Australia, insurance, car, home, live, holidays

Australians will vote this year on whether to support an Indigenous Voice to parliament.Credit:Matthew Absalom-Wong

If that were the question,then I’d lay my hand in the fire that 99.99 per cent of Australians would vote yes with a full heart. Whether they’re aware of the full extent of Indigenous disadvantage in this country or not,whether they have spent time in Indigenous communities or not,there are very few Australians who would not wish to be fully reconciled with the people who inhabited the continent for tens of thousands of years before white settlers arrived.

But that is not the question. The question is whether and how to amend the constitution to give Indigenous Australians a say in decisions that affect them. The question is about the mechanism,so the mechanics matter.

Focus groups conducted by organisations campaigning for the Voice confirm that Australians in both metropolitan and rural communities are inclined to support it,but they are looking for confirmation that the model is right. In that case,the matter of “detail” raised in newspaper comment threads,talkback radio and social media is effectively an appeal to advocates to answer this question of mechanics and help Australians get over the line.

Marcia Langton,co-author of an almost 300-page report full of detail on the process by which representatives would be elected to the Voice,is clearly exasperated that “detail” continues to be a catch-all term to describe community concerns over enshrining an Indigenous Voice in the constitution. Understandably. For those with the bandwidth to read it,the Langton-Calma report is all detail. It describes minutely the location,election,powers and functioning of a Voice.

However,the detail not included in their report,and which emerges in discussions about what “detail” means to people,goes beyond these matters. The questions repeatedly raised in online forums could be categorised as matters of remit,division and identification.

The question of remit arises from the second sentence of the draft constitutional amendment about matters which “relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”. Or more to the point,what matters don’t. As citizens,all the laws of the land relate to all of us,so this question of detail is about what matters the Voice would not be consulted on. Naturally,the question is frustrating for Indigenous communities who simply want a say in matters that directly affect them.

The question of division arises from this question of remit. Many people who feel uncomfortable with the Voice are concerned it will lead to community division if it results in special rights that apply to one race of people but not others. Alternatively,might the Voice guide law-making that affects all Australians?

Some supporters of a Voice (who are unconnected with the organised campaigns) argue that white settlers have made laws for Indigenous people for centuries and maybe it’s OK if the tables are turned. This may have merit or not,depending on your perspective. But Indigenous advocates are clear that they only want a say on things that directly affect them. This,then,must be clear in the constitutional amendment and the model to be legislated.

The third question,of identification,arises from a phenomenon which was best recorded in the last census. The number of people identifying as Indigenous has increased by 25 per cent. As noted in these pages when the census results were released,Indigenous community leaders are themselvessplit over the meaning and consequences of this jump.

On the one hand,it is seen as a positive that more people now feel comfortable with and proud of their Indigenous heritage. On the other hand,people newly identifying as Indigenous can cause established communities to feel threatened and undermined. This apprehension is dramatised in Indigenous playwright Nathan Maynard’s troubling work,At What Cost?,in which he poses the question:are they legitimate or are they“tick-a-boxes”? How potential members of the Voice are identified – given they will be representing Indigenous Australians – becomes a critical detail.

The longer these concerns remain unanswered,the more they are crystallising into a single overarching question asked repeatedly by readers of this masthead in the 600-odd comments on arecent column by constitutional scholar Anne Twomey.

Twomey argued it would be wrong to present more detail,as it would pre-empt the work of parliament on the structure of the Voice. Many readers asked why,if the model and detail is to be left to legislation,it is necessary to enshrine it in the constitution at all.

I have some experience in campaigning and I can tell you,there is no worse place to start from than a position in which community questions are neglected for so long that they become firmly held views.

Albanese left himself and “yes” advocates some wiggle room by putting the amendment wording forward as a draft. Now is the time for the prime minister to lead a constructive public discussion on a model and a form of words that would address the community’s detailed questions. If none is forthcoming,I fear that a government that hoped to lead the nation to reconciliation will instead bring it division and shame.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge,champion and inform your own.Sign up here.

More from our award-winning columnists

Sky-high cost-cutting:Do we really needtwo pilots in the cockpit? With advances in technology,won’t one pilot on a flight do? Here’s what QF32 hero and ‘Sully’ Sullenberger think –Peter FitzSimons

The tea: With 61 bills passed since the Albanese government came into power in May 2022,who – or what – wins the prize for the biggeststorm in a teacup? –Ross Gittins

Behind the power: When you write a book aboutScott Morrison,and are more than familiar with the ways the former PM has justified his behaviour,surely you shouldn’t feel sorry for him? –Sean Kelly

License this article