John Howard dismisses ‘absurd’ idea of an Indigenous treaty

Sky News Australia

Sharri: Right. Let's speak about the 'voice' Mr Howard.

We're on the eve of the referendum for the 'voice to Parliament'. Anthony Albanese will tomorrow announce the date. What's your message to Australians at the start of this campaign?

John Howard: Well, the campaign's been going for a while but my message is, if you are intending to vote 'no', hold hard to that intention. Don't be blinded by an avalanche of publicity.

There's a lot of talk that the 'yes' case has millions of dollars. Well, I think Clive Palmer spent tens of millions of dollars with very little result.

Australians are very hard-headed when it comes to politics. We have what I have always recognised as a deep deposit of Celtic skepticism when we look at the blandishments of political figures of whatever stripe.

I think the case for voting 'yes' is very weak. And what I find quite extraordinary is that the Prime Minister and his colleagues are sort of almost boasting about the fact that they haven't explained it.

I'm against the voice proposal for three reasons.

The first is that I don't like anything that divides us according to race. And however you slice and dice it, it does do that. It does create a body that will be inevitably composed of indigenous people and the electorate for that body will be composed of indigenous Australians.

Sharri: We don't know how they'll be elected though. ... how they'll be chosen.

John Howard: I've often thought of a speech I heard Bob Hawke make in 1988, when he said: 'the only thing that defined you as an Australian was your committment to Australia.' No matter where you came from, whether you were Anglo-celtic, you were Italian, Greek, Christianh, Jewish, atheist, whatever — didn't matter. You were defined by your committment to Australia.

And that's how it should be. Yet this proposal defies that. Defies the declaration of the person I regard as the most successful Labor, and I stress the adjective, Prime Minister that Australia has had.

I fear that in the hands of an activist High Court, and bear in mind that only three years ago, the High Court of Australia decided that an Indigenous person could never be categorised as an alien, even though that person was born in another country, owed allegiance to another country, and in every other respect was an alien. That worries me. It ought to worry other people who fear for an activist court.

And the final reason is, that whatever the Government might say in the next 6 weeks, the truth is that any pronouncement of this body will have a coercive effect on the government of the day. And if this body proposes something that the Government doesn't like, every man and his dog, to use an Australianism, will be yelling at the Government to do what they're told, because this after all, is the body which represents Indigenous people. And you've gone to all this trouble to insert it in the Constitution, and now you're going to ignore their advice. How can you possibly do that.

That is how politics can work in this country.

Sharri: We've seen debate over whether the Uluru statement from the heart is one page or eighteen to twenty-six pages. Anthony Albanese says the suggestion that it's more than one page is a conspiracy. We've seen ABC journalist Lee Sales give advice to the ABC that it would be misinformation for anyone to say it's more than one page.

My colleague Peta Credlin was censored for her view that it runs to twenty-six pages. What do you think about all of this?

John Howard: Well I think that just illustrates the extraordinary muddle that the government's got itself into. There are countless instances of the Prime MInister saying that he's in favour of having a voice, a treaty and truth-telling. Now that's the essence of the Uluru statement from the heart. And I don't think there'll be too much talk about one page versus twenty-six pages if the 'voice' gets up. There'll be plenty of people who are saying the next thing is the treaty.

Now I think, of all the absurdities coming out of this debate, there is nothing more absurd than the notion of making a treaty with Indig... How can you make a treaty with yourself? Treaties are made between sovereign nations. We have treaties with other countries. We don't have treaties with bits of ourselves. And it only has to be stated to be realised as a complete absurdity.

Sharri: We're seeing a lot of corporates and sporting codes come out and back the voice to Parliament. Some of them running a strong campaign. Qantas has painted 'Yes' on the side of some of its planes. What's your view of this?

John Howard: Well I think the Qantas example is probably the most egregious of all ... My view is that large companies should be neutral. Because they have a lot of employees. They have a lot of shareholders. They have a lot of customers. And there's no way they can speak for them.

And I did, by you know, some personal representations, the leaders of two of the sporting bodies that I'm close to... I just simply said, you know, why don't you just stay neutral. And they said, oh well our governing bodies wanted to take a position ...

