Dutton, Liberals defiantly deaf to tone of the nation

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Peter Dutton admits he got it wrong when he boycotted the apology to the stolen generations 15 years ago. He said he failed to grasp the significance of it. Dutton runs the risk of being terribly wrong again if he opposes a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.

While the Liberal leader maintains he is open to discussion with Anthony Albanese and urges bipartisanship, his constant calls for “more detail” about how it would work, claims it would be more “bureaucracy” and not deliver “practical outcomes”, and his prediction that it is currently doomed to fail, only serve to undermine the voice.

Every day the Liberal Party objects to the voice and raises spurious concerns weakens the chance that a referendum will receive the necessary double majority support – a majority vote and in a majority of states. Referendums are hard enough, with history littered with failures on both sides of politics, without constant criticism.

The concept is not hard to grasp. Albanese has proposed this referendum question: “Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice?” The referendum would: establish a voice; which can “make representations” to parliament and government on matters relating to Indigenous Australians, and; that parliament will decide “the composition, functions, powers and procedures” of the advisory body.

The voice is an act of recognition of, and reconciliation towards, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. The essential idea, as the Uluru Statement from the Heart outlined, is both symbolic and practical as it would grant the traditional owners of these lands, as recognised by the High Court, a say in the laws that govern them. This consultation can only help alleviate the entrenched disadvantage many Indigenous Australians face. It is not, as some Liberals argue, a third chamber of parliament or an Indigenous parliament. The voice would only be advisory; it would not have a veto over decisions of parliament. Its advice would not be justiciable, that is, subject to being heard and decided in court. It is not about special treatment, establishing a racist institution or an apartheid state.

Dutton and Liberal spokesman Julian Leeser claim 15 questions asked of Albanese have not been answered. This is disingenuous. These questions have essentially been answered in the co-design process report by Marcia Langton and Tom Calma (2021) and the parliamentary joint select committee inquiry co-chaired by Patrick Dodson and Leeser (2018).

The critical issue is what Albanese described at the Garma Festival last year as “the composition, functions, powers and procedures” of the voice. This is the key sticking point for Liberals. But, rightly, this will be determined by parliament. It means parliament will decide how the voice works and can change it over time. It would be wrong to entrench the model in the Constitution.

While the government has already outlined principles to guide establishment of the voice, it is best not to be too prescriptive. If the government put forward a detailed model for the voice, then Liberals and Nationals would find something they don’t like about it. The point is parliament will decide how the voice is constituted, its remit and how it will operate.

There is broad support for the voice. Most Australians understand this is not a radical change to our Constitution. It is why it has the support of business groups and major firms, unions, churches, social welfare and charitable organisations, law societies, community organisations and sporting codes. And all premiers and chief ministers support the voice.

Why is the Liberal Party so out of touch with the broad will and intent of mainstream Australia? Among the strongest supporters of the voice are those once rusted-on Liberal voters in seats they lost at the last election to Labor, Greens and teals. Seats such as Brisbane, Curtin, Goldstein, Higgins, Kooyong, Mackellar, North Sydney and Wentworth.

How can Dutton make his party relevant again if it goes to the referendum formally opposing the voice or not formally supporting it? It will show, just like the last election, that the Liberal Party does not reflect the broad community let alone its former constituency. Many Liberal members and donors who now live in Labor, Green or teal seats will support the referendum.

There is little upside to Dutton’s strategy. If the referendum is carried without Liberal support, the party will be seen to be out of step with most Australians. If the referendum is not carried, then many voice supporters will seek to blame it for spending so long undermining it with bogus claims.

The reality is the Liberal Party will not support the referendum. The party has never supported a constitutionally enshrined voice. Malcolm Turnbull opposed it and falsely claimed it was “a third chamber” (he has since changed his mind). So did Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison. They are the last three Liberal prime ministers.

Morrison had an opportunity to legislate a voice but failed to do so. Ken Wyatt twice took the voice to cabinet seeking support and failed. The best proponents of the voice can hope for is Dutton’s personal support and allowing Liberal MPs a conscience vote. Some Liberal MPs will support the referendum anyhow.

If Dutton got it wrong on the apology in 2008, why should anyone have confidence he has correctly judged the voice? The grassroots community campaign in support of the voice, which formally begins this week, will be critical to its success. It is not yet guaranteed. But the risk for the Liberal Party is that it ends up on the wrong side of history.