WA backtrack on heritage laws is a reminder the Indigenous voice to parliament can’t be scrapped

WA Premier Roger Cook. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Philip Gostelow

The “forever” nature of Anthony Albanese’s constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament has been put up in lights by the West Australian retreat over introduction of Indigenous cultural heritage laws.

This is the obvious point: there can be no backdown over a voice to parliament that has been cemented into the Constitution.

If the voice proves unpopular, something goes wrong with the advisory body or there are unintended consequences, the entity cannot be scrapped.

While bad governments can be voted out and bad laws can be repealed, the voice is permanent.

The backlash to the WA Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, which entered into force on July 1, shows why governments must sometimes retreat on key policy matters and make corrections when required.

This is part of the ebb and flow of democracy.

The confusion caused by the new WA laws was weakening Labor’s political position in the key state that delivered it majority government. It was turning voters against the voice to parliament and jeopardising success of the referendum.

Farmers feared losing control of their own land and those with properties of more than 1100sq m were being drawn into the chaos.

Action was required to stem the political damage.

At the weekend, news of the WA government backdown was welcomed by Yes23 campaign director Dean Parkin, who said it would provide clear air leading into the referendum.

It also provided a sense of relief to federal Labor, which has come under pressure over its rollout of a planned federal framework for cultural heritage protections.

Yet Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney argued on Monday that permanence of a constitutionally enshrined voice was a key strength of the proposal being put to the Australian people.

“The beauty, the absolute beauty, of this proposition is it is protected by the Constitution. So a government cannot get rid of this voice by the stroke of a pen, which has happened too often in the past,” she told ABC radio.

The WA example speaks to the risks involved in this approach. The No campaign will use the backdown by the WA government to remind Australians there can be no retreating from the voice.

Remember that Albanese’s constitutional amendment guarantees the voice the ability to make representations to parliament and executive government on “matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”.

The amendment guarantees the voice will have input across the policy spectrum. And this cannot be easily changed by future governments with the stroke of a pen.

Australians will need to decide later this year whether this highlights the “beauty” of the voice proposal or its dangers.