Need to turn the page on voice

Given the high stakes and tough-fought nature of the contest over a proposed Indigenous voice to parliament, a robust public debate is to be expected. This does not excuse a reflective resort to personal disparagements or claims of loony conspiracy when dealing with issues that deserve full consideration.

The latest outbreak of confected outrage centres on whether or not the Uluru Statement from the Heart is a single page or a longer document that more fully explains the attitudes and expectations that at least informed the process. The fuller appraisal is considered problematic by some because it deals with the accumulated anger and frustration felt by some Indigenous leaders. It makes it clear some believe a voice should be the first step of a bigger process leading to the negotiation of a formal treaty and reparations, sovereignty and greater self-determination. The single-page Uluru Statement itself expressly calls for a voice, truth-telling and treaty. On election night, Anthony Albanese committed his government to implementing the statement “in full”. But faced with details of documents that support the Uluru Statement process, the Prime Minister has described claims they comprise the full document as “absolute conspiracy and nonsense”. He is supported by Professor Megan Davis, a key member of the Prime Minister’s referendum working group, despite her having previously said: “The Uluru Statement from the Heart isn’t just the first one-page statement; it’s actually a very lengthy document of about 18 to 20 pages, and a very powerful part of this document reflects what happened in the dialogues.”

The Referendum Council’s 2017 final report includes extracts from what it says is the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Those extracts include statements such as the invasion that started at Botany Bay is the origin of the fundamental grievance between the old and new Australians; that treaty or agreement-making through Makarrata is the culmination of Indigenous Australia’s agenda; and that the Tasmanian genocide and the Black War waged by the colonists reveals the truth about the evil time of the frontier wars.

Debate over whether or not the Uluru Statement is one page or longer misses the point. Regardless of whether the additional pages are working documents or the official text, they deserve to be part of the broader debate. Voters should know the context in which the voice was conceived, and what it might ultimately entail. Supporters can argue that limits to the voice are firmly set but refusing to engage is the wrong strategy to win support.