A calm voice is needed on vote

With rising costs and interest rates the clear focus of attention for voters, Anthony Albanese has made the right decision to dial down the rhetoric on the government’s campaign for an Indigenous voice to parliament. The Prime Minister may be no less passionate about the issue but he is realistic enough to know that now is the time for compromise. Refusing to do so increased the risk of scaring voters and crashing the referendum, achieving the opposite of what he had hoped in terms of reconciliation. There is much more than ego and political legacy at stake, and history shows that bipartisan support is needed for constitutional change to be agreed by voters.

Continuing to push ahead and stonewall opposition calls for greater detail on what a voice would mean, how it would be chosen, what authority it would have, to whom it would report and where it would lead the nation has become untenable. This is particularly so given the defection of Greens senator Lidia Thorpe to the crossbenches to prosecute a case for full-blown Indigenous sovereignty. This, too, now must be discussed in terms of how it relates to the voice. Developments justify the position taken by this newspaper that voters must be given all points of view so they are fully empowered to make up their minds when it comes time to vote in a referendum, which is likely to be held towards the end of this year.

Mr Albanese may have been acting out of self-preservation in reaching across the parliament to save the voice debate but he has made the only realistic call. As Dennis Shanahan writes in Inquirer, Peter Dutton’s demands for the commonsense distribution of pamphlets, particularly for older and non-English-speaking Australians, was a rational and reasonable request in the name of normal process and procedure. Compromise on this issue must be followed by a comprehensive debate on the 15 questions sent to the Prime Minister by the Opposition Leader. These include eligibility to serve on the voice, the prerequisites for nomination, the definition of Aboriginality, how people will be appointed, how many people will make up the body and how much it will cost taxpayers.

On substantive issues, Mr Dutton wants to know what the new body’s functions and powers will be – will it be purely advisory or will it be able to make decisions? Who will oversee the body and ensure accountability? Can it be dissolved if things go wrong? In practical terms, how will the voice interact with Closing the Gap? Will the government use the voice to negotiate any national treaty? Will local and regional voices be heard? And how will it effectively address the real issues that impact people’s lives daily on the ground in the community?

These are all issues that voters are entitled to understand fully before they cast their vote.

In putting forward legislation in his state, South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas has given clear insights into how a voice would work in terms of elections, function and personnel, but left unanswered the bigger issue of state-based treaties, possibly including compensation for land use and past wrongs. Constitutional change, as proposed by the federal government, is a different thing altogether. Inevitably, questions will include what a voice would mean for the issue of co-sovereignty that is now out in the open thanks to Senator Thorpe.

If, as the Prime Minister says, the voice is a modest proposal and polite request for consultation, there is nothing to fear from having the discussion in public.