Voice failure is a lesson for politicians in how to get it right

Frank Brennan is quite right to say that Australia cannot afford another train wreck like last year’s voice referendum (“Voices rise from referendum ashes”, 1/3).

Father Brennan provides a well-studied summary of the events that led to the ill-fated federal government attempt to change the Constitution.

Whether or not the rejection of the voice was due to a failure to follow the basic rules of political process, or a failure to properly accommodate the philosophical tradition of Indigenous people, one thing stood out.

In departing from a fundamental element of accepted due process that was applied in previous referendums, the Albanese government’s refusal to call a constitutional convention before the referendum question was put to the people at the voting booth sounded the voice’s death knell.

One way or the other, there is no doubt that the overwhelming general public goodwill of the vast majority of Australians will eventually move us towards Closing the Gap in harmony with our fellow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aussies.

John Bell, Heidelberg Heights, Vic

Frank Brennan has had a long, close and very knowledgeable relationship with Australia’s Indigenous people.

All the changes that he recommended to Anthony Albanese were made with both a detailed knowledge of the law and a lengthy experience with everyday ordinary people who were going to vote in the referendum.

For Albanese to call Father Brennan “politically naive” is the pot calling the kettle black.

Had the Prime Minister gained the support of the Opposition Leader and compromised in the way outlined by Father Brennan, and had he taken the Australian people into his confidence by providing details of how the voice would operate, the outcome of the referendum could well have been a resounding Yes.

Christopher Doogan, Malua Bay, NSW

How dare Frank Brennan point the finger at the Prime Minister for the referendum defeat.

Anthony Albanese has already explained that he didn’t lose, the First Australians did. That should be enough to close the matter.

Father Brennan needs to understand that the priority was to wedge the opposition so that it could be targeted for being on the losing side at the next election. The Prime Minister needed no advice or dissenting voices, as his massive personal popularity in the Australian community would be more than sufficient to win any referendum put to the country.

That neither of these occurred is not the fault of the Prime Minister. It is everyone else’s fault.

It has been a hard and expensive lesson for First Australians to discover that if they had put their trust in more people like Father Brennan rather than a politician who refused to embrace a bipartisan model, there might have been a positive outcome.

Well done, Father Brennan, for speaking up. Politicians work for us, we don’t work for them.

Chris Blanch, Spring Hill, Qld

It’s ironic that Anthony Albanese would accuse Frank Brennan of political naivety.

Politics is not Father Brennan’s area but he was clearly seeing red flags that the Prime Minister, a politician, missed.

Father Brennan encouraged the government to pivot and amend the question to give it a chance but was ignored.

As a student of history, he knew that referendums in Australia have a dismal record of success in any event, but particularly if they don’t enjoy bipartisan support. It is a trap for new governments to assume the electorate is on board with their early agendas. The voice misread put the government firmly on the backfoot.

Regardless of the result in Dunkley, everything needs to go right for Albanese in the lead-up to the next election. If not, this government has “oncer” written all over it.

Kim Keogh, Claremont, WA

From time to time, during the voice campaign, the thought intruded that Anthony Albanese was running the Yes case to fail.

If that is the case, there is some validity in his accusation that Frank Brennan was being politically naive in making suggestions that would have improved the chances of success for the proposition. The good priest was running to win while others on the team were not. We can only wonder why.

Frank Pulsford, Aspley, Qld