Restoration of calm dignity badly needed in the debate over an Indigenous voice to parliament

As Indigenous leaders make a symbolic return to the tiny community of Mutitjulu, within sight of Uluru, to witness the reading aloud of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, it is a good time to take stock of where we are on the long road to constitutional recognition and a voice to parliament.

As the temperature of debate on the proposed referendum has risen, the level of public support recorded in opinion polls has ebbed away. Rather than joining a passage towards negotiated consensus, divided interests have hardened their positions – leading to lost tempers and intemperate words.

As things stand, a truce seems unlikely, but a restoration of calm dignity is badly needed. Anthony Albanese must accept responsibility for how events have run. By declaring his hand on election night last year and refusing to entertain compromise – first on the issue of constitutional recognition for the voice before its powers are decided and legislated, and subsequently on giving the voice access to executive government – the Prime Minister has shown himself willing to play politics with the issue.

The broad range of views presented by correspondents to this newspaper demonstrates the ability of people of goodwill to disagree. Dismissing the legitimate concerns of opponents is counter-productive to a process that Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney says is about unifying Australians.

Those who argue the voice is a modest proposal and a polite request have failed so far to nullify concerns that this is not the case. This week Peter Dutton told the lower house the voice would “re-racialise our nation” and lead to a world where all Australians were equal but some Australians were more equal than others. Mr Albanese accused the Opposition Leader of acting in a way “unworthy of the alternative prime minister”. He said there was no form of words that would satisfy some of the leaders of the No campaign.

It is understandable that passionate advocates are frustrated about how the process is unfolding. But the onus is on them to articulate the case and assuage the concerns that have been raised.

Writing in Inquirer on Saturday, editor-at-large Paul Kelly presents a detailed critique of these concerns. He challenges the position put forward by Mr Albanese and Ms Burney that it is as simple as bringing us together and taking the country forward to a better future.

In Kelly’s view, Mr Albanese has become an “enthusiastic political hostage” to the maximalist position taken by Indigenous advocates he dare not disappoint. In doing so he has compromised the potential for success, breaking every rule in the book about winning referendums in the belief Australia has changed fundamentally and that past norms are obsolete.

The government has refused to convene a constitutional convention, refused to authorise a full-scale parliamentary assessment at the outset, made no early effort to achieve bipartisanship, declined to legislate the voice first to test its viability and decided the details of the voice would be released after the referendum, not before. Kelly argues if the referendum fails it will be Mr Albanese’s responsibility given the astonishing and dogmatic tactics he has pursued. He says the process has been flawed, the model is surrounded by legal disputes, and there are legitimate concerns it will vastly complicate our governance and undermine classical liberal principles of citizenship equality that are fundamental to our society.

Kelly argues the notion of an equal citizenship is terminated as a consequence of implanting in the Constitution a group rights body that represents one group of Australians for the specific purpose of giving this body unique access to advise, influence and determine public policy across the board.

Kelly’s view is anathema to those who argue the voice represents an essential part of reconciliation. But Kelly says the warnings are justified by the extent of the sweeping power being created. He says the Yes campaign has no basis to argue that powers being created won’t be used.

Advocates for the voice must respond rationally to these concerns. It is not enough simply to shoot the messenger. But this is the tactic that has been employed by a Prime Minister heavily vested in securing partisan victory and Indigenous leaders who may sense the fruits of decades of detailed work are souring on the vine. Yes advocates still enjoy considerable community support, including from sporting and business groups willing to back their reconciliation ambitions publicly with advertising, advocacy and sponsorship.

The issue is too important, however, to be fought as a popularity contest or a procedural item on the list of corporate social responsibility obligations. Voters deserve facts and concerns need to be properly put to rest.

As a newspaper we have made our position clear. We support constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians and for them to be able to give advice to government on matters that concern them. We recognise that achieving success in a referendum is a difficult task that is unlikely in the absence of bipartisan support.

Our newspaper pages and digital platforms remain open for all sides to make their best case so that our readers can be fully informed when the time comes for them to make their decision when the referendum is held.