Uluru plan could not be fairer

It’s not entirely clear what those who oppose an indigenous voice are complaining about.

Some of the warnings to Scott Morrison from Coalition MPs and right-of-centre commentators about indigenous constitutional recognition are wise. It is not the highest priority for “quiet Australians” and must not distract the government from core economic and security objectives; it must not be divisive; and the Prime Minister must not dance to the tune of leftist activists or virtue-signalling jingoism from big business or sporting or media groups.

Yet it seems Morrison grasps this, tasking Indigenous Affairs Minister Ken Wyatt to lead a steady national debate. And much of the antipathy to the consensus indigenous proposal — outlined in the Uluru Statement from the Heart — is wrongheaded.

It is not entirely clear what the opponents are arguing against but whatever it is, it’s not the proposal at hand.

Our Constitution represents a deft and practical coming together of six colonies into one nation that deliberately left out the seventh group of people here at the time, the first inhabitants. The historic mistreatment and continued disadvantage of indigenous Australians, dispossessed and often disregarded, remains our nation’s greatest shame and most pressing national challenge.

Finding an appropriate place in the nation’s founding document ought to be part of the puzzle. This is not about inserting race into our Constitution — race is in our Constitution and has been there from the start, mentioned three times in Section 25, crucially as the “race power” in Section 51 and through a reference to “Aboriginal natives” in the now repealed Section 127.

Whatever you think about indigenous recognition, many would argue the Constitution needs a tidy-up to remove the redundant race provisions and ensure the “race power” — expanded in the 1967 referendum to include indigenous Australians — is narrowed to apply only to ­indigenous affairs.

Contrary to much of the criticism, the model now endorsed by the Uluru Statement from the Heart is driven by a desire to remove race from the Constitution, as far as is possible. At its core is a desire to protect the Constitution from radical recognition proposals that have been advocated through the years, including by powerful political forces, expert panels and leftist advocates.

The voice was devised in concert with constitutional conservatives, deliberately, to avoid unintended consequences from a flowery preamble or the insertion of a racial non-discrimination clause that would enshrine a de facto bill of rights.

So, you can see the thrust of the arguments used against the voice option are disingenuous.

Fanciful phrases such as “third chamber” and “special rights” are thrown around to mislead voters and generate concern when the intention of the plan is to avoid such traps. Other myths need to be busted, but first let me give a shorthand explanation of the proposal, its genesis and rationale.

Concerned by activist plans for recognition, conservative thinkers worked up their alternative plan with Aboriginal leaders.

The aim was to leave the symbolic business of recognition for a declaration about the nation — celebrating our three strands of indigenous, British and multicultural heritage — to be made outside the Constitution.

This declaration might be tabled in parliament, read at official functions and taught in schools but it would have no legal bearing — this is not activism but constitutional protection. What conservative could possibly argue with the rationale and the solution up to this point? Neat, useful and safe.

But it left out a major piece in the puzzle. Up to that point the plan would do nothing to deliver any practical improvement for indigenous people — nothing to inoculate them and their descendants from any repeat of the misdeeds of the past, nothing to hold out hope of a better future.

A history of being ignored, discriminated against and patronised by governments gave way in recent decades to disjointed, corrupted and sometimes cursory indigenous advisory bodies to government. The prospect of a guaranteed and properly representative body advocating indigenous views to a federal parliament empowered to legislate on their affairs was a common sense way to guarantee a fair go.

What if Aboriginal Australians knew they would be heard by government? Even if their advice was rejected, they would have a voice.

Properly constituted, a voice could streamline indigenous advocacy to government, engender greater self-reliance and deliver better policy outcomes. It surely couldn’t produce anything worse than what we’ve seen during the past two centuries of failure.

There are various views on how a voice would be constituted. Some have suggested all Aboriginal people would get a vote; other ideas hinge on indigenous communities and organisations nominating representatives and, of course, government might have a role in nominations too.

This detail is up for debate but crucially, even if the voice were mandated in the Constitution, the detail about its formulation and operation would be left to the ­parliament. It would be clearly, legally and effectively subordinate to parliament. The voice’s advice would relate only to matters directly impinging on indigenous affairs and would be non-binding.

It is a ridiculous exaggeration to suggest it would act as a third chamber.

It is surely not too much to expect — that indigenous people would provide advice to government on how to manage their affairs. So uncontentious is this concept that governments, Labor and Liberal, have already had ­indigenous advisory committees in place.

In fact it is more difficult to think of a federal government without such an advisory body than it is to conceive of a government obliged by the Constitution to formulate one. Perhaps we could even see a voice formed and hear how it works before we vote to mandate it in the Constitution.

Are the nay-sayers arguing that the only indigenous advisory body we can trust is one chosen by the prime minister? Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull both had advisory councils. Were they third chambers? It is silly.

This leads me to perhaps the biggest furphy of the current debate. Many opponents of the voice say it will confer special advantage on indigenous Australians.

It is difficult to figure how having the opportunity to share an advisory opinion to a government legislating over your affairs as an indigenous person is a special right more than an essential element of fairness. How can we accept that our nation’s ruling instrument grants special powers to the federal government to legislate over indigenous people yet grant them no special right to have any input? Fair go.

Besides, this could be viewed as a special privilege only if other interest groups did not benefit from government-facilitated mechanisms for doing the same. The federal government is replete with specialist advisory bodies.

A quick check reveals hundreds of bodies: an ABC Advisory Board, ACCC Consumer Consultative Committee, ACIAR Policy Advisory Council, Aged Care Quality and Safety Advisory Council, Agricultural Industry Advisory Council, Australian National Advisory Council on Alcohol and Drugs, National Landcare Advisory Council, Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission Advisory Board, Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council, Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council, Prime Ministerial Advisory Council on Veterans’ Mental Health, and on and on they go until, of course, we have a range of indigenous advisory committees and the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council.

The voice would differ little from most of these except that it would be more representative and more important and render some of them redundant. If critics must describe it as a chamber, then it will not be a third chamber but perhaps the 598th chamber.

But of course the concept of this being a chamber, diminishing the power of the parliament, is laughable. The voice would be legislated by parliament and could be revised, reformed or reduced at any time. It would likely benefit the parliament and the nation as much as it serves indigenous ­people.

The voice proposal is so innocuous and routine it is quite remarkable that indigenous consensus has formed around it — that indigenous Australia has settled for so little. Concerned right-of-centre advocates should work to ensure this reform is managed in a constitutionally conservative fashion by the Morrison Coalition government rather than left for activists to enact under a future Labor government.

Here is a chance for historic and practical reform, cautiously managed, in a way that can deliver meaningful outcomes for the most disadvantaged and marginalised people in our land. None other than former chief justice of the High Court Murray Gleeson this week soberly laid out a detailed and reassuring case in support. To shamelessly steal the words of a former prime minister, this plan would not so much change the Constitution as complete it.