Michael Sukkar MP

Interview with Mary Gearin – Drive, ABC Radio

The Hon Michael Sukkar MP – Shadow Minister for Social Services, NDIS, Housing and Homelessness

TRANSCRIPT

Interview with Mary Gearin – Drive, ABC Radio

Wednesday, 12 April 2023

TOPICS: The Voice, Julian Leeser, Aston byelection

E&OE

Mary Gearin: Michael Sukkar is a Liberal MP for the eastern suburbs seat of Deakin and the Shadow Minister for Housing, Homelessness, Social Services and the NDIS and he joins me now, Hi Michael Sukkar.

Michael Sukkar: Hi Mary, how are you?

Mary Gearin: Good, thank you. Which way are you voting?

Michael Sukkar: As a member of our shadow cabinet and I might say as a strongly held view, I’ll be voting against Anthony Albanese’s proposal for the Voice. I think it will be a very damaging change to our Constitution, and for that reason, we’ll be absolutely doing everything I can to ensure that the change isn’t made.

Mary Gearin: Is that what you think the people of Deakin want?

Michael Sukkar: I think possibly, I think time will tell. In a referendum everyone will get a decision, everyone will get a choice to make. I think if I go by conversations I’ve had in my electorate, there’s certainly mixed views. I think it’s very difficult to say one way or the other that there’s an overwhelming view. But in this case I think it would be appalling for Australians to divide ourselves based on race. I think one of the cornerstones of our nation has always been equality of citizenship and as someone with an ethnic background myself, one of the things that I grew up with and I think millions of Australians in a similar position to me grew up with was that it didn’t matter if my parents or father arrived here on a boat or whether they were fifth generation Australians or whether they were Indigenous Australians – we’re all equal citizens under the law and equal in our Constitution.

Mary Gearin: Equal, yes. But also suffering disproportionately that indigenous community?

Michael Sukkar: Sure, sure. And I don’t think this proposal other than adding a layer of bureaucracy in Canberra and I think to be frank, making governing more difficult with bureaucracies likely to see the sorts of improvements that we all want to see. At its heart though, Mary, my objection to this is deeply on the basis that we should never separate ourselves as Australians by race. And whether it’s my father who came to Australia as an 18-year-old in 1966, once he became an Australian citizen, he’s just as Australian as a fifth or sixth generation Australian who can trace their lineage back to the first fleet, or indeed an Indigenous Australian who can trace their lineage back thousands of years. We are all but equal, and we must have equal citizenship, Mary.

Mary Gearin: Is it a challenge to equality of citizenship to recognize the entrenched disadvantage for Indigenous people? The most recent Closing the Gap report just late last year found that we’re getting worse results in relation to that community’s children’s school readiness, incarceration rates, suicide rates, child removal rates, not just keeping a bad standard, but actually getting worse. Do you not think that there is therefore a reason to make a special commitment to that community?

Michael Sukkar: Well, it depends on what you mean by recognise if you’re talking about recognition in the Constitution, that’s Liberal Party policy and indeed that’s policy that goes back to the time that John Howard was PM. So, it’s a very orthodox position in the Coalition. We support recognition, absolutely. And of course, we recognise the inherent, entrenched disadvantage. My big fear here Mary is, quite frankly, that the same people that have been dictated Indigenous policy for 40 or 60 years, which has seen the outcomes that you talk about, will just be the same people who will run the Canberra bureaucracy of the Voice that’s been proposed by Anthony Albanese – I think it will be very hard for you to propose that that’s not a genuine risk.

Mary Gearin: I’m not proposing anything, but the Liberal Party is proposing, as you say, a legislated local and regional voice that will also feed into a national voice. You just want it legislated rather than being constitutionally enshrined.

Michael Sukkar: I think you’ve got to be quite specific when you discuss what our proposal is. So, as as has been proposed by those who have been working on this issue for a decade, that regional and local voices would be where they should start. Now, we’ve also said that it should confine itself whatever this legislated advisory body is should confine itself to matters that overwhelmingly impact Indigenous Australians. So, what we don’t want and what we don’t agree with is a body as proposed by Anthony Albanese, that would have free rein to be able to advise on all matters, including defence matters, including monetary policy, budgetary policy. It should be confined much more in scope. And secondly, Mary, this is really the big thing. We don’t agree that we should be changing the nation’s rule book in the most significant constitutional change that anyone could imagine.

Mary Gearin: There are a range of constitutional legal voices which say that that won’t happen.

