Ross Stitt wonders if Australians can 'come together after a struggle' that for generations has marginalised its indigenous people. Or will it just sink into another dispiriting chapter in the increasingly toxic culture wars

What issues will dominate the Australian political agenda in 2023? The usual suspects – inflation, interest rates, house prices, unemployment, and immigration. 

But there’s a new issue that may eclipse them all (and resonate in New Zealand), namely a proposed indigenous ‘Voice to Parliament’.

This Voice would be a constitutionally enshrined body that would enable Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders to provide non-binding advice to parliament and the federal government on policy matters affecting them. The Labor government has undertaken to hold a national referendum before the end of 2023 to ask Australians whether they support the creation of such a body.

Interestingly, Australia will face this choice at the same time New Zealand prepares for an election in which the appropriate role and scope of Māori ‘co-governance’ will be on the agenda.

For decades, Australia has been engaged in a process of ‘reconciliation’ aimed at improving relations between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians and at ‘closing the gap’ in life outcomes between the two. In terms of the latter at least, success has been elusive.

The recognition of indigenous Australians in the Australian Constitution has long been seen as an important step on the path to reconciliation. In 2015, the then government and opposition jointly appointed a council to investigate how this step might be achieved.

The result, after extensive consultation between indigenous groups across the country and a ‘First Nations National Constitutional Convention’, was the issue in 2017 of the ‘Uluru Statement from the Heart’. That statement made several proposals including an indigenous Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Constitution.

The Malcolm Turnbull-led Coalition government at the time rejected an indigenous Voice as too “radical” and said that it could not win acceptance in a referendum. However, the idea has been embraced by the Labor Party which, under the leadership of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, is committed to taking the proposal to a national referendum this year.

The government has released a draft of the referendum question to be put to voters – “Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?”

It has also produced an indicative draft of the type of wording that would be added to the Constitution if the referendum is successful. Parliament would be empowered “to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures” of an indigenous “body” that “may make representations” to parliament and the government “on matters relating to” indigenous Australians.  

You don’t need to be a constitutional lawyer to recognise how vague this wording is. Who would be on this new body, how would they be chosen, what powers would they have, and what would constitute a matter “relating” to indigenous Australians?

Prominent indigenous academics have undertaken significant work on how the Voice might operate but it is unclear to what extent the government would follow their recommendations.

There are two primary reasons for employing broad drafting. First, the details of the proposed Voice have not yet been finalised. That would be a job for parliament if the referendum was successful. Furthermore, the intention would be that the nature and operation of the Voice might change over time as appropriate.

Secondly, the government wants to avoid complexity in the referendum, and to portray it as a simple choice either for or against advancing race relations in Australia.

This objective is understandable. Complexity was the undoing of the Australia’s unsuccessful referendum on becoming a republic back in 1999.        

And referenda are notoriously difficult even without complexity. Since federation in 1901, Australians have voted in referenda on 44 proposed changes. Only eight have achieved the required ‘double majority’ – a national majority of voters in all states and territories plus a majority of voters in a majority of states. 

The problem for the government is that opponents of the Voice argue that Australians cannot vote in favour of constitutional change without a much better understanding of what it would involve.

A draft referendum bill is expected in the next few months and that may provide more clarity.

What are the key arguments currently being canvassed for and against the Voice?

Advocates argue that Australia has a deplorable record on indigenous affairs and it’s time to listen to what indigenous Australians want, to give them a say in matters affecting them. The Law Council of Australia says that the Voice “would be a manifestation of the right to self-determination”, a fundamental principle under the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous People.

Many pro-Voice Australians aren’t concerned about the detailed arguments. For them, it’s all about the ‘vibe’; it’s ‘the right thing to do’. And that’s how the government is selling it.

Opponents of the Voice have two main arguments. First, that race-based constitutional distinctions are divisive and anti-democratic; that they undermine the fundamental principle of equality among citizens. Secondly, that the vague wording proposed for the Constitution would open the floodgates to endless litigation and unpredictable judicial activism by unelected judges.    

What’s the public’s current thinking?

According to Roy Morgan and AFR/Freshwater polls carried out in December, about 50% of Australians support the Voice, 30% oppose it and 20% are undecided. However, it’s early days and those numbers could shift significantly before the referendum.

That will depend largely on the position taken by the other major political parties. History shows that it’s difficult for a referendum to succeed without bipartisan support.

So far, the only party to come out against the Voice is the Nationals Party, the minor member of the centre-right Coalition that forms the opposition in parliament. The crucial question is whether its much larger partner, the Liberal Party, will take a position and, if so, which one.

For the moment, Peter Dutton, the Liberal Party leader, is content to call for more details and to castigate the government for not providing them.

The danger is that the debate will degenerate into a polarised political slugfest. The initial signs are not good.  

Liberal Senator and Aboriginal woman Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is a vociferous opponent of the Voice. She accused Labor Minister for Indigenous Australians and Aboriginal woman Linda Burney of “dripping in Gucci” as she visits remote indigenous communities telling them “what’s good for them”.

Aboriginal academic and activist Noel Pearson responded by saying that Price is trapped in a “tragic redneck celebrity vortex”.

Australia may be in for another dispiriting chapter in the increasingly toxic culture wars rather than an informed and respectful debate about the pros and cons of the referendum issues.

Ross Stitt is a freelance writer with a PhD in political science. He is a New Zealander based in Sydney. His articles are part of our 'Understanding Australia' series.