Prime Minister Anthony Albanese refines his message on the Indigenous voice to parliament — but contradictions remain

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Gary Ramage

Anthony Albanese is refining his political message on the Indigenous voice to parliament and executive government as Labor prepares to introduce the legislation to frame the wording and principles of the referendum.

After a few rocky days the Prime Minister has had to clarify the argument and sharpen the political impact.

The PM still wants to avoid detailed questions, still defies the logic of constitutional arguments and relies on emotional support for the Yes campaign but, he’s not contradicting himself or his ministers.

The nub of Albanese’s refined argument is that: the proposal is not radical, “it’s a modest and conservative” plan; parliament will have “primacy” and determine “essentially the operation” of the voice; the media needs to support the referendum; that it’s “pretty close” to what now Shadow Attorney-General, Julian Leeser, proposed seven years ago and; critics of the proposed words are “scare mongering” and playing word games.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Galarrwuy Yunupingu during the Garma Festival in 2022. Picture: Getty

While maintaining there is a “scare campaign” and unfounded suggestions the Voice would have as its “first priority” questions to the Reserve Bank, Albanese’s evolving argument in parliament and at press conferences suggests he can recognise the threat to the success of the referendum if there is too much confusion and doubt.

There’s no sign, in fact the opposite, that the government will release any detail about the impact or scope of the Voice on day-to-day government but Albanese is seeking to get the debate back on to his territory in the “nation’s interest”.

“The wording that is being put forward is very clear, “ he said on Wednesday and said the primacy of parliament would “determine the structure and functions, including to determine the operation, essentially, of the Voice and what it considers”.

“People know that that’s the case. So, you can have word games in this place, or in the chamber there. But it’s just word games,” he said.

While criticising “sections of the media” for not supporting the Voice and calling on reporters to “report on” the potential positive outcomes of a Voice to parliament, Albanese is still confronted with a dilemma about reassuring people there will not be division in society over the Voice’s powers to intervene in day-to-day government decisions and the expectations of indigenous leaders that intervention in day-to-day public service decisions is the very aim of the referendum.

The message is clearer and more pointed but there are still fundamental contradictions which will have to be overcome with appeals to the goodwill of the people towards Indigenous Australians.