“A constitutionally enshrined Voice is a vehicle to improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
“It will give the people with knowledge and on-the-ground experience an avenue to advise the government and the parliament on the federal laws,policies and programs that impact their lives.
“We know the most effective outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities occur when their voices are heard and they have ownership over the policies that affect them.”
Dutton plans to meet members of the referendum working group on Thursday. The group is co-chaired by Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney and Special Envoy for Reconciliation Pat Dodson.
Uluru Statement co-chairs Pat Anderson and Megan Davis are expected to join a presentation with the Cape York Institute’s Noel Pearson to explain to Dutton why they believe the Voice would make a difference to communities.
“I am hopeful it will help clarify for him how significant a constitutionally enshrined Voice is for our people and for the nation,” said Davis,a professor at the University of NSW.
Parliament resumes next week with the Nationals vowing to oppose the Voice and many Liberals seeking to do the same,but some Liberals want to back the proposal or at least to secure an agreement on a conscience vote in the same way the conservatives divided on same-sex marriage five years ago.
One of the Liberal Party’s most respected campaigners,former federal director Tony Nutt,threw his support behind the Voice on Wednesday by joining the expanded board of the Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition,which wants to raise millions of dollars for the Yes campaign.
Liberal senator Andrew Bragg said he backed the Voice but wanted the government to do a better job of explaining to Australians how it would work.
Loading
“I think it would be a disaster for race relations in the country if the referendum was defeated. It’s
the last thing we want to see in this country,” Bragg told radio station 2GB.
A key issue for Dutton and other Liberals is their stated concern that the power vested in the Voice could be extended over time by the High Court into areas outside policies that affect First Australians directly.
“I want to understand from the prime minister what the legal advice says,” Dutton said on January 24.
“Could the High Court determine that the Voice can have a say in defence matters,or it can have a say in budgetary priorities that the treasurer is going to deliver? What would it mean for a minister who has to make a quick decision if there’s a consultation with the Voice?”
Loading
Albanese used the letter to Dutton to emphasise that the Voice would offer practical outcomes on policy,a key issue for both sides during the debate about community safety in Alice Springs when alcohol bans were removed without any formal body to consult on the change.
Albanese restated,however,that the structure of the Voice would be decided by parliament in legislation after the referendum,saying this was “the ordinary way” to do this and was in line with the Constitution.
“Once the referendum is decided,and if the principle of the Voice is agreed by the Australian people,the Voice model will be legislated by parliament in the ordinary way. This is the way the Constitution works,” he wrote.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news,views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley.Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.