Business muted on the Voice

Indigenous rights are of great personal importance for Dorinda Cox.

Senator Cox, appointed to that chamber in 2021 and elected to a full six-year term last year, has only recently stepped in as the federal Greens’ First Nations spokesperson, on account of Lidia Thorpe’s resignation in opposition to the federal government’s proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament.

As the lead in representing the party’s position on the impending referendum on the creation of the Voice, Senator Cox cites several reasons for supporting a ‘Yes’ vote.

Principally, her experience as part of the Stolen Generations directly weighs on her thinking.

Speaking with Business News in March, Senator Cox, a Yamatji-Noongar woman, cited the personal toll forced removals had on her life, noting how she was the first generation of children in her family to have been raised at home by her biological mother.

She noted that forced child removals in Western Australia were authorised by the Aborigines Act 1905, which created the position of chief protector of Aborigines.

That law, repealed by the Brand government in the 1960s, replaced legislation that had been in place since the 1840s and handed legal guardianship to the state government for all Aboriginal children, subjecting them to the possibility of forced labour or detention without cause.

Senator Cox said the Voice was an opportunity never accorded her forebearers.

“When I think about what that’s meant, it’s meant that we’ve never had anybody sit at the table with us and ask [for] our opinion,” she said.

“We’ve never been given the opportunity to draft legislation or talk about how legislation impacts our lives on a daily basis, or to unpack and understand the interconnectedness of all of those things, of what the 1905 Act did, how it came into our lives, and [the way] it’s been distributed across many different systems that now operate in a very contemporary way.

“For me, at a personal level, the Voice offers an opportunity.”

Senator Cox is now about a year into her inaugural term in Parliament, having been elected on the same night as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese publicly pledged to support the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full.

That marked a substantive shift from his predecessors, who had variously rejected or wavered on the document’s call for a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament.

Public polling in the year since has shown consistent support for such a body nationally and in Western Australia, despite fractures across the political spectrum damping any bipartisan mood for change.

That’s been evident in repeated demands by the opposition for the Voice’s enabling legislation to be detailed ahead of a referendum being held, despite former Indigenous affairs minister Ken Wyatt, one of WA’s most prominent supporters of the Voice, having stewarded the process under the Morrison government.

Tensions are playing out publicly, with Senator Michaelia Cash, speaking alongside deputy federal leader Sussan Ley in Perth in February, reportedly conceding during a meeting with the party faithful the opposition’s stance was frustrating but politically necessary.

That was met with consternation from former state Liberal leader Bill Hassell, who is reported to have been dismissive of the idea of a Voice.

It’s an issue that’s proved no less vexed for the Greens.

The party’s preferred position is for a Voice to follow truth and treaty, in reverse order of what was set out by the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

It only arrived at supporting a ‘yes’ vote in the aftermath of Senator Thorpe shifting to the crossbench, ostensibly to represent Australia’s black sovereignty movement and the case for a progressive ‘no’ vote.

Corporates are similarly splintered on the issue.

While many ASX-listed companies, including Rio Tinto, BHP, Woodside Energy and South32, have previously declared support for the Uluru Statement from the Heart, few have explicitly backed the referendum, much less voiced support for approving the wording of the government’s proposed constitutional amendment.

History proves daunting for the fate of any referendum.

Just eight have ever been carried, with the last successful one, which provided retirement ages for judges, passing in 1977.

Another eight votes have been held since then, with the last attempt, which would have inserted a preamble into the constitution if successful, failing by a 20-percentage-point margin.

Perhaps owing to the enormity of support needed to change Australia’s founding document, the same question has never been asked twice at referendum.

The stakes of getting it right the first time are not lost on Senator Cox.

“If we don’t get this, we will miss this opportunity for the next generation,” she said.

“That’s about my children and my grandchildren because I can’t see any other government going anywhere near this once there’s a failed referendum on the record. People will just step away and say, ‘We’ve tried our best. Now we need to leave this to fate’.

“If we think that waking up on the Sunday after the referendum we’re going to have any pathway to truth and treaty after that, we’re kidding ourselves.

“We have to secure this vote to make sure that we can do the rest of the job.”

The rest of the job in this case refers to full implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, of which a Voice comprises just one of three parts.

That statement was formalised in 2017 with majority support from attendees to Uluru’s First Nations National Constitutional Convention, which itself was organised by the bipartisan Referendum Council.

That document set out demands for an eventual treaty and truth-telling Makarrata Commission, with the Voice framed as the first step towards reconciliation.

Three reports have since been authored detailing the potential scope for such a body.

The first, published by the Referendum Council, made just two recommendations, arguing the Voice should be given authority to monitor federal, state and territory governments, while referencing the convention’s guiding principles in contending “it will be for the Parliament to consider what further definition is required before the proposal is in a form appropriate to be put to a referendum”.

Parliament’s report, a bipartisan effort led by a committee co-chaired by Senator Pat Dodson and shadow attorney general Julian Leeser, detailed foundational processes, and recommended the commissioning of a co-design report, which was undertaken by the Morrison government and authored by academics Marcia Langton and Tom Calma.

That document was billed as the ‘final’ report and details the Voice’s operational scope, including possible election methods and apportionment, suggesting it include 24 members, three of whom would be drawn from WA.

Proponents have regularly referenced the Langton-Calma report to ward off criticisms that the Voice proposal lacks detail.

