All the emotion and good feeling of the Yes campaign for the Indigenous voice to parliament and executive government are still there but the words, arguments, logic and risks related to the No campaign are growing by the day.
Anthony Albanese and his ministers leading the push for the voice are losing their way only a few days after the formal unveiling of the referendum words and principles.
The Prime Minister, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus and Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney are getting cranky, unable to answer questions as to how the voice will work, contradicting each other and forgetting or denying precedents for release of key legal advice or Labor’s policies.
As they move to play down the impact of the voice’s power to intervene on day-to-day government decisions, they are proposing more severe restrictions on Indigenous representatives’ intervention with new definitions that are not in the proposed referendum.
This ad-hoc redefinition, designed to placate fears of overreach from critics of the voice is already getting blowback from Indigenous supporters of the widest possible remit for intervention in making policies and laws.
Dreyfus has conceded that: voice representatives will have the power to go to the High Court claiming they have not been properly consulted; the governor-general would be subject to requests from the voice; and coverage would include tax, welfare, health, education and foreign policy.
He keeps denying solicitor-general’s advice is ever released.
Albanese has contradicted him on the impact of the voice on foreign policy; pointedly dismissed suggestions the voice would be able to consult on climate change; narrowed the refusal to release legal advice to cabinet advice; and introduced the new definition for voice intervention as “matters that directly affect” Indigenous Australians.
Burney has claimed a precedent for not releasing solicitor-general’s advice and in parliament when asked whether the Reserve Bank, as a commonwealth government agency, would have to seek advice from the voice before raising interest rates, responded with the non-sequitur that the RBA was “independent”.
Claims on not releasing the legal advice are wrong because advice from the solicitor-general has been released by the Keating, Rudd, Gillard, Turnbull and Albanese governments. The overall claim looks lame next to a decision last August to release the legal advice on the multiple ministries of former prime minister Scott Morrison.
The PM has also moved to restrict the remit of the voice, declaring it “is not about defence policy. It’s not about foreign policy. It’s not about these issues. The voice is about issues that directly affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders”.
This is a limitation not apparent in the wording or principles of the proposed referendum.
The real difficulty with the government’s ability to sell a coherent story is not its ability to appeal to emotion but its inability to reasonably and calmly answer questions about how the proposal will work.
Labor’s attempts to explain the voice are looking more like John Hewson’s inability to say how his proposed GST would work on an iced birthday cake – and there was no solicitor-general advice for that disaster.
More Coverage
Trump may be best bet to take on China’s DeepSeek
China has shown the world that it’s now game on in the artificial intelligence race, sending markets into a massive tailspin.
Who saw that coming? Not Wall Street
The Chinese start-up’s model stuns Big Tech — and Wall Street — and is proof that David can take down the tech Goliaths.