Anthony Albanese says the Indigenous voice would “fail at the first hurdle” if it were not enshrined in the constitution, again rejecting calls from sceptics to change the referendum and simply enact the First Nations consultation body in regular laws.
The prime minister says the Labor government and Coalition opposition have broadly similar policies on the voice, but maintained the voice must be protected in the constitution because of the request from Indigenous Australians through the Uluru statement from the heart.
“You can’t say you want to listen to Indigenous Australians and that’s why you want a voice … but then not listen at the very first point in the form of recognition that they want,” Albanese told the ABC’s Insiders on Sunday.
Albanese also issued a plea for support from voters opposing the voice because they don’t believe it goes far enough, saying there would not be another opportunity for such progress in the foreseeable future.
The prime minister gave two interviews on Sunday from the Garma festival in Arnhem Land, where he and the yes campaign sought to promote the Indigenous voice. Speaking to both Sky News and the ABC, Albanese stressed that the voice would be set up and governed via legislation after a successful referendum cemented the concept in the constitution, accusing Coalition leader Peter Dutton of a “contradiction” in opposing it.
“He says that he supports constitutional recognition. So, both sides do. He says that he supports a legislated voice. So, both sides do. The difference here is he’s saying, ‘Don’t put it in the Constitution,’” Albanese told Insiders.
after newsletter promotion
On Sky, Albanese stressed that parliament would govern the voice but the referendum would protect the body from being abolished.
“That’s precisely why Indigenous Australians have asked that it be enshrined in the constitution. We’re dealing with intergenerational issues. And it won’t be solved in a week, a month, a year. Some of these issues will take a long period of time,” the prime minister said.
“They want that security of that enshrinement so that they won’t put all their effort into something where it can just be gone in a stroke of a pen. It’s also the form of recognition that Indigenous people have asked for.
“So, you can’t say we want to have legislated voice, so we can listen to Indigenous Australians, so we can listen to local communities, but we’ll fail at the first hurdle by not listening to them about the form in which it takes.”
Some sceptics of the voice, including the Coalition opposition, have pushed for the government to radically reshape the referendum, to make it a question of simple symbolic recognition of Indigenous people and scrapping a constitutionally-enshrined voice. Years of Indigenous-led processes leading up to the Uluru statement had rejected simple constitutional recognition, instead calling for substantive recognition through a voice to parliament.
On Saturday Albanese said “we will not abandon substance for symbolism, or retreat to platitudes at the expense of progress.”
Following heated parliamentary debate between Albanese and Dutton last week, the government has pointed to Garma and the Yolngu community as an example of how the voice could work in practice. The government and yes campaign are also more broadly seeking to highlight the practical change the voice could advance.
Speaking at Garma on Saturday, Indigenous Australians minister Linda Burney said the voice debate “has been overshadowed by politics”, claiming “the time for politics is over”.
Indigenous leader and yes campaigner Noel Pearson also said the referendum should not be about party politics.
Albanese called the referendum “a once in a generation opportunity”, and urged opponents wanting the voice to go further – a so-called “progressive no” bloc – to support the vote.
“Many people in the Republic referendum thought it would come around again. And that’s why I say to those people, including people who say, ‘It doesn’t go far enough, so therefore, I’m going to vote no’: don’t think that other issues can be advanced by a no vote,” he said.
“A no vote will be a vote for more of the same.”