Lack of detail on voice is risky

In promoting the inscribing of an Indigenous voice to parliament in the Constitution, Anthony Albanese, Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney and others have been making the point: “If not now, when?” The mood was buoyant at the Garma Festival in Arnhem Land, where the Prime Minister’s speech hit the mark. Mr Albanese, whose personal popularity is riding high early in his prime ministership, according to Newspoll, has made a referendum on the voice a priority for his first term.

He is encouraged by the backing of business, union and church leaders. But they get only one vote each, like 17.2 million other Australians. Hopes were running high at Garma, as they are among many voice supporters. Expectations have been raised. That is why a No vote would be demoralising for many people. The disappointment, broken hearts and even bitterness that would follow would be highly divisive for the nation.

Ms Burney, as reported on Tuesday, will launch widespread consultation with Indigenous groups and Coalition MPs to secure maximum support for the voice ahead of a referendum. But, wisely, she says there is no rush to finalise a timetable for the referendum. In recognising that proponents of a voice should not be complacent, she is being sensible. Australians have voted down all but eight of 44 referendum questions put since 1906. And as we have argued previously, voters are unlikely to hand politicians of any persuasion – or both, in the event of bipartisan support – a blank cheque.

Mr Albanese’s Garma speech was important because he gave new detail. His proposal is to add three sentences to the Constitution. First, there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice. Second, it “may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”. And third, parliament would “have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the voice”.

Before they back it, voters will want to know more. How will membership of a voice be elected or appointed? If voted in by Indigenous people, how will Indigenous be defined? How many people will serve on a voice, and for how long? How much will it cost? Will discussions on issues such as grog bans in remote communities be confined to voice members from those areas?

As Mr Albanese says, a voice enshrined in the Constitution “cannot be silenced”. That is why voters will be reluctant to back it until they know more. On Sunday, Mr Albanese told the ABC he wanted to avoid providing too much detail as he did not want those who disagreed with one clause out of 50 deciding on the basis of that to vote No. But lack of key detail carries a greater risk of encouraging a No vote.