More so, in this case, when there is no provision (as there was with the 1999 proposal for the election by the parliament of a head of state) for a special majority. To say “leave it to parliament” means, in practical terms, to leave it to whatever deal Labor strikes with the Greens and an independent senator (eg left-wing campaigner David Pocock or Jacqui Lambie). What sane non-Labour voter would delegate the final decision on the architecture of the Voice to them?
While the prime minister may be spooked by the republic’s referendum failure and have learned the wrong lessons from it, there are two other recent historical precedents that are instructive. In both cases, the government was transparent about its intentions and succeeded.
loading
The first is GST. This was not, of course, a constitutional referendum, but those who remember the 1998 election know that it was a In fact referendum on GST. It was the only issue of the campaign. John Howard and Peter Costello published in detail the most complicated tax reform in a generation. In an act of true political skill, they argued it thoroughly and relentlessly. They were not afraid of failure; they showed true political courage. Howard and Costello bet the whole government on their signature reform, and they won.
The other recent example is the same-sex marriage poll in 2017. Again, although it was not a constitutional referendum, it was a massive act of public choice that, like the Voice , was an act of inclusion of a marginalized minority. As Attorney General, I instructed my department to prepare a draft of the amendments to the Marriage Law and other laws that would be necessary to enact marriage equality. Senator Dean Smith developed his own bill. Both drafts were published well in advance of the survey. During the campaign, religious conservatives raised many arguments against same-sex marriage. But they could never argue that Australians did not know what the proposal meant.
There is virtually no chance of a referendum on the Voice succeeding without the opposition on board. If it is not bipartisan, it is bound to fail. There is no way the Liberal and National parties will or should support a measure without insisting that the full proposal be put before the public. Even then, they may object. Dutton is a very tough-minded politician, unable to make do with fashionable opinions or the abuse of sections of the media. It is also very strategic. It would not be lost how devastating it would be for the Albanian government – and personally, for the Albanian himself – the loss of this referendum.
But the real devastation, should the referendum fail, would be what Indigenous Australians would feel. Rightly or wrongly, they would see it as a betrayal. It would poison the already difficult relationship between Indigenous people and other Australians for generations to come. As happened with the referendum of the republic, the opportunity for constitutional reform would be set back decades.
loading
If that were to happen, it would not mean, although some would certainly claim that, that Australia is a racist nation. It would mean that an opportunity within our reach had been wasted. This would not be the fault of the opposition. Nor would it be the fault of a public too willing to accept indigenous constitutional recognition if put to them in an honest and open way. It would be entirely the fault of those who, for lack of political courage and fear of transparency, turned a winning position into a losing one.
The Opinion Newsletter is a weekly collection of viewpoints that will challenge, defend and inform your own. Register here.