Albanese hopes return to Garma reboots voice case

After a torrid week of parliamentary debate about the voice referendum, Anthony Albanese has returned to the Garma Festival, emphasising what local Indigenous communities can achieve when their people are empowered. Decades ago, we recognised the potential of Yunupingu’s aspirations for what his people could achieve in Arnhem Land. He devoted his life to seeking change in a spirit of unity, momentous national change and practical local change, as the Prime Minister says in his address to the festival. Much was achieved – progress we followed and reported on through the years – before Yunupingu died in April. By that time, Paige Taylor reports, his people owned their own mine. Yunupingu’s grandson, Isaiah Gurruwiwi, and his clan own a range of businesses; they run their own school in partnership with Barker College in Sydney, and Yolngu clans have control and responsibility for the community they established at Gunyangara. Indigenous rangers are managing land and sea country. As Mr Albanese says, employers are instilling the new pride and confidence that comes from having a good job: “Training programs and job pathways ensuring young people gain a greater sense of belonging and self-belief. Medical services helping children grow up healthy and safe, making sure communities can get the treatment and services they need, on country.’’ The Dilak council, bringing together the 13 clans of Northeast Arnhem Land, is connecting culture and local knowledge to government decision-making. Many programs and initiatives, Mr Albanese noted, have been built up over decades, often on a shoestring.

Given that background, and Yunupingu’s legacy, Mr Albanese speaking at Garma, in an effort to get the Yes campaign back on the rails after weeks of atrocious handling of the debate by the government, is significant. The visit has allowed him to return to first principles. The voice, he says, is about “advice that will ensure government benefits from the perspective and experience of the people on the ground – so we listen to communities, make better decisions, and achieve better results”. A No vote, he claims, would mean more of the same: an eight-year gap in life expectancy in the home of the fair go; a suicide rate twice as high, and shocking rates of disease. Peter Dutton, backing the No side, also recognises the value of local consultation. The opposition supports local and regional voices, through a legislated model. It also backs symbolic constitutional recognition of Indigenous people. In the lead-up to the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017, participants rejected symbolic recognition, such as a constitutional preamble, preferring a voice enshrined in the Constitution.

At Garma, Mr Albanese reiterates his support for the Uluru Statement, though notably the draft of his speech left out the phrase “in full”, which he has previously included. That was no surprise after a bruising week in which he and the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, struggled to answer legitimate questions about a treaty, which authors of the Uluru Statement have said is a crucial second step. Mr Albanese’s error, for which he and the Yes side are paying a painful price, was to commit prematurely to a treaty, truth-telling and a Makarrata Commission.

Australians deserve such matters to be subjected to scrutiny through widespread debate before any government or political party commits to them. Too little is known about those propositions to be supported, muddying the debate. What would a treaty entail 235 years after British settlement? How much in taxpayer-funded reparations, if anything, would be on the table?

Mr Albanese wants the voice to ensure the “spirit of learning and co-operation and shared progress” of Garma would no longer be confined to “this one part of Australia and one group of Australians for four days a year”. The success of Northeast Arnhem Land’s communities was achieved through Yunupingu’s strong economic, cultural and spiritual leadership, consulting local people and involving them in the process. What Mr Albanese has not explained is how a national voice would draw on the views and tap into the experience of the many diverse Indigenous communities around the nation, each of which has its own concerns and way of doing things. It is not even clear how many members the voice would have – an early model suggested about 24. Mr Albanese needs to explain how the voice would work and achieve the challenging objectives he envisages it would.

After a brutal week, he is struggling to regain ground. With the referendum as close as two months away, he has a long way to go.