Can the Voice be Saved?
I’m pretty despairing about the prospects for the Voice referendum. The current strategy is failing badly. There is an alternative that I believe might work, but I have pitched it in a few places and had no interest. So I’m putting it for the record and on the off-chance that someone might pick it up.
On present indications, the Voice referendum is doomed to defeat. Polls show the Voice failing to win either a majority of votes or a majority of states. Past experience suggests that support for referendum proposals invariably declines over time, and that most fail. In the last fifty years, the only successes have been marginal tweaks to such items as a retirement age for High Court justices and the procedure for replacing senators. But two earlier successes offer some hope. The 1946 referendum on Social Service and the 1928 referendum on the Loans Council succeeded because they provided a firm constitutional basis for vital policies that were already in operation. The other important , though primarily symbolic, success was the 1967 referendum recognising Indigenous Australians
So, the ideal approach to the Voice would have been to legislate it first, and constitutionally entrench it later. But there’s still a chance to do the next best thing. The Parliament, in consultation with First Nations and community in general, could legislate a model that would come into effect if, and only if, the referendum was passed. The government has insisted that the design of the Voice should be left to “the Parliament of the Day’, but as far as initial design is concerned this is a distinction without a difference – next year’s Parliament will be the same as this year’s.
I think we've gone past the point where any meaningful changes can be made to the process. Basically you're damned if you do and damned if you don't in that any change, even one designed to improve the chance of a positive outcome, would be leapt upon by the NO camp and their followers as yet more evidence of confusion, immaturity and general recklessness on the part of the YES camp. In my view what is on offer is saleable however I don't see enough passion coming from the government, they almost appear equivocal towards their own proposal. Imagine if Obama (or Whitlam, or Hawke) were heading the YES campaign, the level of rhetoric would be significantly elevated. Albanese's Garma speech was tame, boring even, except for the last 10 minutes, he actively attacked the LNP and the NO campaign in general as mere spoilers and aimed a decency tipped emotional arrow at the broader community. But where are the other members of the government front bench? Too often enjoying the largesse of our US allies or making fatuous statements about cost of living and interest rates. Honestly, their hearts are not in it and they should never have started this unless they had full bodied commitment. It will be our shame, people need to understand that, this isn't the republic. This is an attempt to begin to right a widely acknowledged wrong, and we're going to reject that opportunity? People need to understand that.
Two comments John
First the 1967 Referendum was not about recognition; it was about eliminating to exclusionary references to Indigenous Australians in s 51 (xxvi) and s 127. When these two exclusionary references were deleted the Constitution in the name of equality and inclusiveness had no remaining references to Aboriginal people. What is proposed now in s 129 is a combination of recognition and representation with the Voice to be designed and established by the Parliament (proposed s 129 iii).
Second, I concur with your proposal that recognition and representation should be distinguished. Without doubt Labor should have moved quickly to 'co-design' and pass law that gave the Voice statutory form before the Referendum, as soon as it indicated support in May 2022 for the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Your second-best proposal is a sound one as the government is likely to get support from the Greens and enough cross benchers to proceed in this way, assuming it steers away from a double dissolution election: but will there be time to 'legislate a model that would come into effect if, and only if, the referendum was passed' the before year's end the deadline for the Referendum?