Everything turns on a political calculation – not an idealistic policy assessment – about whether to change the proposed model to increase its chance of success. The deadline is June 22,the last day before the winter recess for the Senate to vote on the referendum bill that sets up the public vote in October or November.
Illustration:Simon Letch
This is not an election campaign when policies can be altered at the last minute and revealed a few weeks before polling day. It is a referendum that asks voters to endorse a proposal that is released months earlier and cannot be easily changed. The danger for the Yes camp is that it cements a reform model in June that loses majority support by August and is a smoking ruin by November,with untold damage to reconciliation.
This is a column about the risk of defeat;it is not a prediction of defeat. The Yes campaign is confident that polling from the CT Group – formerly known as Crosby Textor – shows majority support for the change in its current form – recognition of First Nations and a Voice that is enshrined in the constitution to speak to parliament as well as executive government.
But the public polling shows the Voice is sliding towards minority support. The Resolve Political Monitor,,found that support for the Voice fell from 58 to 53 per cent over the past month in the “yes or no” question akin to a referendum. This is part of a broader trend identified by pollster Jim Reed,the director of Resolve Strategic,across 28 published polls. Without a shift in that trend,the No case gains the upper hand in August.
The Yes camp is already advertising to a mass audience – on the theme of recognition,rather than the details of its model – and has campaign leaders in each state and territory. It has 7000 volunteers and is adding more every week. Unfortunately,it does not have enough time to wait and watch the polling.
A decision has to be made about what a Yes vote means. The major dispute is about whether the new body should have a constitutional power to consult to executive government,not just the parliament. This idea goes back a decade and was discussed at length last year,but it only emerged as a flashpoint in the past few months. It has a clear logic:there are real consequences for Indigenous people when officials,rather than politicians,make decisions about basic services. Yet this is a barrier for people who fear the Voice will reach too far into the everyday decisions of the public service.
Anthony Albanese has to make a call. If this was any other policy,the prime minister might make a pragmatic decision to jettison the unpopular parts of the proposal and proceed with what can win the vote. Smart leaders respond without sentiment to hard numbers. In this case,the numbers tell the government to throw the executive government wording overboard and lighten the load for the entire Yes campaign.
The government is unified,so the Voice is not a danger to Albanese as a “wedge” that might divide Labor into rival camps. In fact,most of the dissent is on the Coalition side. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton,just five weeks ago because Leeser could not support the shadow cabinet decision to oppose the Voice outright.
So this is not a wedge – it’s a squeeze. Albanese is at risk of being slowly compressed between two opposing forces. To his left,the major Indigenous leaders look immoveable on demands including the right to consult with executive government. To his right,the No camp steadily expands. Has he misjudged the mood of the Australian people? The Voice is a new proposition for many voters and nobody can be sure where the centre lies.
A hard decision has to be made before the Senate rises on June 22. The referendum must be held within two to six months of the passage of the law.
There are other options. One is to delay the decision on the referendum bill until parliament sits in early August,but this would drag out the division. Another is to pass the bill in June but decide later to postpone the referendum,although this would advertise the government’s uncertainty about the model.
Albanese cannot make a unilateral change to the Voice. This is a totemic reform for Indigenous leaders,so it would be unthinkable for Labor to embark on changes those leaders cannot accept. Albanese needs their permission for any shift in the model or a delay to the vote.
Perhaps Australians will swing more strongly in favour of the Voice as the referendum nears. Perhaps the soft No voters will not bother to turn up. But why run a risk so great? A defeat would be a catastrophe for reconciliation,so the Yes camp and the government should not leave anything to chance.
The Voice would certainly win greater support without the executive government provision. Leeser says this power could be enacted by legislation rather than written into the constitution. This would lead to a referendum that endorses recognition,empowers the Voice to parliament in the constitution and leaves it to elected legislators to decide how the new body consults with the public service.
Leeser says he will vote Yes even if his model does not prevail,but others are not so invested in this outcome. Writing the executive government provision into legislation,not the constitution,could neutralise a major element of the No campaign.
Albanese has a way to escape the political squeeze if he has permission from Indigenous leaders for a compromise. Right now,those leaders do not think they need to throw anything overboard – and they may be right. But years of work will be lost if the Yes camp and the government gamble badly and end up with nothing.
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge,champion and inform your own..