Matthew Doran: One of the biggest stories here in Canberra this week has been the introduction of the legislation for the Indigenous voice to parliament referendum. The parliamentary committee has started pouring over the wording put forward by the government, ahead of Australians voting later this year.

Hitting that milestone also sets the scene for intensified debate over the merits of the voice to parliament.

On the 'no' side of that discussion there's a campaign launch happening in Tamworth this evening from the ng . One of its committee members is the former Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson. He joins me now from Mullaley in New South Wales.

John Anderson, welcome back to Afternoon Briefing. If you were to sum up, in simple terms, what your group is arguing here on this voice to parliament, or against this voice to parliament, in simple terms, why don't you think it's a good idea?

John Anderson: Firstly, this is not the launch, we launched some time ago. there's a public meeting in Tamworth this evening but it's not the launch.

Secondly, we believe that the proposal is flawed. We believe that the process is terrible-- preying on people's emotions. And it's very obvious the prime minister does not want to give details. And continues to paint it as a minimalist model, whilst the Aboriginal community activists have every intention of this being a very radical change—that will change the way we're governed.

Thirdly, we do not believe it's appropriate to create a special group right in the constitution.

The constitution should be blind to the charactgeristics of individual Australians. The whole point of a liberal constitution like ours is to ensure that no one's above it and non one's below it.

So, we say, by all means recognise. There's a lot of hard work to do. But there are better ways to do it. Particularly in terms of hearing the micro-aboriginal community. Because many of them are very small and they have particular individual needs. The blanket approach, from the seven voices we've had since the Whitlam era, have not worked.

And the second thing we want to say is that economic empowerment—the ability to use and make advantage of all of the land that Indigenous communities now control, ought to be a greater priority.

Doran: Well when it comes to some of the arguments that get put forward during the debate, particularly from the 'yes' campaign. The argument being that there are still huge gaps in between the things like the life expectancy for Indigenous and non-indigenous Australians; health outcomes; educational outcomes; things to do with the justice system. Does not that suggest that there needs to be some sort of organisation with a greater focus on addressing those disparities?

Anderson: The bodies ... we've had so many of them it's not funny. And as Jacinta Price said: 'What we need is ears, not another voice.'

There are already an astonishing number—I mean a truly astonishing number of advisory bodies speaking into state and federal governments. Why would this one be any different. Why would you lock it into the constitution effectively, before we know exactly what it is and whether it's going to work.

The seven voices since the Whitlam era have all been wound up. The last of them being ATSIC—because it was corrupt—with the agreement of both sides of the house.

So yes, there's a lot to be done. That's why we're proposing a more practical and earthy way of doing it.

And let's just make the other point that is missing in the entire nature of your question. Many, many ... most Aboriginal people have moved beyond the dark circumstances that we do see in some remote communities, and some country towns. And are getting on with their lives.

The community that I'm part of is five Indigenous leaders who think this is a bad idea, and there's a better way to recognise. They are thinking Aboriginals. I've known one personally for thirty-five years. I've known the others ... my family's been intertwined with Warren Mundine since the 1830s.

There are some gaps—serious gaps—but as Peter Sutton who I probably think it's fair to say, and I respect his views—he's a different side of politics to me—say: 'The idea that there's this line between indigenous and other communities is wrong. The real cause of the problem comes back to family and community environments in which children are growing up in. It's not a question of race.'

And we might ask ourselves why there are other disadvantaged communities, and what we might do about them, and how we try and make certain that all Australian children, particularly, grow up in an environment of physical and emotional and personal safety. That's the priority. You don't need a voice to address that issue.

The danger of 'the Voice' is that it will be just like all the other voices that have gone before it. It will be a whole lot of elite, basically coming from a progressive mindset that don't want to listen to local communities saying: 'we don't want grog in our communities', or whatever it happens to be.

That's been the pattern. In the name of civil liberty some of the things that these communities have tried to outlaw, have been denied them. I've seen nothing in this approach that will alter that.

Doran: You pointed out there that there is still a lack of understanding of how a voice to parliament would work, it it's enshrined in the constitution and then brought about through an act of parliament later on.

the Referendum Working Group has released a set of design principles acvout: the make up; the scope; the way in which that voice to parliament would operate. Is that not enough to assuage the concerns of groups like yours?

[technical interruption to remote video link]

Anderson: No! It makes the fears worse because the Prime Minister can't clarify the question that he's been asked. He's been contradicted by his Attorney General. We're told we can't hear the Solicitor General's advice. We have a clear difference between various members ... of people ;who've been involved with the voice!

And we know that the government has deep reservations about this voice having the right to speak to the Executive Parliament.

That opens up a whole series of questions. In fact, I'm afraid, it looks to me like a highly political exercise, where basically everybody who has an interest in this is told what they want to hear.

So, I had a long time in politics. This smacks very deeply of something that will give rise to endless grievances, will not work, and seems to be doing something that is profoundly illiberal. Which is to select one group of Australians, and give them an elevated position in the Constitution. And I think everyone who understands the nature of free, democratic, liberal, western society would say that is absolutely key. And it hasn't been properly addressed in the debate to this point in time.

Doran: One final question before we lose you John Anderson.

Your organisation is actually in favour of constitutional recognition, I understand. Putting words into the constitution, to the preamble, about Australia's First Nation. Is that somewhat hollow if it doesn't actually come with it, some form of extra umpf! when it comes to advocating positions to government?

Anderson: No, I don't believe so. I think that recognition is important. But to say that: all of the voices; all of the mechanisms that we've put in place; all of the eleven members of the federal parliament who are there already as Indigenous leaders; to say that somehow or other they're not providing enough umpf! isn't good enough.

I just repeat again what Jacinta Price has said, because I think she's absolutely right... As one whose ... my family has been intertwined with Aboriginal people since the 1820s, I care very deeply what's happened to their children, in some circumstances in particular. What we need is 'ears' not another voice.

We've got to stop standing in the way of local communities determining what will work to secure better outcomes for their kids, so we can break the inter-generational, cultural cycle. And I don't see 'the voice' being any different to the failed national bodies that have gone before it.

Doran: Well, John Anderson, no doubt I will speak with you and other colleagues of yours over the coming months. Thanks for joining us on afternoon Briefing.

Anderson: Thank you for having me. I appreciate it.

*     *     END OF SEGMENT     *     *