Michael Sukkar: There are arguments on both sides, I agree. You know, I’m a former lawyer, Mary, and I could tell you could get two lawyers to argue opposing sides of every single case.

Mary Gearin: I’m sure that’s true.

Michael Sukkar: But I think everyone can agree that this is the most significant constitutional change. And I know as Australians, we grumble about our democracy and politicians aren’t held in the highest of levels in our society. But we do have, and we are fortunate to have had a great democracy, a great democracy in this country, a great political system. The Constitution has worked very well for us for 120 years, entrenching this in the Constitution and dividing Australians by race in our Constitution, I think is very damaging and that’s why I’m very motivated to make sure that we don’t go down this path.

Mary Gearin: You’ve been touted as a replacement Shadow Attorney General now that Julian Leeser has stepped down, are you interested?

Michael Sukkar: Well, I haven’t heard that touting, Mary, so you’ve obviously heard something I haven’t. I’m very, very happy in the roles I am. I fill a number of very important roles – Social Services, the NDIS, Housing, Homelessness. I’m very focused on those and very focused to be frank on holding the government to account. I think one of the realities of this debate, Mary, is that in the midst of a cost of living crisis, in the midst of a succession of broken promises from the government whilst I’m extraordinarily motivated to do what I can to make sure that we don’t make an error in fundamentally altering our democracy, our Constitution by Anthony Albanese’s proposal. So whilst that’s a great motivation to me and my colleagues, we have to keep our eye and are keeping our eye on the main game here, which is Australians who are struggling to pay their mortgages, struggling at the supermarkets, struggling to pay their power bills, even when Anthony Albanese promised that he would deliver the $275 reductions in energy. Those are the things that, to be frank, are on the tip of the tongues of my constituents and people throughout Australia who I speak to, so I don’t want to diminish the importance of this voice proposal. I don’t want Anthony Albanese and the Government have an alibi here that they don’t have to confront these issues and quite frankly are economic issues that are getting worse on their watch.

Mary Gearin: Should Indigenous affairs remain in the shadow cabinet?

Michael Sukkar: Mary, that’s not a decision for me. I just don’t see any point in me speculating on all those matters. Peter Dutton will announce new arrangements which are necessitated by Julian Leeser leaving the shadow cabinet. He’ll make those announcements. To be frank, anything I say to you on this is not going to impact it one way or the other, and it’s not a decision for me.

Mary Gearin: Okay. Let’s turn to Ashton, your neighbouring electorate there of course, a huge loss for the liberals in the recent byelection. A couple of days after that byelection, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull talked to Ali Moore and gave his own take on why the Liberals are struggling in Victoria and mentioned you. Michael Sukkar are you and people like you, to blame for the result in Aston?

Michael Sukkar: I think the ABC should not really take seriously critiques from Malcolm Turnbull on the Liberal Party. I mean when Malcolm Turnbull was Prime Minister, he led us to an election where we lost 14 seats. So he’s not really in a great position to be offering advice on these sorts of matters. There are a range of complex reasons, and to be frank, reasons that we’re still grappling with, that we’re still trying to assess and understand in relation to the Aston byelection. Byelections are very, very unusual in the sense that they don’t often follow conventional political trends.

Mary Gearin: But let’s then go to the general election, you suffered a 4.5% swing to the ALP in Deakin.

Michael Sukkar: And how did that compare to other seats that were neighbouring seats of mine?

Mary Gearin: Is that your measurement?

Michael Sukkar: No, I assume you’ve done the research so I’m asking you, how would you explain that?

Mary Gearin: How would you explain it? You’re the one holding the seat Michael Sukkar?

Michael Sukkar: Well, I won a seat off the Labor Party 2013 and won it four times, Mary.

Mary Gearin: So you’re not worried about that seat?

Michael Sukkar: I didn’t inherit a Liberal seat. I won a seat off the Labor Party and I’ve got to fight every single election. I’ve got to work every single term to earn the trust of my electorate. These are not things that we take for granted. And I think increasingly what we’re seeing, not just in Victoria, but throughout Australia, is people have a high expectation of their local member and the old days where people could sit in a seat and assume that they’re going to get re-elected election after election – I think those days are over. I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing to be frank, Mary, but I’ll have to work very hard to hold my seat as I do at every single election.

Mary Gearin: You will have to work hard.

Michael Sukkar: And having won a seat off the Labor Party, having won a seat off our political opponents, and held it since 2013, I’m now in my tenth year, I can assure you I take nothing for granted.

