Penny Wong makes a sensational backflip after suggesting the Voice is inevitable in bombshell interview that has sent Labor into damage control just days before the election
Penny Wong has made a sensational backflip after suggesting that it was inevitable the Voice to Parliament would pass in Australia.
The Foreign Minister sparked a political firestorm three days before the federal election by predicting that the Voice – a separate indigenous body with powers to influence government legislation - will eventually be introduced.
'We'll look back on it in ten years' time and it'll be a bit like marriage equality,' Senator Wong told the Betoota Talks podcast.
'I always used to say, marriage equality, which took us such a bloody fight to get that done, and I thought, all this fuss...
'It'll become something, it'll be like, people go "did we even have an argument about that?"
Her comments sent the Labor spin machine into overdrive, with a campaign spokesperson claiming that Senator Wong was 'clearly reflecting on the heated debate on how we address reconciliation and close the gap', rather than the Voice.
And now Senator Wong has disavowed her own comments, telling SBS 'the Voice is gone'.
'The prime minister has made that clear, and the Australian people have made their position clear, and we respect the result of the referendum,' she said.
'What I would say is, that doesn't mean reconciliation and closing the gap stops, and we need to keep together, progressing those.'
Mr Albanese has repeatedly said there will be no second referendum, after Australians voted 60 per cent to 40 per cent in 2023 against the creation of a Voice.
Asked by Channel Seven's Political Editor Mark Riley during Sunday night's leaders' debate whether he still believed in the Voice, Mr Albanese responded: 'It's gone'.
'I respect the outcome (of the referendum), we live in a democracy,' he said.
Pushed on his position, he added: 'We need to find different paths to affect reconciliation.'
But now it can now revealed that on the day before the election was called, the government refused to rule out whether work was still progressing on Voice, Treaty and Truth.
At Senate Estimates on 27 March, Senator Wong refused multiple times to answer a simple question from Liberal Senator Michaelia Cash: 'Is the Prime Minister still committed to Voice, Treaty, Truth?'
Instead, Senator Wong directed a government official to answer.
'The government remains committed to the principles of the Uluru Statement and continues to engage in good faith with leaders and communities around next steps,' Greta Doherty, First Assistant Secretary of the Social Policy division responded.
'Government acknowledges there is considerable work underway at a state and territory level on treaty and truth-telling process - and government welcomes this work.'
Senator Wong's comments are an unwelcome distraction for the government during the closing days of a campaign in which it had established itself in the eyes of pundits - and bookmakers - as likely to be re-elected.
The disastrous Voice campaign was a major blow for the Labor government and Albanese, who hinged his legacy on the proposal.
Senator Wong's comments are also a political gift to Peter Dutton who had been trailing in the polls three days out from the election and badly in need of such a Labor own goal.
On Wednesday morning the Opposition Leader accused Senator Wong of 'letting the cat out of the bag'.
'Under a Labor-Greens government we see this secret plan to legislate the Voice and Penny Wong has let that cat out of the bag,' Mr Dutton told reporters.
'People will be opposed to that because they thought they sent a very clear message to the Prime Minister that they didn't want the Voice.'
Mr Dutton claimed legislating the Voice would be 'one of the first items of business for a Labor-Greens government'.
'It's obvious the Prime Minister shares the view of Penny Wong,' he added.
'He's just not as honest as Penny Wong and Australians should know that if you vote for Anthony Albanese, he hasn't listened the first time around in relation to your decision on the Voice referendum.
