PM flags he will ignore Voice on changing Australia Day in heated Fordham interview - Sky News Australia

Anthony Albanese has categorically ruled out changing the date of Australia Day even if the Voice to Parliament advises his government to do so.

During a heated interview with 2GB’s Ben Fordham, the Prime Minister was pressed on the breadth of the Voice’s remit and how far its advice would reach.

The government has outlined the four policy areas it would like the Voice to address – health, education, jobs and housing – but Fordham asked how Mr Albanese would respond if the advisory body suggested the date of Australia’s national holiday be changed.

“What we say is we have no plans to change Australia day,” Mr Albanese said.

But Fordham pushed back and flatly asked if the Prime Minister would say no to the Voice.

“Of course we will, if we don’t agree with them of course we will as is made very clear by the wording put forward is that the parliament remains supreme,” he said.

“As one of the principles put forward and in the yes pamphlet makes it very clear, the Voice will not have the right of veto, government decision stays the same.”

However, the Prime Minister’s strong declaration on the government’s willingness to ignore the Voice’s advice is at odds with his previous remarks.

In July 2022, when asked on the ABC if his government would heed the advice of the Voice if it requested for alcohol bans to return in the Northern Territory, Mr Albanese said: “It would be a very brave government that said it shouldn’t”.

“The thing about the Voice and consulting people directly is that you will have a clear process whereby people can have input to matters that affect them directly.”

But as support for the Voice continues to fall dramatically, the Prime Minister has been forced to come out at odds with some of the advisory body’s key architects.

Professor Meghan Davis, a human rights lawyer and member of the referendum working group, has said the Voice would “be able to speak to all parts” of government including the public service and the Reserve Bank of Australia.

When asked by Fordham on Wednesday if Professor Davis was correct, the Prime Minister plainly rejected her comments.

“I can’t talk directly to the RBA board and I’m the Prime Minister,” Mr Albanese said.

Fordham then sought to clarify, asking: “So no?”

“No, Ben,” Mr Albanese replied.

Fordham also referenced another member of the government’s referendum working group, activist Thomas Mayo, who has previously said the Voice would be the “first step” in paying reparations and compensation to Indigenous Australians.

He asked the Prime Minister if there were going to be reparations, but Mr Albanese again plainly rejected it: “No, Ben”.

“I can’t say it any clearer, compensation has nothing to do with what people will vote on in the last quarter this year,” Mr Albanese said.

Following the fiery debate, the Prime Minister came under fire for flagging that he would restrict the Voice’s remit.

Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor said the interview with Fordham on 2GB was riddled with “misleading” claims.

“The truth of the matter is, if he restricts the Voice, that can be challenged in the High Court,” Mr Taylor said in Geelong on Wednesday.

“This is a very broad wording that we are voting on, which will give the Voice capacity to intervene on a very broad range of matters, well beyond Indigenous affairs, and any attempt from the government to restrict that, of course, can be challenged in the High Court.

“The Prime Minister needs to be honest with Australians about the breadth of what is being proposed here, the extent of it and the breadth of issues that can be the source of intervention from the Voice.”

It comes after constitutional law expert and Voice advocate Greg Craven conceded on Sky News Australia on Tuesday the Voice had a broad scope of practice.

“I think the Voice potentially has a great width on what it would comment, I think there are going to be two constraining things, one would be if the Voice starts commenting on everything from parking tickets to whatever, it would waste its own credibility,” Professor Craven told Sky News Australia’s Political Editor Andrew Clennell.

“And that would put it in a difficult position and gradually it would lose its confidence, it will lose the confidence of the Australian people and parliament.

“The second thing is it is possible to legislate within the envelope of what the constitutional amendment says.”

Adblock test (Why?)

https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMi3wFodHRwczovL3d3dy5za3luZXdzLmNvbS5hdS9hdXN0cmFsaWEtbmV3cy92b2ljZS10by1wYXJsaWFtZW50L2FudGhvbnktYWxiYW5lc2Utc2F5cy1oZS13aWxsLXJlamVjdC12b2ljZXMtYWR2aWNlLW9uLWNoYW5naW5nLWF1c3RyYWxpYS1kYXktZGF0ZS1kdXJpbmctaGVhdGVkLWJlbi1mb3JkaGFtLWludGVydmlldy9uZXdzLXN0b3J5LzI0NzE2ZmJhMTc2OTkxMjY4MTVkZWExMzcyZGEwMjVm0gEA?oc=5

2023-07-19 03:59:29Z
2236853841

Bagikan Berita Ini