Mary Gearin: Your seat has always been marginal as you say, it’s on a knife edge now – 0.2%, there are swings against liberals in the neighbouring seats like Menzies, of course mentioning Aston. A lot of the analysis has been that the Liberal Party has lost the support of young people, younger people and women. Coincidentally, the Voice is backed very substantially by the younger people and women. So, does that make your stance on the Voice a liability for you?

Michael Sukkar: Well, I think you always have to make the decisions that are in the best interests of the nation and generally good politics follows good policy. So, if all I did every day and in fact, any politician got up every day, tested which way the wind was blowing and then went in whichever direction that was. I think, to be frank, I don’t think that would be good for our nation. And I don’t think it would be very good politics. So, what I have an obligation to do is to ensure that our nation’s rule book, our democracy, which has served us very well for 120 years, and to be frank, a cornerstone of my upbringing, which was the fact that I came from a migrant background, I’d be no less Australian than anybody else and that I was no greater than anybody else. That equality of citizenship is something that I want my children to have for their entire lives as Australians. And I don’t think in any way, shape or form separating ourselves in our nation’s rule book on the basis of our heritage, of our ethnicity is something that’s good for Australia. And on that basis, I’m very, very determined to oppose whatever Anthony Albanese has put forward.

Mary Gearin: And again, just reiterating that this is not just his proposal, but he’s in lockstep with the Referendum Working Group and with the Statements from the Heart proposals.

Michael Sukkar: No, that’s not exactly right, Mary. I mean, you said it yourself, you referred to local and regional voices. So, if you know that that is consistent with those principles and he has not followed those principles. So, I think you should probably amend that when you say in the future, because that’s not actually correct. He’s changed it quite fundamentally.

Mary Gearin: How has he changed it fundamentally? Can you explain.

Michael Sukkar: The proposal from Calma and Langton talks about creating regional and local voices and that those would be the best to represent the issues, particularly communities that are suffering from the type of disadvantage that you spoke about now. And I therefore assumed you understood that that was the proposal with a national voice to be followed later. This proposal from Anthony Albanese has it the exact opposite way around this. He’s proposing to establish a voice in Canberra.

Mary Gearin: That’s not, that’s not in the information that’s on the Government’s website. It reads that the local and regional voices will have a two-way communication with the national body.

Michael Sukkar: Well, we’ve got no proposal from the Government on how that would look. At the moment we’ve got a representative body in Canberra called the Canberra Voice. That’s where the detail lays, that’s what the proposal is. So, if you’re providing information to listeners that we’ve not heard before.

Mary Gearin: It’s on the website.

Michael Sukkar: That would be quite a scoop, because they’re not proposing for regional and local voices, and I’m surprised that you wouldn’t be aware of that.

Mary Gearin: Right, I’m just going from what’s on the government website. But just to finish, Michael Sukkar, as a senior Liberal figure, have you spoken to the state Liberal leader here John Pesutto since he took leadership of the state party. Now, are you talking with him about what the State Liberal Party should do when it comes to its stance on the Voice?

Michael Sukkar: I haven’t spoken to him on his decision on the Voice, that’s really a decision for the state team and for the state party room. I think we always have to respect individual party rooms to make their decisions and whilst we are one party, Mary, there will often be times where a federal party room will take a different decision to a state, now I hope that those instances are few and far in between, but they do happen from time to time, so that’ll be a decision for the state party room. I think the worst thing I could do is give them unsolicited advice as I wouldn’t want their unsolicited advice. But we do talk informally about these sorts of things. And in the end it is always about what is the best thing for Victorians and what is the best thing for Australians. But even on this debate, you know, you get a sense from me that I object to the Voice on quite a philosophical and deep level, particularly as someone with a migrant background to this country. But I am not so hard-hearted to see that someone with that with great intentions couldn’t disagree with me on this. There will be times with people who I really greatly respect, including Julian Leeser, people I like, people I’m friends with, I suspect people in my own family – who I love.

Mary Gearin: Who disagrees with you in your family?

Michael Sukkar: Well, not on this particular issue, I’m talking just in general, Mary. I think the worst thing we can do, which unfortunately happens far too much in the Twitter ages, is we assume that people who disagree with us, you know, are in some way lacking good motivations. To anybody who’s proposing the Voice. I’m sure they’ve got reasons for it. I just think myself – the quality of our citizenship, regardless of our heritage and background is a cornerstone of our nation that we shouldn’t play with.

Mary Gearin: Michael Sukkar, we’ll have to leave it there. Thanks for joining us.

Michael Sukkar: Thanks so much.