Good morning and welcome to this special episode of The Daily OS. It's Tuesday, the tenth of October. I'm Sam and every day this week, TDA journalist Tom Crowley will be bringing you the Voice Explained series. We'll be running right up until the referendum, which is this Saturday. If you're listening to the podcast for the first time this week, welcome. I recommend starting with Monday's episode that will make things
make a bit more sense. So the plan for this week is this special run of deep dives on the podcast. But if you want the headlines and what's making news today, you can head over to our Instagram or sign up to our daily newsletter that drops at seven am every morning. We'll be back with the regular podcast format from Monday.
Yesterday, we looked at where the idea of a voice came from and the debate that ensued among First Nations people. We don't get the luxury of sitting around way for something better for me. It was like a huge bureaucracy. We need change now.
The Voice is the easy way to fake progress.
But as the Voice debate moves to Canberra, things will only get messier.
A short time ago, I resigned as a shadow.
Attorney signing, we have to suspep on dividing our nation along the lines of brands.
And all of the noise that attempted to be created, Prime Minister is dividing your nation.
Episode two, The Politics. Remember yesterday I told you that in twenty fifteen, a council was established to work towards a referendum on constitutional recognition for First Nations people, an idea with broad political support. But when that council spoke to First Nations people, a clear message came back. They didn't want symbolic recognition. They wanted something practical, They wanted a voice. The Council sent this message back to Minister
Malcolm Turnbull, but one council member had doubts. Former Liberal politician Amanda Vanstone said, it is not clear that Australia will automatically approve whatever Indigenous Australia prefers without finding common ground before a referendum. What was intended to be a unifying and progressive move forward could turn into a lightning rod for discontent. Hearing those words six years later, they sound almost like a prophecy for the politically charged debate
that we're having today. But that's getting ahead of ourselves. Soon after the ULARU Statement from the Heart was delivered in twenty seventeen, the then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull rejected the idea of a constitutionally enshrined voice.
The government does not believe this could pass at a referendum.
Turnbul asked for more work to be done to flesh out the details of a voice, but for now, at least there would be no referendum.
It would be in effect a third chamber now as to its prospects of referendum, it would have no prospect of success whatsoever.
Then in twenty twenty two, the government changed all right. In his victory speech on election night, new Prime Minister Anthony Albanezi began with the voice.
I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet. I pay my respect to their eldest, past, present and emerging, and on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, I commit to the ULARUS Statement from the Home.
Prime Minister, thank you for speaking to the Daily Os. Good to have a chat again. Why did you start there and why was it so significant to you?
Because it's important that we acknowledge the traditional owners of the land. Here we share this continent with the oldest continuous culture on earth. That is a source of great pride.
The Albanizy government started pulling together the pieces for a referendum. At first it looked like there might be broad political support. Opposition leader Peter Dutton appointed Julian Lisa to be the Shadow Indigenous Affairs Minister.
An incredibly bright individual and somebody who has contributed to our party for a long period of time.
Lisa was a long term supporter of the Voice.
The whole point of having consultative advisory bodies, and that's all they are, is to make better policy on the ground.
And in August of twenty twenty two, sixty four percent of Australians said they were likely to support a voice. But soon a sticking point emerged over the question of detail. Now here's where we're about to get into the political weeds, and before we do that, it's really important to be clear about the difference between the Constitution and normal laws. Well we're voting on on October fourteen is a change
to the Constitution, that's our national rule book. The Constitution would require that a voice must exist and that it must be a to give advice, but everything else would be left for Parliament to establish under normal laws the same way it does everything else. Questions like how many members are on the Voice and how they're chosen, those would be worked out by law.
This is the nature of the constitution. It doesn't do that detail. That's true legislation. All it does a constitution is provide for the power if you like for that to happen. It says we'll have a defense for us. Does it say how many people will be in It doesn't say how many tanks Australia shall have or what planes the Air Force should fly.
The Albanezi government chose not to reveal all its plans for those details. Instead, it published a list of principles. It included that the members of the Voice would be chosen by local communities.
The Voice will be gender balanced and include youth.
The Voice wouldn't handle any money, and it wouldn't deliver any programs.
It will not so power over decisions by this Parliament or by the government.
But Peter Dutton said this left too many questions unanswered.
We haven't yet seen the final form of what it is the government's going to propose.
This is Peter Dutton when I interviewed him in March this year.
That's a reasonable question to ask, and that's why I hope a prime minister can provide that detail.
That's been consistent messaging from the Coalition. A couple of weeks ago. I spoke to Coalition spokesperson Senator Jane Hume.
It doesn't explain what the model is that we will be using for a voice to Parliament. We don't know how it's going to be constituted, who will be on it, what powers it has, what powers it doesn't have. And while we say don't worry, we'll take care of all of that later on, that's not good enough for the Constitution.
There is wording in there that says that the powers of the Voice will be decided by Parliament. In what way are you worried that the wording will bind the Parliament in any way? If it says that Parliament has the power to decide what the Voice should look like.
