Indigenous voice to parliament a confusing debacle

Albanese sought to take the political initiative but stumbled over detail and contradicted what he has said before. Picture: NCA NewsWire / David Beach

Another day’s debate on the Indigenous voice to parliament and treaties with First Nation Australians and another day of confusing debacle. It’s almost better when Anthony Albanese and Linda Burney don’t answer questions than when they do.

At least when the Prime Minister and the Indigenous Australians Minister stonewall, are struck dumb or provide entirely irrelevant answers, the public knows what it still doesn’t know.

But when Albanese decides to clear things up or Burney moves to a different script there is only more confusion and guesswork about how the voice will work and how it will tie into the Makarrata commission — which is “code” for treaty and truth telling.

The only fact – perhaps it’s a fact – to emerge from the government’s attempts on Wednesday to clarify how a treaty would come about and divorce the voice referendum proposal from such a treaty was that the Makarrata commission won’t operate until after the voice referendum is passed.

There is also the impression, confused as that is, that there will not be any negotiation for a commonwealth treaty with First Nations people in this term of the Labor government.

But, any further detail on how the voice itself will work, how the Makarrata commission will be constituted, how it will work and whether it will negotiate a treaty, is absent, buried in silence and obfuscation.

What’s more, there is still no explanation of where $5.8m already allocated for the commission, including almost $1m that has already been spent, has gone or will go. This money, part of a total $26m Labor has pledged for the commission, remains unexplained and unaccounted for.

Striking out early on the ABC, Albanese sought to take the political initiative and create the narrative that the No campaign is only talking about what’s “not in” the referendum, but stumbled over detail and contradicted what he has said before.

Albanese said treaties were occurring at state and territory level, he said the Uluru Statement was not about treaties and said “no” there wouldn’t be a commonwealth treaty in this term, but wouldn’t rule out that there could be a commonwealth treaty at some stage.

Labor is caught between desperately seeking to kill off debate about a treaty and not being able to rule one out.

In parliament, Burney got a new script, but as with the old one it didn’t answer the questions about her own statements about Makarratta being code for a treaty or give any clue as to where the money for the commission has gone although it won’t exist until after the referendum at least.

Confusion, doubt and the lack of detail and answers continue to cloud the voice debate and stall Albanese’s referendum campaign.

What is worse for Labor, it looks like the PM is more interested in opaque arguments about the voice than he is about the impact of crushing cost-of-living pressures on all families.