'Send him a message at this election that no, we're not going to support a Voice legislated by Labour and the Greens and treaty and truth-telling. We expressed our view very clearly.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
4 hours ago
- New Statesman
Australia is no model for assisted dying
Photo by Kelly Barnes / AAP Image via Alamy Australian laws on voluntary assisted dying (VAD) are deemed so similar to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that three quarters of overseas witnesses invited to give evidence to MPs were from Australia. 'This is not a revolutionary law reform,' Alex Greenwich, a politician from New South Wales, told the bill's scrutiny committee earlier this year. 'It has been tried and tested, we have appropriate safeguards in place throughout Australia, and they work.' Although Australian states extend the six-month life expectancy requirement to a year for those with neurodegenerative conditions, in terms of eligibility, process and safeguards, their laws are similar to the UK's bill. The two differ only in that self-administration of life-ending drugs would be permitted here, and a multidisciplinary panel would review cases. So when Kim Leadbeater, Labour MP and the bill's sponsor, responded with a heart emoji and '#ChoiceAtTheEndOfLife' to a Guardian article published on 7 June that showed the Australian system being abused, eyebrows were raised. An elderly couple had been granted VAD when neither were terminally ill; medics in New South Wales effectively greenlit their suicide pact. 'Looks like the safeguards didn't work,' Mark Taubert, an NHS consultant and the vice-president of the European Association for Palliative Care, responded on X. According to the palliative care doctor Rachel Clarke, the story 'could not highlight more starkly the dangers of the law we are currently debating'. MPs hearing evidence on the bill had little time with six Australian witnesses, all of whom were supportive of VAD. Their arguments didn't always stand up to scrutiny. 'The medications are completely effective. I have not experienced any failures,' said Chloe Furst, a palliative care doctor from South Australia and board member of Voluntary Assisted Dying Australia and New Zealand. But, MPs pointed out, there is no requirement that a doctor be present when someone self-administers, nor is there provision for reporting complications. In Western Australia, where this information is collected, complications were recorded in 4.3 per cent of deaths in 2023-24. Asked if it was a concern that a 'large proportion of people who opted for assisted dying cited being a burden as their reason', another witness, Meredith Blake from the University of Western Australia, replied this was 'not the evidence that we have got'. Except it is. Official state figures showed 35 per cent of those seeking VAD cited being a burden on family, friends or carers as their reason for doing so. Blake replied: 'If there are people who are saying they are a burden, that does not mean that their decision is not voluntary.' While MPs were told Australian palliative care doctors had 'embraced' VAD, I have spoken with medics in Australia who are troubled by how the legislation operates. Academics and politicians are, too. Robert Clark, a former attorney-general and MP in Victoria wrote to the committee twice with his observations: the second time after his fellow Australians had addressed MPs. Numerous aspects of their evidence were 'factually incorrect or incomplete', Clark claimed. There was not adequate palliative care available to all terminally ill patients in Australia. Evidence didn't show any reduction in non-medically assisted suicide. The right of doctors to object to VAD was not respected. Many doctors 'feel unable to raise concerns about VAD… lest they suffer adverse professional or career consequences, or else they are leaving the hospital system altogether', he said. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe British palliative care doctor Alex Hughes recently relayed his experience of assisted dying while working in Australia. Hughes, who is neutral on VAD in principle, described a borderline case in which it seemed the patient had chosen to die because of poor alternative care options. In another, he suspected the man may have been influenced by depression, but this had gone unexplored in assessment. Were assisted dying to come to the UK, doctors would be 'at a heightened risk of unconscious bias… [and] may lean towards giving patients the 'benefit of the doubt', granting assisted dying to individuals who, in reality, have more than six months to live.' The events described in the Guardian confirm that risk is not merely hypothetical. Ahead of its return to the Commons on 13 June, 1,000 doctors urged MPs to vote against the assisted dying bill. They argued it is 'deeply flawed' and unsafe. Similar statements have been made by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which say they cannot support the legislation as it stands. Such concerns are not 'noise', as Leadbeater has suggested. Many critics have no issue with the principle of safe VAD. But the passage of the bill has revealed law-making at its worst: rushed debate, the views of the vulnerable ignored or downplayed, and crucial information on how the bill would work absent. Supporters say there will be time to iron out details later. That is too risky. Under current plans, some vulnerable people will be helped – in Hughes's words – to have 'an inappropriate assisted death'. He now poses two critical questions for MPs: how many vulnerable people slipping through the net is acceptable? And can adequate safeguards be put in place 'without creating a system so cumbersome that it becomes unworkable'? It's time for MPs to be honest with themselves and the public: enabling some an autonomous death through assisted dying will inevitably put others at risk of harm. [See also: Has any Chancellor faced a challenge this daunting?] Related
The Guardian
14 hours ago
- The Guardian
WA senator Dorinda Cox accuses Greens of being ‘deeply racist' and says ‘I am not a bully'
