James Morrow: Opposition leader’s Voice stance speaks volumes

Amid an increasing sense even among voice supporters that the Albanese government is getting out over its skis on the issue, Peter Dutton has made a smart move, writes James Morrow.

After months of increasingly disconcerting silence on the proposed Aboriginal voice to parliament, Peter Dutton has deftly shifted the momentum of debate and put its proponents on the back foot.

The opposition leader’s letter to the prime minster, dropped to the press Sunday, set out a series of pretty reasonable questions about the voice, who would be on it, and how it would work.

And, crucially, it made the point that if a voice to parliament is so critical for Aboriginal people, it could be legislated when parliament comes back in a few weeks’ time.

After all, Labor has the numbers to pass it so why not set something up that will be subject to the same mechanics as other government agencies (committee processes, estimates hearings, and so on) and if it works, lock it in constitutionally later?

It’s a smart position which allows Dutton to take a “no” position you take when for a variety of reasons he can’t take a “no” position.

Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton MP in the House of Representatives at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: Martin Ollman

At least not yet.

In doing so he has avoided falling into the trap the prime minister was clearly hoping he would fall into: Take a hard position against the voice, face a party room fracture from pro-voice Liberal senators and MPs, and allow the media to continue their post-election narratives that the party of the centre-right are hopeless dinosaurs headed for extinction.

Where previously the Albanese government had managed to frame the issue and much of the conversation around what can only be called “the vibe of the thing”, Liberal and other voters who have questions now have the cover to do so without being attacked as bad people.

Those questions are now also being asked by members of the media, including the ABC.

On Monday night, the PM sat down with David Speers on 7:30 and engaged in several minutes of back and forth that saw the ABC host call Albanese out on why Australians were beign asked to vote on a concept rather than a plan.

Speers also noted that despite repeatedly pointing to the model put forth by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton for a voice to parliament, the government has not actually committed to that model.

The prime minister also made the increasingly disingenuous claim that the voice was necessary because “For 120 years since we federated we’ve have had the Australian Government do things for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, often with the best of intentions.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meets with local community members from Northern Kimberley communities like Fitzroy. Picture: NCA Newswire

“What this idea is pretty simple, that we will do it with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.”

Well yes.

But the fact is governments do things and make rules for all sorts of people all the time, from new migrants to pensioners to business owners as well as Aboriginal people and the general way things work is they consult with all of them.

Aboriginal Australians already are represented by a host of organisations including the “Coalition of Peaks” which brings together over 80 Aboriginal and Torres Islander community groups to work with and make representations to governments.

And of course there is the fact that 11 members of the current parliament proudly identify as Aboriginal.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price spoke to the media declaring she would not support the voice to parliment. Picture: Gary Ramage

All of this contributes to an increasing sense even among voice supporters that the Albanese government is getting out over its skis on the issue.

Rushing the process, promising a vote by August, and allowing its proxies to dismiss anyone who puts their hand up asking for a little more time and detail as a redneck or worse is a strategy that has created a momentum that will be increasingly difficult to control and increasingly easy to knock off track.

Nor is the cause helped by a sense that it’s supporters are being tricky and trying to have it both ways by simultaneously saying “we have a model” and “the model will be determined by parliament.”

Even worse is the attempt to silence those pushing the “no” case on the voice by creating a self-reinforcing doom loop of virtue signaling.

We saw this recently when Facebook was caught out censoring ads from Advance Australia that said the voice would give certain Australians special rights on the basis of their race.

Because an expert panel that took a very narrow reading of the word “rights” disagreed and had their position picked up by a fact check unit at RMIT, Facebook was able to weed out “disinformation” as an excuse to block the ads.

The situation has been made all the worse by the refusal of the government to fund both the “yes” and “no” case, cynically relying on big corporates and others looking to tick boxes on their Reconciliation Action Plans to carry the can for them.

The government will in coming weeks be hoping to regain momentum, but it is clear that they are rattled and now retreating to complaining that those skeptical of their plans are nothing but culture warriors.

In the meantime, we are told we can expect a week of doorknocking and “community barbeques” to spread the word by voice proponents.

Those handing out fliers and manning the tongs should be prepared with answers, and not just vibe.