Peter Dutton says he's open to constitutional recognition of migrants

Peter Dutton says Australians should be "very proud" of the country's Indigenous and British heritage, and is open to an idea dubbed "divisive" by a peak migrant body.

Peter Dutton says Australians should be "very proud" of the country's Indigenous and British heritage. Source: AAP / Lukas Coch

KEY POINTS:

• Peter Dutton says he is open to recognising migrants in the constitution.
• The idea was touted by the anti-Voice campaign last month.
• The Opposition leader says Australia should be "very proud" of its Indigenous and British heritage.

Peter Dutton is open to recognising migrants alongside First Nations Australians in the constitution, declaring Australia should be "very proud" of its Indigenous and British heritage.

The Opposition leader is also demanding a taxpayer-funded public information campaign on the Voice to Parliament, outlining arguments for and against the proposal, with non-English speakers in mind.

Mr Dutton said he would consider recognising migrants in the constitution, an idea recently touted by prominent anti-Voice campaigners but rejected by some migrant community representatives.

The government has also agreed to the Coalition's demand to mail pamphlets - outlining both arguments - to every Australian household before the referendum, set to be held this year.

Warren Mundine has called for migrants to be recognised in the constitution. Source: AAP

Warren Mundine, a Bundjalung man and leading organiser of the "No" campaign, last month suggested the referendum symbolically recognise Indigenous Australians and migrants, rather than implement a Voice to Parliament.

"Yes" campaigner and Guugu Yimithirr man Noel Pearson dismissed the intervention as a "silly" diversion, while the head of Australia’s peak body representing people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds labelled the move "offensive" and "divisive".

Pressed on the idea on Wednesday, Mr Dutton said the Coalition would "look at a proposal" put to him.

The Opposition leader said Australia boasted a "very proud" Indigenous heritage, with the vast majority of its population backing reconciliation efforts that would make tangible improvements to the lives of First Nations children.

Labor has agreed to mail a pamphlet, outlining the cases for the Yes and No campaigns, to every household. Source: AAP / Mark Baker/AP

"We [also] have a very proud British heritage. Our system of democracy, this parliament, our systems, and institutions derive a lot from that British heritage. We should be incredibly proud of that because we've produced scientists and people that have contributed to successes for Western democracies and for the world," he said.

"We have an incredibly significant and successful story to tell of people who have come from the four corners of the earth to join our nation."

The Coalition is withholding its support for a Labor push to modernise Australia's referendum laws, which have not been updated since its last referendum nearly a quarter of a century ago.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has committed to holding a referendum in the second half of 2023 on the issue of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

Voters would be asked - yes or no - if they support having a representative Indigenous advisory body enshrined in the constitution.

The proposed body would have no veto power, but would compel the government to consider their advice on policies affecting First Nations Australians.

'Very tricky'

Special Minister for State Don Farrell has been locked in talks with his Liberal counterpart Jane Hume over the bill, with Labor agreeing to mail a pamphlet to every Australian household outlining both arguments on the referendum.

Further details on the document, including who will write the document, are still to be worked through.

A similar pamphlet, written by MPs in favour and against becoming a republic, was mailed to voters ahead of the 1999 referendum.

There was a "Yes" pamphlet at the last referendum related to Indigenous Australians in 1967, but no counterargument because parliament had unanimously endorsed the referendum.

Mr Dutton said many voters, particularly those who speak English as a second language, wanted a physical pamphlet outlining the detail in their preferred language.

"They want the information before them so that they can make an informed judgement. Both cases need to be funded equally, and that's just fear as well," he said.

"It was never sustainable for the prime minister to say to the Australian people that he wanted them to vote in a referendum and then only provide an argument for one side of the case ... It was frankly quite arrogant of the prime minister to believe that he didn't need to provide details to the Australian people."

Mr Dutton described Mr Albanese's decision not to fund either campaign as "very tricky", demanding the Commonwealth provide at least enough money to cover the "basic costs" needed to state their case.