Albanese puts voice on track in Garma speech

If Australians ultimately vote to inscribe an Indigenous voice to parliament in the Constitution, Anthony Albanese’s speech on Saturday at the Garma Festival in Arnhem Land could be regarded as a turning point. Of late, it appeared as though the process was veering off track, with suggestions that voters could be asked to support a voice proposal without being given the answers to key questions about how such a body would operate, who would be appointed to it or how it would be elected, and what its responsibilities and powers would be. Australians would be unlikely to support a blank cheque, after voting down all but eight of 44 referendum questions put to the nation since 1906. A referendum is a “high hurdle’’ to clear, as the Prime Minister says. But he is providing much-needed clarity and reassurance. His speech suggests the voice’s role would not exceed advising parliament on issues that impact Indigenous people’s lives.

A draft of the speech, reported on The Weekend Australian’s front page, shows the government’s starting point will be to add three sentences to the Constitution: First: “There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice.’’ Second: “The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.’’ And third: “The parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice.’’ These may not be the final forms of words but, as Mr Albanese will say, they provide a way “we can get to a final form of words’’. The referendum question, he suggests, should be simple and straightforward, along the lines of: “Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice?’’

Mr Albanese’s speech will help answer an important concern that some have raised. His proposed second sentence, that the voice “may make representations to parliament and the executive government’’, defines its scope, limiting it to an advisory role, rather than decision-making or administrative roles. Mr Albanese envisages the voice as “an unflinching source of advice and accountability”. Not a third chamber, not a rolling veto, not a blank cheque, he says. But as a body with the perspective, the power and the platform to tell the government and the parliament the truth “about what is working and what is not’’.

That is one of the strongest arguments in favour of a voice. Too many policies, federal and state, from both sides of politics, that have been brought in with the best of intentions have turned out to be failures, costly to taxpayers, and demoralising for the people whose living conditions, health, education, wellbeing and housing they were designed to help. Or, as Mr Albanese puts it so well, the current, broken system “burns billions of dollars and delivers precious little for the people who are supposed to be able to trust in it’’.

Drawing on grassroots experience, the voice should be of assistance in advising how to steer policies towards more effective outcomes. Much remains to be done to Close the Gap, judging by the Productivity Commission’s latest report. It showed good progress in some measures, such as infants’ birth weights, preschool enrolments and youth detention. But the worsening in suicides, the number of children who needed protection and the number of adults in jail point to ongoing, intractable problems.

Mr Albanese’s point that parliament would have power over the “composition, functions, powers and procedures’’ of the voice could raise further questions. Voters might want to know, for example, if parliament could extend the role of the voice and, if so, in what way.

Mr Albanese is making the voice referendum a priority for this term. He knows he needs to move the process forward. He also debunks the idea, importantly, that the voice would be a “nice piece of symbolism’’ of no practical benefit. Australia does not have to choose between improving people’s lives and amending the Constitution. “We can do both – and we have to,’’ Mr Albanese says. The Garma speech recognises the need for further consultation. But it meets his objective of giving a vitally important national conversation shape and direction.