‘No will leave us nowhere. No recognition. No way forward’ says the PM – I beg to differ.

If the Voice to Parliament proposal is rejected in the referendum, the PM should accept that most Australians do not see a Constitutionally entrenched Voice as the best way of addressing the disadvantaged position of many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

A referendum defeat does indeed mean that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples will not be accorded constitutional recognition as the the First Peoples of Australia. For this, the Prime Minister has only himself to blame. A referendum question confined to recognition would undoubtedly receive clear electoral support.

A No vote victory on the Voice to Parliament proposal does not leave Indigenous affairs ‘nowhere’. Contrary to what the Yes camp wants us to believe, making the Voice permanent would not necessarily be a step forward from having a line of Indigenous advisory bodies that governments appointed and abolished. The largely overlooked reason is that the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment would allow Parliament to alter at will literally everything about the Voice apart from its existence.

We can move forward.

Symbolically, we can and should recognise that Australia’s Indigenous people are this nation’s First Peoples. Such a recognition needs to feature in our Constitution, and would require a further referendum. 

With respect to law and policy, the Government does not require additional constitutional power to set up the Voice. However, the Government may wish to reconsider whether such a move would really be that different to what has been done to date.

Alternatively, the Government could venture outside its policy rut and entrenched sources of advice to determine alternative ways of improving the lives of Indigenous Australians. The lead up to the referendum has served to publicise a number of fresh promising options. Perhaps this will be the legacy of the Ill-conceived 2023 referendum.