Julian Leeser has provided Peter Dutton with a key opportunity to support the principle of the voice and avoid locking the Liberals into a purely negative position on the referendum.
It is a potential breakthrough for the Opposition following the devastation of the Aston by-election defeat, and would also give Anthony Albanese the option of forging a stronger consensus on the voice – although he is unlikely to take it.
Leeser’s proposal would simplify the Prime Minister’s constitutional amendment, limit the risk of High Court challenges and give the parliament even greater control over the voice.
Is a consensus likely? The politics of the voice referendum suggest not.
Albanese is limited in how far he can compromise because he has already accepted the key demand of his referendum working group.
This is set out in clause 2 — the second and most controversial sentence in Albanese’s proposed amendment.
It enshrines within the nation’s founding document the ability of the voice to make representations to parliament and executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.
The reference to executive government is seen as a non-negotiable issue for members of the working group, and they have vigorously defended it.
Leeser is proposing the removal of clause 2 in its entirety, arguing its inclusion will be the “rallying point for the no campaign” and put the referendum at risk.
He says the voice should be enshrined in the Constitution, but the rest left to parliament to determine — including the scope of the advisory body, how it would make representations to government and at what level. The High Court would be cut out of the equation on these issues.
These changes represent a radical departure from what is on the table and this more minimalist approach will inform the official Liberal position to be progressed at a special partyroom meeting called for Wednesday morning.
“Like other institutions the voice should operate within limits set by parliament,” Leeser told the National Press Club on Monday. “I believe this clause (2) will be at the centre of the No case. It puts at risk the entirety of the cause at the ballot box.”
The speech has refined the impasse ahead.
A genuine attempt to win bipartisan support — a historic precondition for referendum success — will require Albanese to compromise on executive government and risk a public falling-out or even a brawl with the key members of his referendum working group.
This group includes key figures such as Megan Davis, Thomas Mayo, Ken Wyatt, Marcia Langton, Pat Anderson and Noel Pearson.
Albanese has calculated that the referendum cannot succeed if there is a split with the working group. It is hard to see him entertaining a proposal they do not support – an
instructive lesson on how future governments may view advice from the voice should a referendum succeed.
For this reason, a compromise based on Leeser’s proposal appears to be a forlorn prospect.
Despite this, Dutton now has the chance to take a more constructive approach to the voice and change the narrative that he has been too negative.
If he embraces the Leeser model it could transform the politics of the voice debate, put more pressure on Albanese to compromise and give the Liberals a greater moral authority in the public debate over indigenous recognition in the constitution.
More Coverage
Why work is so much better than welfare
Buoyed by her own experiences under the Community Development Program, Malarndirri McCarthy is hoping to return dignity to the workplace.
‘Colonisation’ behind climb bans
New climbing routes at Mt Arapiles were blocked because traditional owners viewed it as a form of ‘colonisation’.