Voice campaigners will be ‘relieved’ when debate leaves Canberra bubble and hits kitchen tables

No offence to politicians (necessarily), but Rachel Perkins will be glad when the debate over the Voice to parliament is liberated from them.

“Roll on June 22nd when it gets out of parliament,” she says, referring to the expected date the referendum-enabling legislation will pass the upper house.

Voice to parliament advocates Teela Reid, Tom Calma and Rachel Perkins after speaking at the Jessie Street luncheon.Credit: James Brickwood

“We have been stuck in a process in Canberra where it’s necessarily combative, because party politics are being played out that have very little to do with people outside the Canberra bubble,” Perkins says.

“We will be relieved when it gets out of parliament and where it should be, with the Australian people.

“That’s where the conversations between ordinary Australians will happen.”

Would it be preferable for politicians to shut up now?

“Depends which politicians,” she deadpans.

“We will be relieved when it gets out of parliament and where it should be, with the Australian people,” says Rachel Perkins.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

Perkins, filmmaker and co-chair of Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition, is speaking in a spare conference room in NSW Parliament House (from which the Herald had to eject former Health Minister Brad Hazzard, now retired) following a lunch put on by the Jessie Street Trust.

The Trust was named after the trailblazing feminist and activist whose last campaign before her death in 1970 was in the movement that led to the 1967 referendum.

That referendum, which was supported by 91 per cent of Australians, granted legal citizenship to Aboriginal people.

On Friday, Perkins addressed the Jessie Street lunch, along with Tom Calma (one of the architects of the Voice, with too many other distinguished titles to name) and lawyer and activist Teela Reid.

Their conversation was chaired by former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick (now a United Nations special rapporteur for Discrimination against Women and Girls), and attended by federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek, NSW Aboriginal Affairs and Treaty Minister David Harris, and former Family Court Chief Justice Elizabeth Evatt.

Speaking afterwards, Calma says he was “very surprised” when Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said the Voice would “re-racialise” Australia, “because politicians should know better”.

“They’ve all been inducted, they should understand the Constitution,” he says, pointing out that it already contains race powers (sections 25 and 51).

‘Can I suggest that if the Voice existed, Juukan Gorge might not have been blown up... The alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs might not have been lifted without proper engagement with the local community.’

Rachel Perkins, filmmaker and co-chair of Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition

“We are the only people for whom legislation is written specifically.

“It’s not privileging anybody, it’s allowing us to have a say in that legislation.”

Reid chimes in.

“This is where Australians need to be able to distinguish between fact and fiction,” she says.

Tom Calma was “very surprised” when Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said the Voice would “re-racialise” Australia.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

“It’s just disheartening that they would say we’re racialising it, when in fact it’s those who are deploying that, who are actually doing that.”

Asked what they would tell Australians if they had a chance to pull them aside before entering the ballot box, all three Indigenous leaders give the same answer: “Inform yourself.”

“From reliable sources,” Perkins adds.

On that point, she has a bugbear she wants to address – the idea that the Indigenous community is itself divided on support for the Voice.

Perkins cites longitudinal research done every two years over more than a decade, by Reconciliation Australia, which shows support for a constitutionally-enshrined Voice is 86 per cent among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Asked what tangible outcomes the Voice to parliament might bring about, Perkins answers quickly.

“Can I suggest that if the Voice existed, Juukan Gorge might not have been blown up,” she says.

“The alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs might not have been lifted without proper engagement with the local community. They’re two very recent well-known examples.”

Says Reid: “Parliaments have not proven to the people, to the taxpayer, that they can close the gap.”

“For my community, it might be water. I come from the Murray Darling basin. We can’t even drink the water on our country,” she said.

“It’s a bit rich for politicians to say the Voice will not have an impact on issues, when they haven’t been able to close the gap themselves.”

Perkins, Reid and Calma all ask whether the No campaigners have any solutions to these problems, or any idea of what will happen if the referendum is defeated.

“Do they want the status quo to remain? Are we satisfied with what we’re getting?” asks Calma.

Perkins will not contemplate the idea of a loss.

“I don’t think about it, and that’s why I get out of bed every morning and think, ‘What will I do next?’” she says.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.