Warren Mundine’s words of wisdom across the Indigenous voice referendum divide

Indigenous leader Warren Mundine.

Warren Mundine, in many ways, epitomises consensus or an ability to focus on the common ground in this country.

A former ALP national president and one-time federal Liberal candidate, an activist who is at home in Indigenous communities and at capital city gabfests, a man familiar with the ways of government who works in and promotes the private sector, and the former chair of Tony Abbott’s Indigenous advisory board who has become one of the most vocal critics of the Indigenous voice.

Given this background, it was instructive at Tuesday’s Beyond ’23 forum to hear from Mundine about what the future might hold if the Indigenous voice referendum was successful.

There were no warnings from him about racial division or constitutional self-harm, rather there was goodwill.

“If the people of Australia want to go down this path, then I’m really happy to sign up to make it work,” Mundine said.

“It has to work, we can’t have any more failures, I’m committed to that, but I see better ways of doing things.”

This is encouraging and, to a degree, it is what we should expect from someone truly committed to democracy.

But it also goes to the heart of this debate and whether it really is as divisive as some contend.

As I wrote in The Weekend Australian on Saturday, given the broad public support for Indigenous reconciliation, closing the gap and constitutional recognition, we have more agreement on Indigenous matters than disagreement.

Add to that list the broad cross-partisan acceptance of a legislated voice, and you end up at a place where the only sticking point over the voice is whether it is enshrined in the Constitution.

We need to be careful about constitutional wording and unintended consequences, of course, but no clear difficulties with the proposed wording have been made out.

If they were, alternative wording could be put forward.

Elsewhere in the Beyond ’23 forum, Indigenous academic and psychologist Anthony Dillon, while sceptical about the voice, rejected the notion it would be racially divisive. “For those who are for the voice I do not see them as racist,” Dillon said, “and if it does get up, I don’t see it as a racist apartheid policy or anything like that.”

Dillon, however, wants more detail for public consideration, something the voice proponents, From the Heart director Dean Parkin and Fox Sports host Hannah Hollis, believe is not imperative.

In my view, the Albanese government and other proponents do need to put more meat on the bones of the voice idea, regardless of the fact parliaments will always be able to revise and amend the structure.

Detail is important now to give supporters something to explain and to assuage the concerns of critics.

Still, the message I took out of Tuesday’s forum was that this can and should be a logical, sensible conversation rather than a shouting match.

We will all get a say in the ballot box, so we might as well all take the chance to join the discussion in the lead-up, respectfully agreeing or disagreeing.