Giving a voice to everyone is the only way forward

As a newspaper, The Australian has been outspoken in support of proper recognition of Indigenous Australians, including consideration of a voice to parliament to help overcome some of the serious community issues such as those on display in Alice Springs. Our highest responsibility is to our readers of all backgrounds to ensure they are exposed to the widest possible viewpoints and equipped to make up their own minds. We reject the assertion by Noel Pearson, a regular and valued columnist, that opinion pieces we have published on the voice predominantly count against the proposal by a ratio of “four or five to one”. The fact about 130 pieces canvassing a broad range of strongly argued and significant viewpoints have been published by The Australian on the voice since January last year shows we take the issue more seriously than our competitors. Analysis of those articles shows more were favourable to the voice than not, but raw figures can be misleading. Many of the articles that can be considered unfavourable might support the notion of a voice but ask for greater clarity on how it will work in practice. Few have argued outright that the concept of a voice should not even be considered.

Debate about the voice cuts to the heart of what is wrong with contemporary debate across a wide range of issues. Bias so often is in the eye of beholders. Many people are now conditioned not to tolerate any dissent to their preferred positions. Mr Pearson, a key architect of the voice, clearly believes certain parts of the media are highly prejudiced against the reform proposal. We are not. Nor are we open to being beguiled into abandoning our responsibility to stress-test what is on offer.

We believe Peter Dutton is probably correct in saying the Australian public won’t vote for something Anthony Albanese can’t explain. Having spent the summer break giving the issue the BBQ test, opposition Indigenous affairs spokesman Julian Leeser thinks the government is ignoring the reasonable concerns of reasonable Australians. This is why we have implored the Prime Minister to provide more detail to give the voice the greatest chance of success. Mr Albanese clearly is frustrated the referendum issue cannot be decided on good intentions alone, but the evidence is that even he is unsure exactly what the voice might entail. This is understandable, given it will be subject to a parliamentary legislative process. To allay concerns, he says the remit of the voice will be strictly confined and relate to matters that “directly affect” Indigenous people and relate to closing the gap in education, health and housing. Mr Pearson says the voice will have the widest possible brief. He says there is hardly any subject matter Indigenous people would not be affected by and want to provide advice on.

Writing in The Weekend Australian, Brisbane lawyer Anthony Morris explained why details matter. He said any commercial lawyer would confirm the dangers of entering a binding “agreement in principle” before the fine details were resolved. “Invariably, and even with the best will in the world, all parties will read the ‘agreement’ as confirming their own hopes, expectations and aspirations, without regard to those of any other party,” he said. “At best, it is a recipe for frustration and disappointment. At worst, the parties may find themselves locked into an interpretation, laid down by a court … inconsistent with the intentions on all sides.” When constitutional change is involved the stakes can only be higher.

Robust debate is what is needed to build awareness of the voice and develop a proposal the public can have confidence in to work. Those who argue that giving voice to opposing views is wrong do a disservice to the public. For media organisations, it would be a betrayal of the highest duty they have to readers.