The initial goodwill towards the idea of the Voice — apparent just a year ago — has seemingly diminished through uncertainty and misgivings, not all of them easily answered by passionate calls for generosity of spirit or “being on the right side of history”.
A simpler referendum proposition to give formal recognition to our original inhabitants might have tapped into that goodwill more successfully.
However, combining it with a body possessing constitutional authority of uncertain extent now looks a bridge too far. There is a sense that many people voting No will be doing so reluctantly.
Before there is any finger-pointing or blame assigned, we might consider why this may be so.
A common complaint has been the lack of detail about how the Voice might actually work. We recall there were conflicting views among proponents at the outset as to whether a draft bill should be aired, but Prime Minister Anthony Albanese decided to run with a leaner proposition — reportedly after having watched the referendum for a republic fail due to too much detail.
He has certainly put his heart and energy into the Voice, with his surprise visit to rapper Briggs’ splendid Shepparton concert last Friday an example.
We don’t doubt Mr Albanese’s sincerity — but the art of politics is bringing the people with you. History shows emphatically that Australians won’t support referendum changes without bipartisan support: the PM boldly proceeded without that — but nor was Mr Dutton overly eager to forge a compromise to the wording.
It will be tempting for Yes supporters to accuse the No campaign of injecting fear and misinformation into the debate or of representing Indigenous disagreement as more widespread than it actually is.
And while advocates remind us that the proposed power invested in the Voice is merely to “advise” parliament and government on matters affecting Indigenous Australians, there is continuing argument between jurists and legal scholars about its extent in practice.
Last week, former High Court Justice Robert French felt compelled to assure the National Press Club that the risks of litigation were outweighed by the practical benefits of the Voice; his former colleague, Justice Ian Callinan, however, has predicted at least a decade of litigation.
A further misgiving is whether a body such as the Voice is the best means of “closing the gap”. Outcomes for First Nations people in health, education, employment and incarceration have generally deteriorated over the past 40 years despite massive efforts and significant funding.
It is not unreasonable for good-hearted citizens to question whether top-down approaches to these wicked problems are effective — or whether, in the end, a greater measure of individual acceptance of responsibility and local community action is necessary to reduce domestic violence, substance abuse and generational unemployment — and to give healthy children the support they need to pursue a useful education.
If, as the polls predict, the referendum fails, it will be important for the Prime Minister to accept the decision of the people with good grace and acknowledge his own role in it. Mr Dutton can answer for himself. The sooner goodwill is restored, the sooner we can give First Nations people the constitutional recognition they deserve.
