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.
Another killer mistake was not to have a media inquiry before launching the campaign. The ALP have been terrifble on comms and strategy. God help us if there is a war - we'll be hiring the Pentagon.
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?
On a first read, I like the idea. The Design Principles of the Voice are already in the public domain, on the website of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The government should state that these will provide the basis for the Voice, and then enact legislation based on them that will come into effect if, and only if, the referendum is carried.
Your proposal seems an eminently sensible and practical way forward. Always difficult to know what is in someone else’s mind but if we try to glean motivation from observed (in)actions, it’s hard not to conclude the Federal Government is not that fussed about the referendum going down. Is it a form of “performance politics” for a purpose I can’t for the life of me discern?
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.
Another killer mistake was not to have a media inquiry before launching the campaign. The ALP have been terrifble on comms and strategy. God help us if there is a war - we'll be hiring the Pentagon.
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?
On a first read, I like the idea. The Design Principles of the Voice are already in the public domain, on the website of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The government should state that these will provide the basis for the Voice, and then enact legislation based on them that will come into effect if, and only if, the referendum is carried.
https://ulurustatement.org/education/design-principles/
Your proposal seems an eminently sensible and practical way forward. Always difficult to know what is in someone else’s mind but if we try to glean motivation from observed (in)actions, it’s hard not to conclude the Federal Government is not that fussed about the referendum going down. Is it a form of “performance politics” for a purpose I can’t for the life of me discern?