of 48 being successful. But Australians have
come together, there is enormous support from the business community, faith groups, sporting groups,
trade union organizations, from civil society, people who've come together and will be
campaigning and this weekend, as we're speaking some people aren't watching the program because
they're out knocking on doors, tens of thousands. They can always catch it on iview.
Indeed they can. In terms of timing,
you haven't announced the date, but everyone's sort of expecting October, pretty wet up here
to hold it in November in this part of the country. You'd have to get in before that?
We will bear all of those things in mind, of course.
October's more likely then. I said, Well, I said very early on
when the process, the timetable I set out, we've fulfilled that. We did what we said we would do,
we set up a referendum working group. We then had the legislation in March, we had a parliamentary
committee, it reported in June, and it has to be between mid September and mid December.
After footy finals, before it gets too wet. Obviously it isn't going to be on Grand
Final day. I'll give you the big scoop. Okay, nor when it gets too wet up here,
I'm hoping. Let me turn finally Prime Minister to China, they've dropped their tariffs on
Australian barley. Does that clear the way for you now to make a trip to Beijing this year?
Well, this isn't a transactional exercise. In terms of my visit,
I've said that I want to cooperate with China where I can, to disagree where we must, but
also to engage in our national interest. That's our position. But the decision that has been made
as a very positive one on barley, I welcome it. I want other impediments to be removed.
The detention of the Australians? And included in that the detention
of the Australians, including Cheng Lei, and we continue to advance Australia's interests here.
You would still like to go this year? But I've said that I would like to take
up the opportunity to visit China. I've said the whole way along, even before some of these
impediments were removed. Dialogue is always a good thing. We need the big powers China and the
United States to engage and talk with each other. But we also have a role of talking.
It is in Australia's interest to engage with China. And it is in China's interest
to engage with Australia. And as a result of the decision that they've made this weekend,
they'll get access to the best barley in the world and they'll get better beer as a result of it.
Win-win. Prime Minister thanks so much for joining us here at Garma.