In the past week, the Liberal party has lost from its shadow cabinet or the party its two most recent spokespeople on Indigenous affairs. Both are major losses for the Liberals that could have been avoided if the party had simply determined the issue of support for the voice referendum was to be a free vote for all its members.
Julian Leeser’s resignation from the shadow ministry was a selfless decision, reflecting the person I have known for many years. Ambition abounds in politics but occasionally principle triumphs, as it did in Leeser’s decision. It’s no surprise to me.
A thoughtful and compassionate person, Leeser cares deeply about the party we share but equally he cares about the values it should espouse, and his commitment to the voice is longstanding.
Leeser and I have disagreed on several issues during the time we shared in parliament but I was always touched by the handwritten notes he would often send encouraging me on, even if we had backed different policy outcomes in the Coalition party room. He respected those who stood up for what they believed. Today that respect is returned in spades.
Ken Wyatt was the nation’s first Indigenous member of the House of Representatives in what was the start of his distinguished political career. Before my own time in parliament I watched his first speech on the live parliamentary broadcast with tears in my eyes as he related his own journey to the parliament. It was a proud moment for our nation. His life has been dedicated to truth-telling and ending Indigenous disadvantage. I felt his resignation from the Liberal party very deeply.
They, like federal MP Andrew Gee, who resigned from the National party, have left their positions because of their belief that the voice is important for Indigenous Australians and for bringing our nation closer together.
The position the federal Liberal party has adopted has cost us two of our most important figures. The casualties are starting to stack up from own goals. Yet there is greater risk ahead for those who look through a political prism: the reaction the party will face among voters under 40, who are the strongest supporters of the voice and already feeling alienated from a party that should be willing to reflect their aspirations for modern Australia.
Younger Australians clearly want us to reconcile with our past and present, want Indigenous Australians to properly share in the success of our nation and understand that this very modest proposal for a constitutionally backed voice to allow First Nations people to be better heard is fair and right. They are not alone in that vision for our nation, but the generational divide on the voice is significant.
The voice will not solve every problem overnight, or even within years, but we surely must accept the top-down approach – you could call it the Canberra approach – which has dominated Indigenous policy for so long, is failing to address the systemic disadvantage so many First Nations communities face today.
The federal Liberal party has adopted a position supporting local and regional voices. It is important we ensure First Nations people can be heard at every level and this should be progressed in tandem with the national voice, in partnership with state and territory governments. But here’s the rub – how can it be consistent to say that local and regional voices have merit but a voice to national government – where so much of decision-making relevant to Indigenous Australians occurs – does not?
What has happened already?
The Albanese government has put forward the referendum question: "A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?"
The PM also suggested three sentences be added to the constitution:
- There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
- The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
- The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
How would it work?
The voice would be able to make recommendations to the Australian parliament and government on matters relating to the social, spiritual and economic wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
The voice would be able to table formal advice in parliament and a parliamentary committee would consider that advice. But all elements would be non-justiciable, meaning that there could not be a court challenge and no law could be invalidated based on this consultation.
How would it be structured?
The Indigenous voice co-design report recommended the national voice have 24 members, encompassing two from each state, the Northern Territory, ACT and Torres Strait. A further five members would represent remote areas and an additional member would represent Torres Strait Islanders living on the mainland.
Members would serve four-year terms, with half the membership determined every two years.
Debate on constitutional reform is rarely uncontentious and it’s perfectly reasonable that we consider closely the impact of amendments to our foundational legal document. We should welcome well-intentioned debate and respect those who hold different opinions.
That’s one of the reasons it would have been entirely reasonable for the Liberal party to follow the path it adopted during the republic referendum and make this a genuinely free vote. Instead, we have the peculiar hybrid of an explicit free vote for some (those on the backbench) and not for the entire parliamentary party. It has put those shadow ministers who support the voice in an unenviable position, as Julian Leeser has demonstrated.
Leeser’s resignation from the frontbench will give some hope to those supporting the yes case, but it should not be overstated. The outcome of the referendum is still on shaky ground according to the public polling. While majority support remains, many Australians are still making up their mind.
As I have written before, there is much to learn from the marriage equality campaign and the approach used by those arguing the yes case, which ignored the rancour thrown by those opposed and focused on the positive benefits of change.
We need people of goodwill from across the political spectrum to consider how failure can be prevented and the parliamentary committee process currently under way might offer some solutions. A similar process was an instrumental part of the process that delivered marriage equality. The government should remain willing to consider its conclusions with an open mind and the type of suggestions Leeser himself has made to increase the chance of success, particularly to attract the support of those who are hesitant.
This will be a seminal moment for our nation and may require those who feel, with some justification, they have compromised enough to accept just a little bit more to achieve the end goal of a constitutionally guaranteed voice.
Trent Zimmerman is the former federal member for North Sydney