Some of its recommendations have already been met, with Mr Albanese in February joining state and territory counterparts, including Premier Mark McGowan, in endorsing a ‘yes’ vote.

Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney, however, has expressed mixed opinions of this model, telling the ABC’s David Speers in December that while the report was absolutely fundamental to the Voice’s final design, it was not the only report, noting Parliament would yet have a say on the body’s design and powers.

Ms Burney and Senator Dodson are currently leading the referendum working group advising government on ensuring a successful referendum.

That’s alongside the broader referendum engagement group, charged with boosting understanding and awareness of the campaign, and an eight-member constitutional expert group, which provided legal advice on the finer details of the draft amendment’s wording.

As it currently stands, Australians will be asked to approve adding three lines to the constitution establishing the Voice; its powers to make representations to executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and the authority of parliament to define its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

Ms Burney has previously signalled the referendum will be held towards the end of this year, meaning both campaigns could be gearing up for a vote as early as October.

It would appear at first blush like the ‘yes’ campaign is poised for success.

Polling since June last year has routinely pegged national support at or above 50 per cent, with no major survey finding a majority or plurality of Australians in favour of ‘no’.

Backing in WA appears mixed, with media and advocacy group SEC Newgate in October putting 49 per cent of the state in support and 23 per cent in the ‘no’ camp. That’s in contrast to Roy Morgan’s December survey, which found support for ‘yes’ at 63 per cent, fully 10 percentage points higher than the rest of the nation.

And while an average of about a dozen reputable polls taken over the past 12 months shows national support for the Voice is softening, it still sits at about 54 per cent, compared to 29 per cent against (see page 6).

The shift in opposition to the Voice is in contrast with the relatively muted response of leading campaigners for a ‘no’ vote.

Recognise a Better Way, led by national Labor president-turned-federal Liberal candidate Warren Mundine, is the most prominent, with its position paper on the Voice framing Labor, Greens and independent MPs as being inclined to grant ‘the strongest possible powers’ to the Voice if asked.

It’s also claiming the Voice would have the power to veto legislation, despite the federal government and the final co-design report ruling that out as a possibility.

Rather than an advisory body, the Mundine group is promoting a constitutional preamble recognising Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders, as well as the standing up of bipartisan parliamentary standing committee on native title.

Mr Mundine didn’t respond when contacted by Business News.

Support for the Voice is similarly louder than its opposition in the private sector, with Wesfarmers chair Michael Chaney perhaps the most notable business leader in WA backing a ‘yes’ vote.

Earlier this year, he joined the board of Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition, which counts conservative pollster Mark Textor, Indigenous land rights advocate Noel Pearson and Reconciliation Australia boss Karen Mundine as members.

Mr Chaney expressed few concerns when asked about the government’s draft amendment wording, casting doubt on fears it may add layers of red tape or bureaucratic box ticking.

He argued those criticisms were a distraction from the issue at hand.

“There’s been suggestions that things will be tied up in courts and everything will grind to a halt,” Mr Chaney said.

“Esteemed former judges like former chief justice Robert French have basically dismissed those concerns, but for whatever reason some people like to raise them. I think [it’s] very disappointing that politics has got involved in what I always expected was something [that] would get bipartisan support.

“It’s not a time for politics.”

Mr Chaney’s open support contrasts with the approach taken by other major players in the state’s business community, including Andrew Forrest-chaired Fortescue Metals Group.

A spokesperson for Fortescue declined to say whether the company supported either position in the referendum when contacted by Business News, saying the company acknowledged and respected the federal government’s commitment to establishing a First Nations Voice.

“Importantly, this will be a matter for the Australian people to decide at a referendum,” they said.

“We support all practical initiatives that will improve the lives of Australia’s First Nations people and end the disparity that currently exists between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.”

Other major companies, including Mineral Resources and Gina Rinehart-chaired Hancock Prospecting, were also contacted for this article, however, spokespeople for both declined to provide comment.

Meanwhile, political support has been near unanimous among Labor and Greens MPs, with Senator Thorpe’s resignation as the Greens’ Indigenous spokesperson earlier this year paving the way for the party, which holds the balance of power in the Senate, to formalise its support.

Curtin independent MP Kate Chaney is also backing the Voice and has previously appeared alongside Senator Cox and Senator Dodson to promote a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum.

And while the federal Liberal and National parties have expressed mixed views on the subject to now, similar disunity does not appear to be playing out at a state level, with opposition leader Shane Love earlier this year confirming his support for a ‘yes’ vote.

Liberal leader Libby Mettam has since told Business News she also supports constitutional recognition for First Nations people and will be voting ‘yes’ at the referendum.

“I also strongly support all Australians being able to make their own decision,” she said.

“Given this is a Commonwealth matter which will ultimately be decided by a referendum, the priority must be to ensure Australians understand how the model will work at a practical level to improve the lives and outcomes of First Nations people.”

For what it’s worth, many supporters, including Senator Cox, have argued a constitutional right to consult communities on policies that affect them will result in practical change.

It’s a point echoed by Kimberley Lands Council chief executive Tyronne Garstone.

He explained to Business News how, in his line of work, he’d seen duplication of services throughout regional WA, resulting in excessive spending targeting areas that weren’t a priority for communities.

In his view, allowing local community representatives to have a constitutionally enshrined say on policies affecting them would go some way to resolving some basic problems.

“They’re things that I think would go a long way to improving the outcomes that we’ve failed to see from both sides of government,” he said.