Albanese has made Indigenous voice to parliament more difficult

It is undoubtedly true that supporters of a Yes vote in the proposed voice to parliament referendum are disappointed about the position they are now in. Successive opinion polls have shown that rather than momentum building towards a united outcome on the issue of constitutional recognition and an Indigenous voice to parliament, support is ebbing. The latest Newspoll on the issue showed a move away from the voice since the end of April in all categories. Among the most sympathetic groups of Greens voters, women and the young, there was a jump in uncertainty as they join the “don’t knows”. Since April, support among Coalition voters for the voice dropped from 39 to 28 per cent, ALP supporters dropped from 72 to 63 per cent and even Greens dropped from 79 to 71 per cent. A similar loss of support is reflected in other opinion polls. If the trend continues, it is difficult to see how a Yes vote can prevail.

In recognition of this fact there has been a good deal of soul searching by members of the voice campaign. Noel Pearson, a fierce and outspoken advocate, has acknowledged his fiery verbal attacks on opponents have been a mistake. Pearson, along with other key Yes campaigners, now argues that the emphasis should be switched to constitutional recognition rather than the voice to parliament. This, they contend, will appeal to conservatives who remember John Howard’s support for constitutional recognition in a preamble to the nation’s founding document. The problem with this reasoning is twofold. Mr Howard’s proposal failed despite his personal support. In addition, what is on offer today is very different to what was suggested by Mr Howard, a preamble written by Australian poet Les Murray. The question over the inclusion of a preamble was put as part of the 1999 Australian republic referendum. Anthony Albanese criticised the Howard plan, which recognised the occupation of Australia before European settlement, as not going far enough.

While superficially attractive, a change of emphasis for the Yes campaign does not deal with the substance of objections that have been raised. These objections are spelled out by editor-at-large Paul Kelly, who says the process has been flawed, with the model surrounded by legal disputes and legitimate concerns it will vastly complicate our governance and undermine classical liberal principles of citizenship equality that are fundamental to our society. Kelly says the notion of an equal citizenship is terminated as a consequence of implanting in the Constitution a group rights body that represents one group of Australians for the specific purpose of giving this body unique access to advise, influence and determine public policy across the board.

Those who favour the Yes case reject the severity of concerns but must know that these issues cannot be addressed by changing the emphasis of the campaign towards reconciliation without dealing with the substance of how this will be achieved. The argument made by Mr Pearson that the voice to parliament is simply the process through which constitutional recognition is achieved misses the point. For many in the No camp, the problem is lack of clarity, not misunderstanding. As the referendum moves through parliament ahead of a vote expected later this year, the Prime Minister must accept much of the responsibility for how difficult the issue has become. By declaring his hand on election night last year and refusing to entertain compromise – first on the issue of constitutional recognition for the voice before its powers are decided and legislated, and subsequently on giving the voice access to executive government – Mr Albanese has shown himself willing to play politics with the issue.

As Kelly has argued, suspicions about the process have been compounded by the government’s refusal to convene a constitutional convention or authorise a full-scale parliamentary assessment at the outset. No genuine attempt has been made to achieve bipartisanship; the government declined to legislate the voice first to test its viability; and it decided the details of the voice would be released after the referendum, not before.

Recognition by voice supporters that a change of approach is needed is a good sign. As we have repeatedly made clear, we support constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians and for them to be able to give advice to government on matters that concern them. We recognise that achieving success in a referendum is a difficult task that is unlikely in the absence of bipartisan support.

It is not too late for a reboot. But this will require more than a change of emphasis on how the message is sold. Mr Pearson’s call for a more elevated discussion with opponents is welcome. But, as we report on Thursday, it is a position not shared by everyone. A pro-voice body called Passing the Message Stick urges First Nations advocates, organisations and journalists to “alienate” opponents of the voice and drive them to make “racist comments” that will push the persuadable part of the population towards the Yes camp. “Messages that alienate our opponents are powerful because they distance them from the majority,” the group says. This approach is not in the spirit of reconciliation and should be rejected. The challenge for Mr Albanese and the Yes campaign is to win support through weight of argument and dedication to proper process.