Voice campaign has failed to heed lessons of history
Voters face a difficult decision on Saturday in a referendum in which political divisions and legitimate concerns have overshadowed the intent of what was trying to be achieved. As a national newspaper, we have come to the debate with a proud history of reporting on issues that impact Indigenous Australians over many decades and a track record of goodwill towards constitutional recognition since the issue was first raised. We emphatically support closing the gap and acknowledge the reality expressed by Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney and others that life expectancy for Indigenous Australians is lower, incarceration rates are higher, health outcomes poorer and levels of domestic and family violence are worse, particularly in remote communities. We want greater reconciliation and constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians and for them to have a greater voice in decision-making on matters that affect them. These principles are essential for the long-run social and political compact of the nation.
It seems, however, that the model being offered is likely to be rejected by a significant number of Australians. And even if, against the odds and the polls, the referendum does succeed on Saturday, it will leave the community divided. There are a number of reasons for this, but chief among them is the fact that even the strongest advocates for a Yes vote have not adequately explained how the voice would work. In Indigenous affairs, our approach has been that symbolic gestures must always be accompanied by practical measures designed to close the gap and improve the lives of Indigenous Australians, particularly those in remote communities. This has been the bedrock of our long association with and support for Indigenous leader Noel Pearson, who has argued forcefully that reconciliation must be grounded in the re-establishment of basic social norms. “It is families who climb stairs,” he once said. “No one has come up with a mechanism for social uplift that involves a mass elevator for a community to ascend all at once.”
The politics of the voice campaign are informed by the Howard government’s intervention in the Northern Territory in response to the Little Children are Sacred report that detailed widespread community dysfunction and abuse against women and children. The intervention was opposed by many urban elites and unwound by the Rudd Labor government. But more than anything, the intervention brought to light the role bureaucratic ineptitude has on the lives of Indigenous Australians in remote areas. The performance of bureaucracy has been a key issue in this referendum debate and Yes proponents have been called on to explain how a constitutionally enshrined voice will make a difference. Their challenge was to address the passionate advocacy of voice opponent Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who argues an industry has thrived off the narrative of separatism and a handful of people have benefited handsomely as a result. Her argument is that rather than create a new bureaucracy permanently etched into our Constitution, we should concentrate on fixing the structures that exist.
Whatever happens in the referendum on Saturday, the need for greater accountability cannot be ignored. The issues will remain the same: how best to recognise Indigenous Australians and deliver better outcomes for those still living in remote community settlements. This responsibility flows inevitably from the High Court’s Mabo decision in 1992 to recognise occupation prior to European settlement and thus overturn the legal fiction of terra nullius. The Mabo decision led to prime minister John Howard’s failed attempt to have Indigenous Australians recognised in a preamble to the Constitution.
Failure then led to the process through which the attempt to have Indigenous Australians recognised in the Constitution through a voice to parliament was born. A Referendum Council authorised the Uluru Dialogues that culminated in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, published in May 2017, which called for “the establishment of a First Nations voice enshrined in the Constitution”. The Uluru Statement remains the foundation on which the voice referendum campaign has been built. The issue was brought to a head when, on election night in May 2022, a victorious Anthony Albanese declared his commitment to introducing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full in Labor’s first term. In response, we said the Albanese government had a mandate for a referendum on constitutional recognition and to establish an Indigenous voice. But we said: “The end game must be improving the lives of disadvantaged Indigenous Australians, especially in remote areas, not championing symbolic gestures.”
From a healthy majority of Yes support when the issue of a referendum was first raised, a majority of voters in September 2023 were telling Newspoll they would vote no. To succeed, a referendum must win a majority of votes in a majority of states. Whatever the outcome on Saturday, the Prime Minister must accept responsibility for what has been a difficult turn of events. Mr Albanese has shown himself prepared to play politics with an issue that had been years in the making. By arguing for change on the basis of the vibe, he has understated the significance of what is at stake. Objections to the way in which he has handled the framing of the referendum question and powers of the voice have been detailed by editor-at-large Paul Kelly. The selected model has been surrounded by disputes over its legal implications and legitimate concerns that it would vastly complicate our governance and undermine classic liberal principles of citizenship equality that were fundamental to our society. Kelly said the notion of equal citizenship was 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. Suspicions about the process were compounded by the government’s refusal to convene a constitutional convention or authorise a full-scale parliamentary assessment at the outset.
Along the way vocal supporters of the voice, including constitutional lawyer Professor Greg Craven, Father Frank Brennan and Liberal MP Julian Leeser, have raised their concerns. Each has been prepared to persevere despite not agreeing with how the referendum question and consultation had been handled. Central to the Albanese government’s approach was the decision to reject calls for a voice to be legislated so it could be road-tested before it was put into the Constitution. This has left Yes proponents unable to answer detailed questions about how a voice would operate and what its powers would be, because these will not be decided by parliament until after the referendum.
Adding the voice to the Constitution has raised valid concerns about what impact there could be from an activist High Court. Assurances given about the limits to the authority and scope of the voice once it is in the Constitution are well-meaning but not definitive or possible to give. Voters know that once a change has been included in the Constitution it cannot easily be altered. Given this is the case, it is unreasonable that there is no clear delineation on matters the voice can concern itself with.
Claims the voice would not involve itself with decisions on things such as defence, Reserve Bank policy and the date of Australia Day cannot be easily accepted, given architects of the voice proposal have said they fully intended that that would be the case. Too little is known about how remote communities with the greatest needs will be represented by a voice that has limited members and will operate primarily in the nation’s capital.
Mr Albanese’s greatest failing has been that no genuine attempt was made to achieve bipartisanship. Claims that opponents of the voice had been swayed by a campaign of misinformation do not stand up to proper scrutiny. Mr Albanese proposed a maximalist position on the referendum question that included advice to executive government, and he refused to amend the question to win the support of detractors. Fundamentally, the issue of equality for everybody under the Constitution is something many people simply are not willing to surrender or dilute. Inevitably, the fraught experience of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has weighed heavily on the minds of many.
As a newspaper that has championed Indigenous rights for many decades, we do not believe a No vote can be interpreted as a reflection of community ill-will towards Indigenous Australians. Rather, it will be a result of government failure to adequately consult and deliver bipartisan support for a workable model.
History shows successful referendums normally win with a big majority and carry all states. Mr Albanese’s goal was to find a model that had broad support and, if that support was not forthcoming, then tell the nation that another form of recognition was going to be necessary. As it stands, the model is flawed and the process has divided Australians rather than unite them. It is for this reason that we are unable to endorse a Yes vote. Whatever the result, as a nation we must continue to strive for proper recognition of Indigenous Australians in a form that will help deliver the fruits of reconciliation for everybody.
Reform-era gains being lost will be hard to recover
Sleepwalking into a less prosperous future that doesn’t have to be.
Trump takes presidency as felon
Court and Biden unable to rise above division for unity of nation.