The Liberal MP Julian Leeser says his party’s proposal for symbolic Indigenous recognition in the constitution is “not enough” for First Nations people and says a national voice to parliament has “important work to do”.
In a podcast interview with Guardian Australia, the former shadow minister for Indigenous Australians said he believed there was a narrow pathway that could have allowed the Liberal party to back the voice and accused the government of failing to meaningfully engage with the opposition’s concerns.
“Constitutional recognition has come to mean, for Indigenous people, a voice in the constitution,” he said. “That’s not the case for all Indigenous people but it’s certainly the case for a number of Indigenous leaders participating in this debate.”
Leeser quit his shadow ministry roles as spokesperson for legal affairs and Indigenous Australians on Tuesday after the Liberals resolved to oppose the voice last week. A longtime supporter of an Indigenous voice, Leeser said he wanted to campaign for a yes vote in the referendum, but will also lobby the government to make changes to its proposed constitutional amendment.
The Liberal policy, as outlined by leader Peter Dutton last week, is for a set of local and regional voices rather than a national voice and for a form of symbolic constitutional recognition of Indigenous people.
But Leeser rebuffed calls for simple recognition in the constitution, saying Indigenous Australians “want something practical, because what’s the point of doing this if it’s not going to shift the dial on the ground?”
Leeser said local voices and a national voice were needed, saying he was “100% committed” to the Liberals’ calls for more of a focus on local and regional voices, but that First Nations people would be better served to have a connected national voice.
“I think there is a benefit in having a local and regional body that cascades into a national body … the national body has important work to do but it doesn’t have oodles of work to do,” he said.
“Most of the laws and most of the programs that relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are run at the state and territory people, and most of the problems, challenges and issues raised with us are raised at the local level, and that’s why the local and regional are so important.
“For the national body to be effective on those issues which related to Indigenous people that we do deal with, I think they have to be firmly plugged into a system of local and regional bodies.”
Despite reports of paperwork being circulated in the Liberal party room last week indicating the proposed polity included a national body, Dutton has said the party only supports local and regional voices.
Leeser also noted long-term opposition to symbolic recognition. The years-long consultation processes leading to the Uluru statement from the heart, which calls for a constitutionally enshrined voice, rejected symbolic recognition.
“Uluru changed things,” he said. “Uluru, with its dialogues and consultation, led to the view that Indigenous people wanted something that was not just symbolic in the constitution.” Leeser noted that the former deputy prime minister John Anderson chaired a 2014 committee that found symbolic recognition for Indigenous people was not enough.
It beggars belief to me that after 12 years, the LNP still doesn't understand that "recognition" does not mean symbolism. Is it because they haven't read the reports? The whole purpose of the Referendum Council was because symbolism/acknowledgement was rejected. Astonishing.
— Professor Dr M3GAN Davis (@mdavisqlder) April 5, 2023
While several Liberal backbenchers like Bridget Archer and Andrew Bragg have backed the referendum, Dutton and Leeser said the overwhelming majority of the party room supported the agreed policy. Leeser praised Dutton’s conduct through the process, saying the opposition leader had come to the issue with “an open mind”.
While Leeser has aired concerns about his colleagues’ policy, he claimed there had been opportunities for the government to win their support.
“I think there was a narrow pathway where things could have been different, where people could put forward the detail, where we’d worked on this together, where we’d followed the Calma-Langton roadmap,” he said.
“But ultimately that wasn’t happening. And I think that’s part of the reason that that the party room came to the position it did.”
