Simple facts of the voice ignored amid hysteria

Both No voters and Yes voters are making a mountain out of a molehill, to the detriment of a simple request for inclusion.

OPINION

After the withering defeat of the republic referendum in 1999, Malcolm Turnbull famously condemned the then-prime minister John Howard for breaking the nation’s heart.

Howard’s career went on to become a byword for unexpected success. Turnbull’s went on to become a byword for failed expectations.

There is a lot that should be learned from that as the first referendum since swings into gear in the latter half of this year, but I fear that few are ready or able to learn it.

Just like the republic campaign, the push for an Indigenous voice to parliament is being rapidly and actively undermined by its own supposed side.

In the 1990s it was deluded direct electionists like Phil Cleary who killed the Yes vote. In the 2020s it is freestyling activists skidding about off-piste who have apparently convinced themselves that the voice is not what it says on paper but another kind of creature that exists solely in their own imaginings.

Just like the republic campaign, the push for an Indigenous Voice to parliament is being rapidly and actively undermined by its own supposed side.

Yes, such activists are radical. The good news is they are also wrong.

In this way they have much in common with the No camp, which envisages some kind of all-powerful body that would cripple Australian policy-making for generations. Both couldn’t be further from the truth.

For proof one need look no further than the simple facts. The actual constitutional amendment, as proposed verbatim in black and white, is nothing more than this:

“In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

Senator Jana Stewart wears a ‘Yes’ gown by Indigenous fashion label Clothing The Gap. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Federal Minister Indigenous Australians Linda Burney. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Jeremy Piper

Those on the extreme left who say that this will inevitably lead to nebulous notions like truth-telling, treaty and reparations are just as wrong as those on the right who say that this will inevitably grind government to a halt.

Both of these imaginings are so fanciful as to be hallucinogenic. The problem is they are also incredibly damaging to the Yes campaign — especially when they come from within it.

While No campaigners can be forgiven their fears — however unfounded — those in the Yes camp — however peripheral — ought to know better.

Because the whole beauty and purpose of the Voice is that it is specifically designed to have no such power.

It can provide ideas and insights from the most remote and disadvantaged Indigenous communities to the parliament and government of the day, and the parliament and government has explicit supreme authority to accept or reject such advice.

In fact, neither the parliament nor government is required to even consult the Voice or consider the advice it offers.

Moreover the parliament has the absolute and unequivocal power to completely redesign, recall or reconstitute the Voice at any point and for any reason if it becomes unworkable or unwieldy, deviates from its purpose or oversteps its remit.

If Peter Dutton has genuine concerns with the Voice — no wukkas! All he has to do is win a majority in the parliament and he can fix whatever problems he perceives.

In other words, all of the power resides not in the Voice but in the hands of the Australian people via their elected representatives in the same system we have all lived with for more than a century.

And that is precisely the point. Despite what fantasists on both sides of the campaign might say, the Voice was specifically designed to be both humble and flexible. Indeed, the only power it would have, beyond its mere existence, is humility and flexibility.

If Peter Dutton has genuine concerns with the Voice — no wukkas! All he has to do is win a majority in the parliament and he can fix whatever problems he perceives. Picture: NCA NewsWIRE/Tertius Pickard

It provides a groundbreaking opportunity for new insight into what could solve unique problems in far flung places but literally no capacity to impose its will even on those communities, let alone other Australians.

I know the messaging of the Yes campaign hasn’t exactly been a beacon of clarity, but I truly struggle to understand the No campaign’s almost wilful inability to comprehend such a benign concept.

And so, in an era of immense economic pressure and uncertainty, in which most Australians have far more pressing problems on their plate, the response to the Voice has been largely confusion, annoyance and disinterest.

All the noise makes it sound interminably complex when it’s really incredibly simple — nothing more than a bit of local knowledge.

It’s like you’re a tourist up north about to jump in a river and a local says: “Careful, there’s a croc there.”

Sure, you can still go in but would you really want to miss that bit of advice?

This is no different to Aboriginal leaders on the ground screaming to government that housing programs aren’t working, domestic violence is endemic and the lifting of grog bans is disastrous. In fact their predicament is far more deadly and yet they have not been heard.

And so while most of us — including me — are now facing the anxiety of a mortgage crunch or going backwards or losing our jobs or our homes, there is a huge number of first Australians who have never had a home to lose or a mortgage to default on.

That is a problem that most of us cannot understand, so perhaps we should at least allow the government to hear from those who do.