Anthony Albanese reveals referendum wording

Some of this support is soft. The majority in favour of the Voice has slipped in recent months. Yet the inclination to back the idea is there in the community.

Now there is no turning back: the referendum will be held, win or lose. Albanese did not need a question from the press on this because he made sure to ask it himself.

“Are there any circumstances in which this will not be put to a vote? The answer to that is no,” he said. “Because to not put this to a vote is to concede defeat. You only win when you run on the field and engage. And let me tell you, my government is engaged. We’re all in.”

That is a statement to remember for years, which is probably why Albanese paused for about ten seconds to steady his voice in the middle of the sentence about conceding defeat. Everyone engaged can hear the warning from Noel Pearson, one of the leading advocates for the Voice, when he says reconciliation will be set back for a generation if this vote is lost.

Will the new wording work? The third section of the original proposal, put forward by Albanese last July, was this: “The parliament shall, subject to this constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.” That set limits around federal law.

Loading

The new wording removes the guardrails by saying this: “The parliament shall, subject to this constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.” There is no limit on the matters the parliament can decide – provided, of course, the Voice exists as stated in the amended constitution.

“This makes it broader and the intent behind it is it would mean parliament can legislate with regards to the legal effect,” University of Sydney professor Anne Twomey told this masthead on Thursday.

This does not convince Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, who continues to chip away at the proposal without declaring his hand as an outright opponent. He is taking a long time to make up his mind or have the courage of his convictions. The truth is that history weighs heavily on Dutton, just as it does on Albanese. If Dutton opposes the Voice and the referendum succeeds, he will be seen as a Liberal leader at odds with the Australian people. His party room would have to consider a spill.

While there was a powerful sense of unity at the announcement, the event was all about an agreement among the believers. Nothing happened to widen the group of supporters – to extend the belief and change minds among those who are being swayed by those who worry about the wording of the law or those who are reluctant to give Indigenous Australians a greater say.

Loading

The real test of this decision is whether the new wording can give these hesitant Australians a greater confidence in this change. For all the emotion in the room, that test is yet to come.

Finally, I want to end this column with an apology. Soon after last week’s column appeared, when it was too late to change a printed word, I realised I had gone too far in my commentary on Paul Keating. Toward the end of the column I was needlessly personal in my remarks on his age and judgment. For all his contested claims about AUKUS and – let’s face it – the buckets of vitriol he pours on others, including colleagues I respect, he deserves better from me. And so do you.

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