Add Category
In just a few short months, the country is heading to its first referendum in close to three decades.
We know the principle of what we'll be voting on — whether or not to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice enshrined in the constitution.
But when it comes to the exact wording, we're still in the dark.
The referendum working group has been tasked with coming up with a form of words for the question and the constitutional amendment that the public will vote on.
Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney said the group was united on the way forward, but after two days of meetings in Adelaide, the recommended wording still had not been released.
"There is no division. I want to make that extraordinarily clear. The wording will be decided on in the near future," she said.
"I'm not going to get ahead of either the engagement group, the working group or the cabinet on final decisions.
"The role of the engagement group and working group doesn't have a final date, despite what the media has been saying in the last little while."
Despite Ms Burney's assurances that there is no final date in mind for the wording to be released, there have been multiple delays in releasing the recommended wording for the Voice.
The final position has been postponed several times after possible suggestions for changes were introduced and, in most cases, resoundingly rejected.
It's now no longer clear if the working group will release the wording at all or if it will make a submission to cabinet, which will then agree with the proposal — or, in a much more likely scenario, make changes to the wording before releasing it in the constitutional amendment bill by the end of the month.
If that happens, the question must be asked — what changes did the government make to the wording, and why didn't the working group agree to them?
Running out of time for the referendum
The process going into a referendum is long, and the government is quickly running out of time if it wants to deliver on its own timeline.
The referendum can be held no sooner than two months and no later than six months after the constitutional amendment bill passes the parliament.
But getting to that point is still a little tricky.
The referendum working group must recommend a form of words to the government for the question and constitutional amendment, and then the cabinet will approve or change them before writing them into the constitutional alteration bill to call the referendum.
The government plans to have that bill before parliament by the end of March.
Once it passes the lower house — where the government has the numbers to push it straight through — it'll go to a Senate committee to be examined in full, a process that usually takes around six weeks.
But because of the sitting schedule around Senate estimates and the May budget, any delays will potentially push the referendum further back. For example, if the bill is delayed in the Senate until July, then the earliest the referendum can be held is November, which poses all sorts of issues for remote communities in the wet season.
The hope is the bill will pass the Senate in the last sitting week of June, meaning the earliest the referendum can be held is in September — but AFL and NRL grand finals make it an unattractive month for a national vote.
It's understood the government is leaning towards holding the referendum in October, but no date is set in stone, and the ultimate decision will come from Anthony Albanese.
What is the hold-up?
There could be a number of different reasons why the wording is yet to be finalised or yet to be released, but it's obvious something is holding up this announcement.
The draft wording currently reads:
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of Australia:
1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
3. 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.
Those draft words were announced by the Prime Minister at the Garma Festival about eight months ago and were crafted from the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
A recent suggestion to change the wording came from Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus to couch the legal effect of advice from the Voice as a power of the parliament — presumably to put paid to arguments from the opponents that the Voice would result in government decisions being challenged in the High Court.
The working group found it was an "unwanted and unnecessary" change, and the ongoing suggestions so late in the piece have irked at least one member of the working group.
"This has been worked on by constitutional experts for a very long time you see, the frustration is that we're possibly months away from a referendum; now we're having a debate about some extra words," Thomas Mayo said earlier this week.
"It's frustrating because we should be focusing on getting this done, getting an alteration bill to parliament, and campaigning for this to succeed."
Maybe there is some division within the group that they don't want to be aired; maybe there is conflicting advice from experts about the best way to proceed.
The issue is the lack of transparency about what is going on behind closed doors and what it could mean for the Voice if it eventually gets up.
The most obvious handbrake would be the government preventing the working group from putting its final recommendation to the public.
That could mean the government needs to change the wording and wants the working group to sign off, or the government intends to change the wording in cabinet and doesn't want an "interim" version published.
While the working group might not like it, it's reasonable that the government would disagree with them on certain points and make alterations to wording that it will eventually put forward in legislation.
But if the referendum working group is any indication of how the government treats Indigenous advisory bodies, then a dangerous precedent is being set by keeping the public in the dark.
If the Voice ends up being passed at a referendum, it's vital that it is independent and that its advice is heard in full — even when the government disagrees with it.