Zak Kirkup: Why I was wrong about Anthony Albanese

Zak Kirkup Published August 5, 2022 at 6.11am (AWST)

opinion

I admit it: I was very wrong about Anthony Albanese.

Prior to the election, I wrote in numerous articles having a crack at the bloke seeking to be our PM - but I've got to say, at least when it comes to relations with Aboriginal Australia - I'll admit I was off the mark.

This impression culminated with Mr Albanese's speech at Garma last week. Having listened to it a number of times, I struggle to think of a contribution made by any Prime Minister in a long time which has made me so proud to be an Australian.

Whilst I would encourage everyone to take a moment to read the Prime Minister's speech, it was this part which I found particularly brilliant:

We are all here, eager to work with you, to bring our commitment to (the) Uluru (Statement) to life. To see Australia answer that gracious, patient call for respect and truth and unity.

The Uluru Statement is a hand outstretched, a moving show of faith in Australian decency and Australian fairness from people who have been given every reason to forsake their hope in both.

I am determined, as a government, as a country, that we grasp that hand of healing, we repay that faith, we rise to the moment.

The Garma speech feels like another evolution in the journey of our Prime Minister's reflecting the national sentiment.

From Keating's Redfern, Rudd's Apology and Abbott's "stain on our soul", our country has continued to move in a direction which has not only recognised the wrongs of the past but is moving actively to address them.

It was also at Garma that the Prime Minister revealed the question he intends to take to a referendum:

Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?

I'll declare straight up: I am an advocate for a Treaty over Voice but moving past my individual preference I am concerned about the question being initially proposed by the government.

https://www.nit.com.au/focus-on-a-treaty-not-on-the-voice-to-parliament/

The proposed question is incredibly vague and open-ended, which brings with it a higher risk of failure. The wider the question, the more risk and doubt can be injected about its ramifications if made law.

Additionally, in order for this question to be supported the majority of people in the majority of states have to support the concept of Voice itself.

This is not just a question of constitutional recognition, it is a question which assumes the people understand the full extent of the Voice to Parliament and are enthusiastic enough to want it implemented.

Of the 44 referendums proposing constitutional change since 1901, only eight have been successful.

We clearly react negatively to proposed changes in the status quo where our Constitution is concerned.

There will be plenty of commentators who will point to public polls which indicate support for the Voice.

However as we've seen play out here and abroad, the polled public opinion tends to be very disconnected from the ultimate voted outcome.

The Prime Minister made an impressive speech at Garma, and if Newspoll is to be believed Australian's are warming to him with record levels of satisfaction.

However if we are to have our great unifying Australian moment with the alteration of our constitution, the question around the Voice needs a lot more work.

For now, it's too open ended and the argument needs to be properly mounted about why we need to change.

I won't make the mistake of underestimating Mr Albanese again, but if he manages to achieve constitutional recognition and the Voice, he'll not only be going against history, he'll be changing our future forever. The question, critically, remains.