It would mislead voters and could get Indigenous groups offside if the government was to draft legislation outlining a Voice to Parliament, an expert says, as Opposition Leader Peter Dutton ramps up efforts to sow “disagreement and confusion”.
On Wednesday, Dutton led a snap press conference with pointed attacks on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s reluctance to rule out legislating a Voice if Australians voted it down at a referendum.
He snatched at Albanese’s reluctance, and later accused the government of trying to give “moral cover” to the Voice by taking it to a constitutional referendum, rather than just legislating it to “demonstrate to Australians how it can work”.
Anne Twomey, who sits on the expert panel consulting the government on its referendum proposal alongside professors Megan Davis and George Williams, Noel Pearson and Kenneth Hayne, told Crikey that the main problem with tabling a bill detailing the mechanics of a Voice is that consultation with Indigenous groups hasn’t yet run its course.
“Given that the point of the Voice is to allow Indigenous views to be heard in making decisions that directly affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, it would be really problematic for the government to make such decisions unilaterally, without any consultation, prior to the referendum,” Twomey said.
“If the Voice is to genuinely represent Indigenous Australians, it needs to be comprised in a manner that they feel truly represents them. It may be that some Indigenous peoples think that they should be represented by persons chosen one way [like an election] and others by a different method [such as appointments].
“Consultation on such issues needs to be taken seriously and will take some time to occur.”
Even still, Dutton has appeared intent to draw Labor into political debate over the Voice that has descended into a state of torpor, as the government perseveres with efforts to secure his support, despite his shadow campaign against it.
On Monday, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus accused Dutton of asking questions about the Voice that he already “knows the answers to”, and described Dutton’s calls for more detail as “not particularly constructive” when there is “already a lot of information” available to voters, with more on the way.
As it stands, the resources available to voters are limited, as ongoing consultations move to answer crucial questions about the framework’s make-up.
The Uluru Statement From the Heart’s final report to the Australian government offers early insight into the framework, alongside explainers and answers to frequently asked questions. The government is also publishing running updates on its official website.
Various experts have suggested voters should have enough time to educate themselves before they vote, probably around October. Political analysts, however, warn that “time is on the side of the No campaign”, and that the government should be doing more to swing public debate in its favour.
Twomey said it could be helpful for the government to give voters “some guidance” on what it intends to deliver by the time a referendum is announced, both to silence calls for more detail, and to ensure that “people feel comfortable” and “adequately informed” before voting.
But publishing an exposure bill, she said, would be likely to only create more problems for Labor.
It could not only give rise to frustrations with Indigenous peoples who feel they weren’t adequately consulted, but also run the risk of misleading Australians on what they would actually be voting for.
“If Parliament then chose to construct the Voice in a different way, people may object that this is ‘not what we voted for’,” Twomey said.
“While there would be no legal constraint on Parliament exercising the powers conferred upon it by the referendum, such public expectations would be likely to create a political and moral constraint.”