Well it will be a very powerful body, there is no doubt about that. We don't know, but we don't know how it will be powerful. You're essentially asking the Australian people to change, fundamentally, change the Constitution. It is a radical change, there is no doubt about that. And they're saying, then trust the Parliament to build something afterwards. Why wouldn't the Parliament build something beforehand?
No, campaign have been talking about everything, but what the question is not changing the way our parliament functions, all the way government functions. What we're talking about here is an advisory group that will have the power of its ideas, but won't have the power of veto, won't have the power to fund programs. It will just have the power of its ideas to go forward. And that's why there's
nothing to fear here. That's why this is such a positive, generous proposal from Indigenous Australians and why I believe Australians will vote yes.
If there is nothing to fear in that bill, what harm could there be from releasing that and answering all those questions now?
Because it's not my bill, it's a Parliament's bill the Parliament, but.
The government is likely to know introduce a bill.
No, the Parliament will do that and we'll work across the parliament, work with Indigenous Australians. What Australians are being asked to do is you feel like put the principle in there. It then is importantly up to the Parliament and it will change over time as it should as do other laws. This is no different. It is just giving that constitutional intriment that there should be an advisory body. That's all it does.
The longer the conversation about details went on, the clearer it became that Peter Dutton was leaning towards NO. But it was the Nationals who became the first party to officially oppose the Voice.
We have to stop dividing our nation along the lines of race.
One of their newest senators, justinter NAMBIKMP Price argued the Voice was divisive.
Why should I, as an Indigenous Australian be governed under a separate entity than the rest of Australia.
A few months later, Peter Dutton officially joined the No campaign. His Indigenous Affairs spokesperson Julian Lisa quit and was replaced by Price.
I've had many respectful discussions with colleagues about the Voice over the past year. I've listened to their views and they've heard mine, but ultimately I haven't been able to persuade them.
Dutton also began to describe the Voice as divisive.
The Prime Minister is dividing the nation with his divisy voice proposal by deliberately refusing to provide detail to the Australian people.
Unfortunately, this became an election issue, an electoral issue, a political issue. We didn't choose to take it that way. That was a decision of the Labor government and of Anthony Albanesi specifically, and he cut the Coalition out of the conversation.
Do you regret that you were nable to get bipartisan support for this referendum? No referendum succeeded without that before.
It's unfortunate. I went out of my way to try to do that. Peter Dutton decided to announce support for the No campaign even before the process had been completed, and that's unfortunate. Peter Dutton of course walked out on the apology, didn't just oppose it being given. He said earlier this year that he regretted doing that. He acknowledged that there was no downside. This will be no downside from a yes vote in this referendum, just an upside.
Just like before marriage equality, you might recall people being told that existing marriages would be undermined. Well, that hasn't happened. The fear campaign was not valid, and the fear campaign here is not valid.
On the other side of politics, the Greens were also having difficulty working out their position on the Voice. Their Indigenous Affairs spokesperson was Senator Lydia Thorpe, who we met yesterday and who has had issues with the idea of the Voice since its beginning at all. Rue Lydia Thorpe quit the Greens over her stance.
Now I will be able to speak freely on all issues from a sovereign perspective without being constrained by portfolios and agreed party.
Positions, and so the political battle lines were drawn. In the early months, the No campaign gained a lot of ground support for the Voice. In opinion pols has dropped from more than sixty percent a year ago to well below fifty percent. To succeed the referendumill need fifty percent nationwide and fifty percent in at least four states, a result that everyion poll suggests will not happen. If we wake up on October the fifteenth, then it is a no.
Is that something you'll take personal responsibility for? What will the path forward look like?
I've given Australians the opportunity to have their say, and I'm very hopeful and I'm optimistic that Australians will vote yes. It is important. I think that after such a long period of time of being promised to vote, that Australians will get the opportunity to lift our whole country up.
I think on the fifteenth of October we're going to feel very bruised. Whatever the outcome is, the nation will be bruised. And it didn't have to be this way. That's why I respectfully say no, but I also regretfully say no.
No nation has ever been made stronger, more unified by fear.
The battling amber has been fierce, but on the other side of the country things have looked a little different.
And I've had a lot of the oldies come up to me and be're like, well, I'm voting now.
Our communities are voiceless, our children are voiceless, our women are voiceless.
Tomorrow, come with me on a journey to regional Wa. I'm Tom Crowley reporting on Yoori country to hear the voices that are often left out of our political conversation.
Politics really understand Heran Wadach.
We're supposed to live in our first world country and our people live in fourth world conditions.
Thanks for listening to this special episode of The Daily OS. If you like what you heard or you learned something you didn't know, the best way you can show your support for the Daily Os is by sending this to a friend to keep the conversation going. This episode was written and presented by Tom Crowley, produced by Joe Kylie, and edited and mixed by Ninako. We'll be back with episode three tomorrow. Until then, have a great day.