Interview with Patricia Karvelas on ABC RN Breakfast

Patricia Karvelas
Liberal Senator and advocate for Indigenous constitutional reform, Andrew Bragg, joins me this morning. Welcome back to breakfast.

Senator Bragg
Happy New Year, PK.

Patricia Karvelas
You too. New polling in The Age reveals public support for The Voice has fallen from 53% to 47%. Are you concerned by this?

Senator Bragg
It was always going to be very difficult because the country has a very poor record when it comes to referendums, and that's why it's so important that the broadest base of support is achieved over the next few months. And I think the best way for that to be achieved is for some of the legal concerns to be addressed, but also for there to be more information about the policy.

Patricia Karvelas
Okay, what legal concerns do you think need addressing?

Senator Bragg
Well, there's no doubt that there are risks with any constitutional amendment. The question is how great they are and whether they warrant us reconsidering the proposed wording that has been put forward. Now, to date, there hasn't been a process to assess all the legal issues, particularly those raised in relation to the role of the High Court. And that's why I think we need to get on with having a parliamentary inquiry sooner rather than later, because having an inquiry into the wording and scope of the amendment a minute to midnight is going to be, I think, a great risk to the referendum.

Patricia Karvelas
What are you specifically calling for? Because there are processes, there are a couple of different committees. The government has put forward wording. I understand five meetings have been held with the Prime Minister and Peter Dutton. So the Prime Minister has been trying to bring your side of politics into the tent, and yet all we hear is we need more detail, detail, detail. What does that word even mean? It seems to be a campaigning slogan at this stage rather than something specific. What are the specifics that need to be dealt with?

Senator Bragg
What it means to me is that I want to be able to recommend a ‘yes vote’, but we need to be able to do that on the basis that it's a safe change to the Constitution. Now, the various legal issues that have been raised in relation to how the High Court could undermine parliamentary supremacy need to be addressed. So what we want to have is an inquiry where you could bring in all the various legal experts, cross examine these propositions, separate the red herrings from the legitimate legal issues, and then consider amendments to the proposed wording to go into the Constitution. I think that is urgent work to be undertaken because the Australian people will be voting on those words.

Patricia Karvelas
There's no legal expert who has suggested that the language so far put forward for a very simple amendment, very simple, plain language, would undermine the supremacy of Parliament. There's actually a provision in the question which talks about the Parliament. Essentially, this is not going to have veto power, right?

Senator Bragg
Well, I think that there are potentially issues around the inclusion of representations, which is part of the proposed wording, and there have been people raising whether or not the amount of words that is being proposed are required. So I don't know why you wouldn't do that piece of work, and I don't know why you wouldn't be prepared to do some more work on the detail. I mean, why would you seek a new power in the Constitution without having a plan to use it? So I think those are the two issues that need to be addressed sooner rather than later this year.

Patricia Karvelas
Does it really have to be fully legislated before you go to a referendum?

Senator Bragg
No, I don't think so. But on the issue of the Constitution, there needs to be a proper process where people can assess all the various risks and perhaps the red herrings that have been raised. Then, in relation to the legislation, there's no reason that they can't put forward an Exposure Draft Bill, so that people can assess the amendment to the Constitution alongside the proposed scope and function of the body.

Patricia Karvelas
So could that just be, I mean, the Prime Minister has talked about outlining principles for what the body would look like, but not actually a structure that would happen later. And Voice advocates, Uluru Statement from the Heart campaigners have been saying for some time that that's for legislation, that's for the Parliament. Do you agree with that principle? That it's actually for the Parliament after a ‘yes vote’?

Senator Bragg
As I say, you don't go to a referendum to seek a new power in the Constitution without a plan to use it. So there needs to be a policy adopted. My view has been you should at least put forward an Exposure Draft Bill. That has been the position that I've had for some time, because you have to present what exactly this body will do. But I think the most urgent task right now, frankly, is making sure that the amendment that people will be asked to vote on is a safe amendment. And I think we need to address those red herrings, dismiss them, and address the legitimate legal issues that people have raised, particularly in relation to the role of the High Court.

Patricia Karvelas
Noel Pearson says that this demand for detail is a diversion from Peter Dutton and the Liberals. Does he have a point?

Senator Bragg
I don't think that seeking a parliamentary review of the proposed wording that is supposed to go into the Constitution is a diversion.

Patricia Karvelas
That's not what Peter Dutton is calling for. I hear what you're saying, but it's different to what your leader is saying. What your leader is calling for seems to be a fully functional body before we even have a referendum. Do you really think that's necessary?

Senator Bragg
Well, I respect Noel Pearson a lot. I think he's made a great contribution here, and he said in 2021 that the Exposure Draft Bill should be set alongside the Constitution question and amendment. So that's what Peter Dutton is seeking now. I think that is only reasonable that people can see what this policy is.

Patricia Karvelas
But all we've heard is negativity from your side of politics.

Senator Bragg
Well, I'm not a commentator, but what I can say is that Julian Leeser has been appointed into that position, and he has been constructive. And I know that there are other people inside the Coalition who want to push this towards a ‘yes vote’, but there needs to be better engagement, frankly, with the Parliament so that we can have a broad cross section of support, because that is going to be required for this referendum to succeed.

Patricia Karvelas
So if the process doesn't change, would that push you to become a ‘no’ advocate?

Senator Bragg
We need to do the work of assessing whether the amendment is safe. I'm a supporter of the Voice. I put forward my own set of wording I think would be appropriate. I'm quite open minded about other proposals, but as a parliamentarian, I'm going to be asked to give advice to the public. I want to do the work of reviewing the amendment, and I think it's urgent.

Patricia Karvelas
Given we've had so much advice from some of the nation's most prominent legal experts, would you really advocate a ‘no vote’?

Senator Bragg
There are mixed views about the wording that's being put forward. There's not a unanimous position that the wording is perfect. So I'm not going to be drawn into how I'd vote right now. I want to vote yes, but I want to be able to recommend a ‘yes vote’, and it needs to be an amendment which is safe for the Constitution.

Patricia Karvelas
Are you saying the amendment currently being put forward is not safe?

Senator Bragg
We need to do the work of assessing whether the various legal risks raised in relation to parliamentary supremacy can be addressed or whether they are, in fact, red herrings. That is the work of the Parliament. I don't know why that work hasn't already been commissioned.

Patricia Karvelas
Senator, thank you for your time this morning.

Senator Bragg
No worries. Thanks.

Patricia Karvelas
Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg there.

[Ends]