Peter Dutton amplifying misinformation, Anthony Albanese says

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has accused Opposition Chief Peter Dutton of amplifying misinformation on the Voice to parliament referendum, saying his remarks have been “unworthy of the choice prime minister of this nation”.

In his speech on the referendum invoice earlier this week, Dutton mentioned the Voice would “re-racialise” Australia and divide the nation “in spirit and in regulation” and, invoking George Orwell, urged it will make Indigenous Australians extra equal than non-Indigenous Australians.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese speaks on the Voice to parliament on Thursday.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese speaks on the Voice to parliament on Thursday.Credit score: Alex Ellinghausen

“It’s disappointing however not stunning that the loudest campaigners for the No vote have already been diminished to relying upon issues which are plainly unfaithful,” Albanese mentioned.

“It’s additionally very telling, and in his desperation, the chief of the opposition is now in search of to amplify this misinformation and all of its catastrophising and contradictions. These exhausted cliches of Orwell and identification politics, the continued conceit that there’s apparently no inequality in Australia now.”

Debate on the invoice has been working all week, with greater than 85 MPs from throughout the parliament contributing and laying out their causes for supporting or opposing the referendum. The invoice will in impact authorise the referendum, which is because of be held between October and December.

Albanese referenced Dutton’s resolution in 2008 to boycott the apology to the stolen generations delivered by then-prime minister Kevin Rudd to argue there was hypocrisy in his present opposition to the Voice.


“This is identical chief of the opposition who says that he boycotted the Nationwide Apology as a result of he thought it was simply symbolism and wouldn’t make a sensible distinction,” Albanese mentioned.

“Now he’s main a marketing campaign in opposition to constitutional recognition via a Voice, saying that he solely needs symbolism, not one thing that may make a sensible distinction. Let’s be clear about this. There may be after all a robust, uplifting symbolism in recognising the primary peoples of Australia in our Structure.

Related Articles


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest Articles