Voice supporters say conservatives attacking their own concept

Conservatives seeking to narrow the scope of the Indigenous voice are attacking the concept they ­devised and act out of tribalism, according to Noel Pearson and Shireen Morris.

Noel Pearson. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen/The Australian

Conservatives who seek to narrow the scope of the Indigenous voice are attacking the concept they ­devised and now act out of cowardice or tribalism, two of the proposed reform’s most active supporters have suggested.

Noel Pearson, a director of Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition, and Shireen Morris, a researcher and teacher in constitutional law, write in The Weekend Australian’s Inquirer section that the proposal for the voice to advise not only the parliament but also the executive government is not new. They say it came directly from consultations with constitutional conservatives.

“It was constitutional conservatives who in 2014 emphasised the importance of Indigenous people giving early advice on policy, so that this constitutional change would make a genuine practical difference to Indigenous communities,” they write.

Dr Shireen Morris. Picture: Ian Currie

“We negotiated every word, comma and semicolon of the proposed amendment, until each in the group was satisfied that it would empower Indigenous peoples with an advisory say in their affairs while respecting parliamentary supremacy, eliminating legal uncertainty and upholding the Constitution.”

In one of four essays in Inquirer illustrating the breadth of arguments, Mr Pearson and Dr Morris invite critics to “read the original proposed amendment that we drafted together with the then vice-chancellor of Australian Catholic University, Greg Craven, the then head of the Samuel Griffith Society, Julian Leeser, then Sydney University professor of constitutional law Anne Twomey and ACU faculty member Damien Freeman”.

It proposes the voice “shall provide advice to the parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”.

“So why are some conservatives trashing their own proposal?” Mr Pearson and Dr Morris write. “Perhaps it is cowardice or tribalism: they have turned hostile because the voice referendum is being put by a Labor government.

“The Coalition missed the ­opportunity to lead on this issue. And some don’t like the way the Albanese government is running this referendum. So they are punishing the government or trying to force it to change course, and in the process attacking the concept they devised – even if it is Indigenous people who ultimately pay.”

Also in Inquirer, Jesuit priest and constitutional lawyer Frank Brennan outlines his proposed ­alternative constitutional amendment for a voice with “such structure and functions as the parliament deems necessary to ­facilitate consultation prior to the making of special laws with ­respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”.

Gary Johns, secretary of ­Recognise A Better Way (The Voice No Case Committee ­Incorporated), writes in Inquirer that what is known about the proposed voice so far amounts to a shadow government.

In an essay in Inquirer, constitutional law experts Megan Davis and Gabrielle Appleby ­respond to claims the draft of the constitutional amendment will give rise to litigation in the courts. They ­describe the concerns as disingenuous and overblown.