Derryn Hinch shares his ‘wish’ for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum, sparking fury

Derryn Hinch has offered a last-minute suggestion to the Prime Minister for the upcoming Voice to Parliament referendum, sparking outrage.

Controversial former politician and broadcaster Derryn Hinch has divided the internet with his take on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, offering a late suggestion to the Prime Minister for the upcoming referendum.

Mr Hinch, who served as a senator in federal parliament from 2016 to 2019, offered his take on the Voice to Parliament to social media on Monday, sharing how he would have preferred Anthony Albanese approach the referendum.

Journalist and former politicians Derryn Hinch has added his two cents to debate over an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Picture: David Caird

“Sadly it’s too late, but I wish Albo had split the Referendum in two,” he wrote on X – formerly Twitter – on Monday afternoon.

“I would vote 1000 (per cent) for strong, deserved, recognition of Australia’s Indigenous history in our Constitution. But it is a total NO to enshrining an Indigenous lobby group in the Constitution”.

Mr Hinch’s post quickly stirred opinions from the Yes and No sides of the referendum debate, with many asking why - if he can support Constitutional recognition - he felt “threatened” by the proposed advisory body.

“Why? What have you got against an Indigenous Advisory body?” one person wrote, noting that even hospitals have advisory bodies.

Another person said “all types of organisations have advisory bodies” – including schools, not-for-profits, even the government’s National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Schools, NFP's, Govt, ALL types of organisations have advisory bodies. Even the NDIS has an advisory body, comprising people with disabilities to better represent their needs and give them a voice. It's a simple premise.

— msinformation (@KindRegardz) September 11, 2023

Two questions, Derryn.

First, can you not accept the hand of friendship extended by our FNP without telling them you know better, from your position of white privilege and power?

Secondly, why are you threatened by an advisory panel?

— Dr Ian (@inxanadudid) September 11, 2023

Others, including lawyer and Wemba Wemba man Eddie Synot, completely rejected Mr Hinch’s suggestions to split the referendum questions.

Mr Synot also denounced the veteran journalist’s categorisation of recognition and an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, urging Australians to “be better”.

“Symbolic recognition is not ‘strong, deserved, recognition’ – the Voice is not just some lobby group,” Mr Synot wrote on X.

“What Derryn is saying is No to Indigenous people being heard. He’s refusing to hear us & instead telling us what he wants. We must be better.”

Symbolic recognition is not “strong, deserved, recognition” - the Voice is not just some lobby group. What Derryn is saying is No to Indigenous people being heard. He’s refusing to hear us & instead telling us what he wants. We must be better. #VoteYes#VoiceToParliament#auspolhttps://t.co/h7znxZ5ZJv

— eddie synot (@EddieSynot) September 11, 2023

Another X user asked what the point of recognition was “if it comes with nothing but symbolism and a widening gap of disadvantage?”

There were however, some who said they agreed with Mr Hinch’s suggestion to split the referendum question.

But one user said they thought Opposition Leader Peter Dutton had made a “big mistake” promising to hold another referendum to recognise Indigenous Australians if the Voice vote fails.

“Australians are sick to death of this and want to just move on,” they wrote.

Someone else suggested Mr Hinch “get acquainted with what the Voice proposes, rather than buying the snake oil that (Peter) Dutton is selling you”.

“There is absolutely nothing to fear with the Voice to Parliament.”

What's the point of recognition if it comes with nothing but symbolism and a widening gap of disadvantage?

— Ash Leahy (@AshleyLeahy) September 11, 2023

Agreed, but I think its a big mistake for @PeterDutton_MP to go back for a second referendum. Australain are sick to death of this and want to just move on.

— Marcus (@Marcus78216830) September 11, 2023

Get acquainted with what the voice proposes, rather than buying the snake oil that Dutton is selling you. There is absolutely nothing to fear with the Voice to Parliament.

— Peter s. [e-mail] (@grumpyoldfool62) September 11, 2023

This is not the first time Mr Hinch has expressed his wish for separating the referendum propositions.

In a piece published on The Big Smoke on January 26 this year – before Australia even knew what the wording of the referendum question would be – he described the proposed two-pronged referendum vote as “dangerous, country-splitting, precedent-setting, even racist, and not needed”.

In August, he told The Conversation’s Politics with Michelle Grattan podcast “I just don’t like the way they’re doing (the referendum)”, and that he would vote against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament in any form.

“If they could give genuine, fruitful recognition to Indigenous Australians and our history in the Constitution, I would vote yes for that in two seconds time, and I think most of Australians would as well,” Mr Hinch said.

“It’s the second half of having the Voice to parliament. That worries me because they say they need the Voice – they already have 11 members of parliament of Indigenous extraction!”

Mr Hinch has made his views against in Indigenous Voice to Parliament very well known. Picture: David Caird

He refuted assertions by federal Indigenous Affairs minister Linder Burnie and the Prime Minister that Australia need a Voice “because what’s happening at the moment isn’t working”.

Mr Hinch said: “Well you’re the bloody government, make it work!”

He also rejected the assertion that elected Indigenous politicians represent “general communities”, not just First Nations people, while a specialised body could focus on First Nations’ matters.

“But surely, I was in the parliament and I represented Victoria, but I could also represent social interests like childcare, child welfare,” he said,

“Form a lobby group, then, doesn't fuss me. Go start your own party, that’s what I did!

“I mean I don’t think we need this, I think Constitutionally it is wrong to have a small percentage of Australians having a specialised fast-track to parliament and access to politicians.”

During the same podcast, Voice to Parliament architect and prominent Yes campaigner Thomas Mayo insisted the referendum was about “unity”.

“This referendum is about unity. It’s about uniting on a common cause, which is to heal from our colonial past. It’s to empower people that are suffering and to create fairness,” he said.