The Indigenous voice has entered the slow, long death dive of Australian referendums. Unless it pulls out, it will crash and burn on polling day.

The problem is not malice, trickery or incompetence. It is the absolute refusal of the Albanese government to provide details for the voice. The red lights are flashing clearly. Statistically, recent polls show support for the voice collapsing as the referendum slowly draws closer. This is typical of Australian referendums, but this early and for a referendum without detail it is catastrophic.

As a director of the pro-voice organisation Uphold and Recognise, I have been involved in numerous attempts to bring out wise, respected, moderate Australians in favour of the voice. Much less than a handful have agreed. The polite refusals are all the same. Eminent Australians will not back the voice until they know what it is.

Yet it seems a point of honour with the government that it would rather die than divulge, even if this takes the referendum with it.
....
Inevitably, a confusing and sometimes misleading campaign will result in most of the Undecideds voting against the voice. Just as depressing is the softness underlying approval of the voice. About a third of the Yes vote is a present inclination rather than a firm vote.

Yet another problem is that, as much as the Prime Minister says this referendum does not belong to him or Labor, it does. The polls show support for the voice overwhelmingly comes from Labor voters and other progressives. Support from conservatives is miserably thin. A bipartisan referendum this is not. But the knockout blow comes from electors demanding exactly the sort of detail Labor just will not give.

Only half those supporting the voice think they have enough information to vote. Undecided voters overwhelmingly demand more information. This is a train wreck willing itself to happen. But Labor’s refusal to elaborate is unflinching. Its only theoretical attempt to justify its ban on detail is an absolute proposition that with constitutional amendments you put the principle in the Constitution and leave the undisclosed guts for future legislation. This is not fair dealing with the public.
...
What will be the name of the voice? Calma-Langton and Albanese sensibly go with “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples voice”. Some Indigenous radicals want the divisive “First Nations voice”. Which is it? How does someone get on to the voice? Will you be elected or appointed as a representative by local bodies? Calma-Langton wisely avoids the politics of election. So is this the idea? Which local bodies will feed into the national voice and keep it firmly grounded in Indigenous people and problems, and how? What government action will be scrutinised by the voice? The proposed draft says “matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”. But does this catch only specially connected matters or also general laws inevitably affecting Indigenous people?

Albanese apparently says general amendments to Medicare would not be caught. Is that right? Is it totally up to parliament when and whether it consults the voice, or are there some situations where parliament is obliged to consult? Calma-Langton says yes. What does the government think? Will the government stick with its draft amendment subjecting executive action to the consultation requirements of the voice? Rightly or wrongly, people will worry this could involve the judges. Is the worry worth the gain?
On the issue of the judges enforcing the voice, Calma-Langton wisely said they should not but did not offer a specific legal formula to prevent it. Some eminent lawyers do not think judicial intervention a realistic problem. But between genuine worry and conscious mischief, what (if anything) should or could be done about it? Again, Calma-Langton proposed that the voice would be kept away from loads of money and resources, so preventing the standard accusations of a new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Is this the idea? Every public body needs assurance. The ultimate assurance is sacking someone who acts inappropriately. Calma-Langton says only the voice should be able to sack one of its members. Is this a problem?

Finally, the sternest criticism is it will make no difference on the ground to real problems such as family violence, poor educational outcomes and appalling health. Have we considered putting legislative priorities over the voice requiring it to focus on these policy failures?

None of these questions is meant negatively. Each is a genuine query that reasonably can be asked by strong supporters of the voice to understand the proposal and to answer ill-willed criticism.

Greg Craven is a constitutional lawyer and a former vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University. He is a member of the federal government’s constitutional experts group.

Frank wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2023 at 11:17pm:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlWYW84aUAIU7HZ?.jpg

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2023 at 12:02pm:


You were talking about 'the voice',
Part 1.1 of our Constitution:

"The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament".

AusGeoff wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2023 at 11:43am:



but at no stage does anything proposed give them any legislative power


If you're going to cry so much about something, at least TRY to understand what it is you're crying about

Shut up Larry,  the adults are talking.

Shut up Larry,  the adults are talking.

I hope the ATSI leaders realise how toxic the phrases "always was, always will be Aboriginal land" and "sovereignty never ceded" will become the moment that they are publicised to the general public - and we can be certain that they will be.