Voice debate must unfold in respectful spirit of unity

The phony war is over. Forty-four days from Thursday, on Saturday, October 14, Australians will endorse or reject the establishment of a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous voice to parliament and executive government. Despite complexities and unintended consequences such a body could present, Anthony Albanese was at pains on Wednesday to present the Yes case as clear and straightforward, words he sprinkled through his speech in Adelaide. For those just switching on to the issue, he urged: “Have a read of the Uluru Statement from the Heart – just one page, full of grace and generosity, inviting all Australians to walk together to a better future. Have a chat to the Yes campaign volunteers at your train station or shopping centre.” Voters who follow the issue know that is an oversimplification.

The best part of the speech was about what the Prime Minister said the voice could offer as a “practical way of dealing with issues that, despite all the good intentions in this world, no Australian government has been able to get right before”. It would be a committee of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, local representatives from every state and territory, regions, remote communities and the Torres Strait Islands providing advice about the challenges they face in health, education, jobs and housing. “We’ll be able to learn about the things that are working in local areas so we can replicate them and make them work right around the country,” Mr Albanese said. “Giving locals a say, of course, means that we save money too … we’ll be making sure the funding actually reaches the people on the ground.”

The launch had an upbeat, positive tone. But only eight of 44 referendums since Federation have been carried. And Mr Albanese knows that without bipartisanship, the Yes side will struggle to achieve the required “double majority” – a majority of votes overall and a majority of votes in a majority of states. He named “respected Liberals like (Tasmanian) Premier Jeremy Rockliff, Ken Wyatt, Kate Carnell, Sean Gordon, Bridget Archer, Julian Leeser and Fred Chaney” as backers of the Yes case. So is former foreign minister Julie Bishop. There is no bipartisanship, however. Peter Dutton, Country Liberal Party senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, the opposition and former prime ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott are strong opponents. In Sydney, Malcolm Turnbull has been campaigning with Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek for the Yes side. We respect his right to do so and his right to change his mind. But he has shifted a long way since 2019 when he said during a public conversation at the University of Oxford: “I believe that all of our national institutions should be open to every Australian. I don’t agree with a national elected body that would become in effect a third chamber of parliament, being available only to Aboriginal Australians.”

Unlike in an election campaign when governments go into caretaker mode, the voice campaigns will unfold across the next six weeks while the normal business of government and decisions on the economy, foreign relations, defence and social policy continue. Feelings on both sides of the voice debate are strong and the national conversation will be lively. It needs to be respectful, conducted in a good spirit and avoid “them” and “us” divisions. We are all Australians. And in the interests of national unity, personal attacks, abuse and flinging accusations of racism – by either side – when disagreements arise, including on social media, must be avoided.