Confusion and contradiction rule on voice to parliament
Those saying it is an absolute and comprehensive rejection of the voice are getting ahead of themselves, as Linda Burney has indicated. Some things, though, stand out.
At this stage, the Coalition will oppose the “Canberra voice”, whatever that is. It supports regional voices. Backbenchers, though not members of the shadow cabinet will have a free vote.
Dutton himself will campaign for the No case.
Then there are an awful lot of things that are opaque.
On the basis of his press conference, Dutton is prepared and not prepared to talk with the Prime Minister about the current wording of the amendment.
He will or will not be open to using the upcoming joint select committee to come up with alternative formulations. There may or may not be some very modest initiative at national level.
What does he mean by regional voices? He actually is on the money here, given that the Calma-Langton report recommended establishing regional voices before a national voice.
The Albanese way was always like building the roof before the house.
But what are we talking about here? Are we to have regional voices without a national system? How are they to be established? What will be the role of the states?
Most confusingly of all, Dutton says the Coalition still favours “constitutional recognition”.
But what does he mean? If not the voice, then what? Is he hinting at an amendment to the Constitution’s preamble, as proposed by Warren Mundine and Tony Abbott in a fit of constitutional inanity?
Of course, some of the consequences of Dutton’s statement are very challenging.
The most dramatic is that there now seems no chance of a bipartisan referendum.
This is grim news for anyone supporting any sort of voice on any constitutional terms. No partisan referendum in living memory has succeeded. The overwhelming majority of referendums crash and burn even if they do have bipartisan support.
The Coalition’s opposition is particularly challenging in the context of current polls showing support for the voice stuck in the low 50s. Referendums have to start very high if they are to have a chance of scraping over the line.
With Queensland and Western Australia looking dodgy for the voice, the requirement for a majority of states is challenging.
Yet the chilling reality for Dutton is that by opposing it, he will bear responsibility if this referendum fails. The fact he would share that honour with a Prime Minister who has been highhanded will be cold comfort.
A society that spurns the most ancient and disadvantaged component of its community will be a deeply troubled nation.
Depending on what facts actually emerge from Wednesday’s epically confusing press conference, Dutton will be typed in this referendum. One very dark picture would be of a conservative leader absolutely refusing to negotiate on the defining moral and legal issue of the decade.
He needs to understand that this type of intransigent perception would deeply affect the attitudes of conservatives both in and outside the partyroom.
Significant numbers of conservatives have hit the pause button on this referendum. They support the voice but reject the constitutional language. So far, in practical terms, that has meant a qualified vow of silence.
But if – and at this stage it is “if” – the official position of the Coalition is adamantine opposition to the concept of a voice, these conservatives will need to decide what trumps what. In a new stark dichotomy between a personal moral imperative to vote Yes, and an absolute decision by their party of choice to vote No, they may have to make a hard choice directed by ethics rather than politics.
This Easter will be critical for Dutton. He needs to decide whether he is open to some measure of discussion or monolithically negative.
Emeritus Professor Greg Craven is a constitutional lawyer
More Coverage
‘Misuse of elder’s image’ ignites family fury
The Bathurst Wiradyuri corporation behind a string of heritage claims has ‘slipped away from any cultural guidance’ its former leader had established, his family claim, striking out against the alleged appropriation of his image.
Bee sting: family fury as elder’s memory ‘exploited’
The family of the late Indigenous leader whose ashes were scattered at Mount Panorama-Wahluu say his legacy has been appropriated, with even his memorial ceremony abused.
Peter Dutton’s statement on the Indigenous voice is like a book of postmodernist philosophy. It is very hard to read.