Not excluding ‘executive government’ from Indigenous voice to parliament is opportunity missed for Yes campaign

For many years, The Australian has supported recognition of the nation’s Indigenous people in the Constitution. After decades of reporting from the frontlines of remote communities and turbulent centres such as Alice Springs, we also support the principle of consultation, from the ground up, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people about public policy matters that affect them.

Done effectively, it could help close the gap on life expectancy, child mortality, the over-representation of Indigenous people in prisons, deaths in custody, and children needing out-of-home care.

Australians of all backgrounds want effective change, with many looking to the Indigenous voice to parliament to provide it.

Public debate over the voice, unfortunately, is set to become even more fraught and divisive after the parliamentary committee investigating it released its report on Friday.

It divided along party lines, with the majority – Labor, and the committee’s two non-government members, Greens senator Dorinda Cox and Nationals turncoat Andrew Gee, who quit the party to sit as an independent because he wanted to vote for the Indigenous voice to parliament – backing the proposed amendment as it stands.

The main problem is the inclusion of the phrase “executive government” (the public service), which some senior constitutional lawyers and experts, who support the principle of the voice argue, should be removed to limit the scope for legal challenges.

In their dissenting report, Liberal members on the committee – senators Andrew Bragg and Kerrynne Liddle and MP Keith Wolahan – said giving the voice the power to make representations to the executive meant government could become “unworkable” and lead to disputes in the High Court.

“The fact is, serious experts, including former High Court and Federal Court judges, gave conflicting evidence about the risk,’’ they said.

Constitutional lawyers and other experts are divided over the matter.

There is much emotion surrounding the issue, with Anthony Albanese and others urging Australians to grasp a historic opportunity to “take up the generous invitation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart” and support the voice.

In order to succeed, the referendum, to be held between October and December, will need a majority of Yes votes in a majority of states.

But many voters will want to be satisfied about the legal implications before voting Yes.

Had the committee tweaked the amendment to eliminate “executive government’’, it would have removed one of the No case’s key arguments.