Albanese’s test: to unite us in our great divide

Albanese needs to show the voice is a leadership aberration for him, not the new normal. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

It is a time to pause, heal and repair. Many Indigenous Australians will feel rejected and aggrieved by the vote against the voice. Every leader should make clear this was not a vote against reconciliation, against Indigenous peoples or against Closing the Gap.

The nation now moves past the debate about the national voice. There should be no triumphalism from the No side. It is understood there will be acrimony. Recovery will take time and patience. There will be a heavy responsibility on both Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton to rebuild a basis for bipartisanship.

It is surely correct that a majority of people, whether voting Yes or No, want to see the divide being bridged. The idea of a national voice is finished. That is the finality of referendums. In truth, it was always the likelihood from this referendum.

Albanese and Dutton must repudiate any notion this was a vote for the status quo. It wasn’t. That means new efforts and pathways to address Aboriginal disadvantage.

But this must navigate the erupting legacy of Indigenous political dispute between the anti-separatist agenda of Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price leading the No case and the Aboriginal leaders who championed the Yes side.

This referendum was Albanese’s decision and responsibility. It will be seen as a misjudgment of astonishing dimensions, given warnings about the contentious nature of the proposal were issued at the outset.

The main reason for the loss is obvious: it was a flawed proposal, raising grave doubts about constitutional principle and governance practicality. Yet all such warnings were dismissed, almost with contempt.

Given the Yes vote will be around 38 per cent, it is most unlikely the voice would have passed even with formal bipartisanship.

That Albanese declined any constitutional convention suggests he was ready to gamble bipartisanship was not necessary. Yet Labor, to an extent, engaged in the massive delusion that Dutton might support from opposition a proposal the Coalition had repeatedly rejected in office. This was never likely.

The referendum vote doesn’t translate into a party vote. But it constitutes a leadership failure for Albanese and will raise the question post-voice: how effective is Albanese’s leadership on the pressing challenges such as cost-of-living, power prices, the renewables transition, real wages, living standards and national security.

Albanese needs to show the voice is a leadership aberration for him, not the new normal.

For Albanese, that’s the test.

The result is a substantial victory for Dutton. It consolidates his leadership. It shows Dutton’s forte is pitching to the sources of Australian conservatism, regionalism and to suburban apprehensions.

But it suggests the Dutton party remains a forlorn force in the teal-held former Liberal seats. It is a mistake for the Liberals to think the No vote in Labor seats means replication at an election.

The vote means that historic constitutional recognition of the Indigenous peoples – despite being the policy of both major parties – will be many years away. Future agreement over the form of recognition will be an improbable venture.

The size of the voice’s rejection affirms the iron law of referendums – they will only pass when politically uncontentious and gifted with bipartisanship. Labor’s decision to prioritise the voice over the republic means another republican referendum is most unlikely during the next 20 years.

The baby-boom generation is destined not to witness an Australian republic.

The vote revealed the Australian instinct for equality and unity, lessons Labor needs to absorb. It exposed the unhealthy fracture of our society into two camps — the high-income, tertiary-educated progressives who have power, and the majority in the suburbs and regions, preoccupied by daily pressures, suspicious of major changes and wary of progressive patronage.

Albanese accepted responsibility for the referendum. In calling upon all people to respect the result with “grace and humility”, Albanese knows his task is to reunite the country.

It won’t be easy. He will face heavy criticism from Dutton and needs to ensure he doesn’t get sucked into an ongoing squabble about the defeat.

The Prime Minister’s message to Indigenous Australians was to “maintain your hope and know that you are loved”. Albanese said he honoured his promise by putting the referendum. It showed that he “will always be ambitious” for the country. That’s good.

Yet this referendum divided Australia. The result proves it should never have been put in these terms. Dutton’s critique on this precise point is correct. On this issue, Albanese misjudged middle Australia — a warning for Labor.

Senator Price, however, delivered the big message. She invested the referendum result with a profound meaning.

“I think it’s time for a new era in Indigenous policy, in the Indigenous narrative,” she said. “We have to step away from grievance. It’s time to accept that we are all part of the fabric of this nation, that Indigenous Australians are also Australian citizens.”

Price repudiates the norms of Aboriginal leadership in this nation. She believes the voice was not just a mistake but reflected a misguided Indigenous ideology.

“It is a time for a change,” Price said. “It is time to apply more accountability to those who are responsible for the lives of the most marginalised.”

This is destined to become the most contentious legacy of the referendum. Its most influential politician wants a fundamental change to the vision and policies defining Aboriginal advancement.

That will challenge Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, all of us.