Indigenous voice to parliament referendum Yes fanatics ‘risk silencing voice’: Greg Craven

‘All or nothing’ faction of Yes campaign would rather see Indigenous voice to parliament fail if it does not reflect their vision, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese adviser claims.

Greg Craven says some members of the Yes campaign ‘would see the referendum go down unless it reflects their own vision’. Picture: Jane Dempster

An “all or nothing” faction of the Yes campaign would rather see the Indigenous voice to parliament fail if it does not reflect their vision, one of Anthony Albanese’s constitutional advisers on the referendum claims.

Greg Craven, a constitutional lawyer and professor emeritus at the Australian Catholic Univer­sity, has attacked unnamed voice proponents and said “one determined bloc demands no detail so it can dictate the model after the referendum, regardless of popular or political preference”.

“This partly explains the detail deficit. But this is not the most radical position,” Professor Craven writes in The Australian on Monday. “There are others (who) would see the referendum go down unless it reflects their own vision.”

Professor Craven is a member of the eight-member Constitutional Expert Group that gives legal advice to the 21 Indigenous members of the Prime Minister’s referendum working group as they prepare for the voice referendum in the second half of 2023.

His remarks were met with shock and disgust among Indigenous leaders contacted on Sunday. One member of the referendum working group said Professor Craven was angry that his colleagues did not share the intensity of his views about how the constitutional amendment for the voice should be worded.

Professor Craven has concerns over the provision for the voice to advise the bureaucracy – executive government – and not just parliament.

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the working group member questioned how Professor Craven could continue to provide advice to the Indigenous leaders on the referendum working group after what would be viewed as an attack on them.

“Unfortunately cry-baby Craven has compromised himself,” one member of the working group said. “I don’t see how this has become such a big issue for the voice to advise government when the former government commissioned exactly that – a voice to government.”

Professor Craven is a longtime supporter of an Indigenous advisory body but he advocated what many voice proponents considered an unacceptable compromise in 2021 with a proposed constitutional amendment that did not have the word voice in it.

When then-prime minister Scott Morrison was clearly hostile to the prospect of an Indigenous advisory body with constitutional protection, Professor Craven and the organisation he directs – Uphold & Recognise – briefed Mr Morrison’s office on a proposal for a more general constitutional amendment.

In his essay in The Australian on Monday, Professor Craven said: “Most in the voice’s inner circle simply want a good model supporting a vital cause. They have views, but would never risk the referendum. Then there are others. Admittedly, some are honourable protagonists who genuinely cannot support a version of the voice they believe will short-change Indigenous people. They may be wrong, but cannot be blamed.

“Others are more complex. They would rather the referendum founder than not reflect their own wide raft of policy or even their preferred wording. This position ranges from misplaced intransigence to egotism.

“Then there are those who would not just watch the referendum fail but actively blow it up if they could not absolutely control the outcome. They would walk away, blaming the government for the debacle.

“They are the ‘All or nothing’ faction. Their exact motives are unclear but they assume a grave moral responsibility.

“The problem with all or nothing is you often get nothing.”

Working group member Sean Gordon on Friday said he had some concerns about a constitutional amendment that allowed the voice to advise executive government because this could “add confusion” to the referendum question.