Broad timetable for voice referendum is welcome

Debate over the proposal to enshrine an Indigenous voice to parliament in the Constitution is in full swing in The Australian’s opinion columns. With stakeholders, commentators and readers increasingly engaged, for and against, we welcome Anthony Albanese’s draft speech to the Woodford Folk Festival committing his government to hold a referendum in the next 12 months. “When Woodford takes place next year, the referendum on the voice to parliament will have been held,” he will tell festival-goers on Wednesday. The Prime Minister is confident “momentum is growing”, with local government, community groups, churches, business, trade unions and sporting codes joining every state and territory government in pledging support for a voice.

Opinions are crystallising. Indigenous leader Warren Mundine, one of the leaders of the campaign against the voice, says the new year will “bring out a whole range” of Indigenous figures opposed to the proposal, including from regional and remote communities. “We had a handful of people,” Mr Mundine told The Australian. “But now there’s more coming out every day … This is going to be a fight to the death.” Bring on respectful, sensible debate. It would be a retrograde step, however, if the process and the referendum outcome, whichever way it goes, left the nation sharply divided.

Nationals frontbencher Andrew Gee has shocked his colleagues by quitting the party to sit on the crossbench, citing the party leadership’s opposition to a voice as the main reason. Mr Gee said he had become “increasingly disillusioned” and felt he could not speak freely on issues such as his support for the voice. His defection, and Mr Albanese foreshadowing a referendum next year, leaves Peter Dutton with two big decisions. First, should the Liberal Party take a formal position? And second, if it does, should it be yes or no?

Liberal MPs are divided on both counts. NSW Liberal moderate Andrew Bragg – who has pushed for a parliamentary inquiry to build consensus on the question, wording, model and scope of the voice – argues it is important for the party to avoid embracing a formal position ahead of the referendum. “Historically, the Liberal Party has not had binding positions on its members and senators,” he said. “I would expect that position to be maintained. That recognises it’s up to the people, not the politicians.” His South Australian counterpart, Alex Antic, is taking a different view, arguing the Liberal Party should come to a formal position to oppose the voice and take a stand on values. “Australians should not be guilted into accepting the bricking-in of racial divisions into our Constitution,” he said.

Whatever the Opposition Leader decides, he could face internal dissent and even defections. As reported on Wednesday, opinions vary among a wide range of Liberal MPs – from opposing the voice but favouring a free vote in parliament (Menzies MP Keith Wolahan) to arguing that the party should come to a firm position (West Australian Liberal senator Matt O’Sullivan). South Australian MP James Stevens supported the adoption of a position to oppose constitutional change but said there was also “a need to accept there are members of our party room that don’t support that position”. Some Liberals, not unreasonably, say they would not be comfortable with the party reaching a position without the government giving more detail on the body. Labor, in contrast, is positioning itself as united on the high ground. Mr Albanese says he does not need to provide a conscience vote for his MPs because “everyone in the Labor Party is of a common view”. He will continue that tone in Woodford. While insisting it is “everyone’s right to make their own decision on the referendum”, he will also “encourage Australians to consider the generous and gracious request from First Nations people”.