Anthony Albanese’s task is balancing expectations on the Indigenous voice to parliament
Anthony Albanese and Linda Burney have shifted strategy on the voice to parliament and executive government, arguing there is a limit to the scope of the proposed body’s ability to intervene in government decisions.
What’s more, they are arguing that there are “legal implications” arising from the legislation which will not only limit the voice but also provide insulation in High Court challenges.
But the attempt to provide reassurance to concerned voters is legalistic, and a slim legalistic argument at that, while it still risks alienating Indigenous leaders who may not have been aware of the voice’s fine print limitations.
Under pressure in parliament to rule in or rule out policies or departments that would be subject to voice recommendations, the Prime Minister and Indigenous Australians Minister argued the power of the voice was limited to issues that “specifically or differently” affect Indigenous Australians.
Albanese and Burney fell back on legal implications of Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus’ second reading speech to parliament to reassure the public there was a safeguard against the ambit claims of Indigenous voice supporters. Albanese urged people to read Dreyfus’s second reading speech that made clear the primacy of parliament.
Burney had likewise referred to the parliamentary debate.
In parliament the government was caught in conflict with Indigenous leaders over whether the voice would recommend the abolition of the January 26 Australia Day public holiday. Burney had to back away from her claim on Tuesday the voice “won’t be” seeking to change Australia Day after Indigenous leaders challenged her.
Faced with more questions about the scope of the voice, Burney said: “The Attorney-General made clear, that matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people means, matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, or matters which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, differently. The voice will not be required to make a representation on every law, policy and program.”
Labor still faces the problem of trying to address two different audiences with reassurances to nervous voters the voice will not have a dramatic effect on government decisions and guarantees to Indigenous leaders the voice will not be limited.
More Coverage
Risk that puberty blockers are a trap, not a release, for children
We need a national inquiry into the use of puberty blockers in children.
We need better tech to meet the threat of terrorism
All of the civil agencies who need to play a part in fighting the anti-Semitism and Islamophobic threat are not properly funded to undertake modernisation rapidly.