The former Greens senator Dorinda Cox has accused the Greens of being 'deeply racist' and insisted that she has never been a bully. Cox, a Noongar Yamatji woman and Western Australian senator, announced last Monday she had defected to Labor, saying her views were more closely aligned with Labor than the Greens. In a resignation letter sent to Greens leader Larissa Waters' office on Tuesday night, Cox claimed the party had 'cultural problems they refuse to acknowledge or address' and that she had experienced an 'unremitting campaign of bullying and dishonest claims'. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email 'I have seen and survived trauma, discrimination and harassment in previous work environments. I have seen the impact of psycho social violence on my family and my community. I am not, and have never been, a bully. I do not perpetrate it,' she said. Cox has been the subject of a number of workplace behaviour complaints, as first reported by the Nine newspapers last October. At the time, the WA senator apologised for 'the distress this may have caused' but said there had been 'significant missing context' in the reports of bullying allegations within her office. Cox said in her letter that at the time she resigned, there were no grievances pending against her in the party's conflict resolution process, and none had been put to her during the period she was a senator. 'The Greens failed me as its last First Nations MP, and continue to fail First Nations people,' Cox wrote. 'In my experience, the Greens tolerate a culture that permits violence against First Nations women within its structures. In this respect, the party is deeply racist. 'Instead of dealing with its toxic culture, the Greens sought to shut me down. The Greens failed in their duty of care for my staff and me, and disregarded the reported and obvious impact of what was occurring.' Cox accused the federal and Western Australian Greens' leadership for embracing 'untrue' claims and amplifying them. The WA Greens announced an external inquiry into grievances it received against Cox in mid-January by former staff members within the party after the allegations were publicly reported. The inquiry has now ceased. The WA Greens said 'the co-convenors of Greens (WA) went to great lengths to ensure the process was culturally safe and delivered due process to all parties'. An Australian Greens spokesperson said the claims were 'disappointing' and ignored the 'substantive work undertaken by the party to find a resolution to the complaints made both by and against Senator Cox, and to address the breakdown in her relationship with Greens' First Nations members'. 'As the IPSC [Independent Parliamentary Standards Committee] and PWSS [Parliamentary Workplace Support Service] are the bodies created by Parliament to address complaints from staff, they can continue to investigate ongoing matters. This is unchanged by the senator's decision to move to a party that continues to destroy First Nations cultural history through approving coal and gas projects.' Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Anthony Albanese was asked about historical bullying complaints against Cox last Monday. The prime minister said Labor had 'examined everything that had been considered in the past' and felt that the 'issues were dealt with appropriately'. In October 2024, Cox said she took responsibility for 'any shortcomings' in her office and apologised for any distress that may have been caused but said there had been 'significant missing context' in the reports of bullying allegations within her office. Cox said she had an 'immense amount of respect and gratitude to my team who prepare and support me for the work I undertake' and that she had 'always taken a proactive approach to staff wellbeing, including my own' and had undertaken executive coaching and mentoring from former MPs. Cox's former colleague, Lidia Thorpe, revealed last week she was one of the people to complain to the parliamentary watchdog about Cox, disputing Albanese's claim that allegations about Cox had been 'dealt with'. Thorpe, a former Greens senator who is now independent, said she raised a complaint against Cox in late 2022 to the Greens' leader's office and PWSS. Thorpe formally submitted the complaint to the PWSS in March 2023. Thorpe said on Wednesday her case remained unresolved because Cox declined to attend a mediation. Thorpe, a Gunnai, Gunditjmara and Djab Wurrung senator, told ABC on Wednesday morning she had also experienced racism in the Greens. 'There's a lot of work that the Greens and many other organisations need to do to stamp [racism] out, particularly the parliament of this country,' she said.
The Herald Scotland
18 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Spirit of Tasmania ferry scandal threatens to sink government
For six months, the Tasmanian Government has wrestled with its decision spend £450m on two new ferries to link it with Australia, despite not having ports large enough to accommodate them. In a startling mirror-image of Scotland's own ferry fiasco, costs to build the both the dual-fuel ferries and their berths have ballooned since the plan was laid down – and now the ports are not expected to be ready till next year at the earliest. Since December, one of the ferries – Spirit of Tasmania IV – has languished at the Port of Leith in Edinburgh, at a cost of £22,000 per week to the Tasmanian taxpayer. And this week the bill came due for the state's Liberal premier Jeremy Rockliff, who faced the collapse of his 'rainbow coalition' and lost a no confidence vote, with the ferries one of several reasons he had lost the faith of parliament. In October, the scandal cost the frontbench position of the government's Treasurer and Deputy Premier Tasmanian Liberal Michael Ferguson. Tasmania's ferry fiasco is not too dissimilar to Scotland's woes (Image: Jane Barlow) Now the state stands poised to head to the polls if a new deal cannot be worked out and a replacement for Mr Rockcliff be found. Meanwhile, it has emerged that the Spirit of Tasmania in Scotland isn't going anywhere soon. While Spirit IV was docked at Leith, its state-owned operator, TT-Line, searched for an someone to lease it until the port was completed in Tasmania. But negotiations collapsed in early March. The state government told TT-Line to bring Spirit IV back to Tasmania and it was due to depart on 26 May, before being delayed by poor weather. During that time, engineers found technical problems with the ship's liquefied natural gas systems. 'The government is awaiting further details in relation to a new expected departure date, but it is understood that this work will take some time,' the state's transport minister, Eric Abetz, said last week. READ MORE: Huge fiasco ship mothballed in Scotland at a cost of £23k a week 'Farcical': Newly-built ferry to be mothballed in Edinburgh 'for two years' When questioned about the delays in parliament, Abetz accused the Labor opposition of 'talking [the ferry] down all the time'. 'I say thank goodness for the weather, because she might have been well into the deep oceans and then suffer a mechanical issue, the full extent of which I am not appraised of,' Abetz said. 'We want to make sure the ship is safe and, even more importantly, the crew is safe. We will do whatever is necessary to ensure the protection of the crew.' However, the ship has become something of a tourist attraction in Edinburgh, despite its status as a national embarrassment Down Under. Ian Stirling, who founded a whisky distillery right next to where the Spirit of Tasmania is docked, told the Guardian his long-term nautical neighbour has delivered patrons, with a side of political drama.