But how on earth can a large sporting ... take a body like the AFL, which is the largest football code by far in Australia. Though they're not necessarily player-wise but certainly spectator-wise. You know, they've taken a position. Does that mean that every sincle club is going to advocate the 'yes' vote?

I know for a fact they won't. Because I've spoken to people who're involved in the running of the individual clubs, who quite resent the fact they're being frightened into... there's an attempt being made to 'dragoon' them into supporting it.

I just think as a lover of various sports, I just think it's a good idea is left to the individual.

There's no way that a body like the AFL can know what their fans want. There's no way Cricket Australia can know what their fans want, or the NRL or Rugby Australia. I just think it would be better if they said nothing.

Sharri: Do you think there's a risk that it would have the opposite effect ... and people would feel bullied into having to ...

John Howard: Australians do not like being bullied. They do not like receiving condescending advice. We have this scepticism. What are they up to? What do they want? That's the sort of reaction. That you get. And I don't think that's going to help the 'yes' case. I hope it doesn't.

Sharri: Do you still think it's on track to fail ... the referendum?

John Howard: Well I can only take the advice of ... well I don't know ... I can only note what the polls are saying and the polls are trending. But I've seen a lot of polls, and I think what's happened, it started off with a big lead, and as questions have arisen that lead's whittled away. And I, as somebody that wants it to be defeated, and defeated resoundingly, in every state, I would encourage 'No' voters to maintain the rage, if I can draw on a phrase that's well known in Australia, in politics.

Sharri: We spoke a moment ago about Peter Credlin's Sky News vodeo on Facebook being censored. Being labelled false and misinformation for her comments about the length of the Uluru statement from the heart, which, at the very least, are contested d... at the very least. Are you concerned there's too much censorchip of free speech both in this debate, but also the Albanese government is puching ahead with proposed misinformation legislation.

John Howard: Well I think the idea of any government proposing a misinformation bill is absurd. I just think we should say ...

There are three things that maintain democracy in this country in my view. And if you've got them in a robust state, you don't need anything else.

The first thing is that we have a very robust parliamentary system. It's got a lot of faults and it cops a lot of criticism but it's very effective.

And secondly, we have an incorruptible judiciary. Nobody says our judges are crook. I mean we disagree with some of their decisions and that's our right. But gee they've got a reputaion for integrity.

And the final thing is we have a free press. I mean we criticise it, and it can be very uncomfortable. I was made very uncomfortable by the free press on many occasions when I was prime minister, but that's their job.

If you've got those three things you don't need anything ... you don't need a bill of rights. You don't need governments saying well we're going to define what's disinformation and misinformation.

Sharri: Now the Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, criticised you in private remarks last week at the Labor factional dinner, that were leaked to the Sydney Morning Herald. Were you aware of this? She referred to your remarks in the early 1990s during the seminal land rights case Marbo. She said that you held up a map of Australia on the 7.30 Report. Wong said that your arguments were exaggersted then and then she then she said that fears about Marbo, the apology and the same-sex marriage haven't been realised. (link) And she's saying the same would be the case for the 'voice' to parliament. Do you think you've been on the wrong side of history before?

John Howard: Well, I don't think I've been on the wrong side of history. I remember that, it was in relation to some land claims that have been made and I was referring to the fact that there were claims. I don't think there's anything particularly odd about that.

I voted 'No' to same-sex marriage and I don't apologise for that. Why should I? It was a very imperfect plebiscite, because the Labor party wouldn't support an orthodox one. Wouldn't have altered the result.

And as far as the apology is concerned, well I had a reason for not giving the apology. I don't think you can apologise for the misdeeds of other people. You can regret that they happened, and I did that. I think apology should be given by people who are responsible for the things that they are apoligising for. And I was being asked to apologise for the misdeeds of others. Now I wasn't willing to do that and a lot of people agreed with me, a lot didn't. Does that put me on the wrong side of history? I'll leave it to the historians. The Australian people didn't think that. They reelected my government several times after I had declined to give the apology.

 

 

*     *     *     *     *     *