Constitutional conservatives raising doubts about the proposed wording of the referendum on an Indigenous voice to parliament have been accused of acting like “white saviours”, finding flaws with the proposal “just to stay in the spotlight”, according to a member of the government’s advisory group.
Thomas Mayo, a Kaurareg and Kalkalgal Erubamle man and working group member, said it was now “crunch time” for the government’s relationship with the advisory group.
“We are trying to land on a form of words that will give our people the most powerful voice possible, while also making sure we can still win the referendum,” he said.
“We are dealing with the issue of people trying to gain prominence over this matter and act as white saviours. From our experience we know that too often you may fix one problem and they’ll go and find another one just to stay in the spotlight.”
At least two other prominent members of the group have also spoken out against those they see as attempting to derail the voice.
Prof Marcia Langton said there had been a “relentless scare campaign”, while Marcus Stewart has unleashed on the “relevancy-deprived, race-baiting constitutional conservatives chasing their two minutes of fame”.
The referendum working group will meet on Thursday to decide on its final advice to government, including whether to support a proposed addition of words to the amendment suggested by the attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, which would allow parliament to decide the legal effect of the voice’s representations.
One member claims the change may have been designed to appease constitutional conservatives, a small number of whom raised concerns about court challenges arising from the voice’s ability to advise executive government.
The group’s final advice will be considered by cabinet before the constitutional amendment bill will be introduced during the week of 27 March. Guardian Australia understands the group remains unanimous in supporting the voice’s power to advise executive government.
The government is not obliged to accept the group’s advice, but advocates of the voice say not doing so would risk undermining the principle on which the consultation body is meant to operate – that Aboriginal people should have a say on matters that affect them.
The Nine newspapers reported Dreyfus and the solicitor general, Stephen Donaghue, had suggested an update to the constitutional amendment, to confirm the parliament could make laws about “the legal effect of [the voice’s] representations”.
Dreyfus and the Attorney General’s Department were approached for comment.
Working group members have expressed frustration at the way the suggested additional phrase was introduced, just before the last meeting, limiting their opportunity to fully consider its implications.
After the meeting, Stewart on Thursday said the group wanted the amendment to be “as strong as possible” and that there was “no room for mediocrity in this process”.
Prof George Williams, a member of the legal expert group, believed concerns about litigation over the voice’s representations were overstated.
“This is the rule of law in action … It’d be unusual to put any part of the constitution beyond the audit of the courts. It’s their job to ensure people operate within the law, and that includes the voice,” he said.
Some working group members believe the new wording would weaken the voice and lessen the government’s obligation to consult on matters of relevance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Langton, who along with Tom Calma wrote the 2019 co-design report favoured by the current government, said she believed the vast majority of Indigenous people supported their model, and that most Australians would vote for it.
“It would be tragic if the referendum were voted down because of the relentless scare campaign from people who clearly do not understand the scale of the tragedy we are addressing,” she said.
Stewart was also critical.
“We have a duty and responsibility as the referendum working group. Let us do our job,” he said.
Mayo pointed to views expressed by leading constitutional lawyer Bret Walker, who told the Financial Review of what he called a “doomsday borderline approach” from some lawyers.
Mayo called on conservative constitutional experts “who say they support this, to back it”, saying the referendum “go down to the wire”.
“Their actions could be the difference between winning and losing. So for something that is really a minor issue, we might waste this opportunity and it’s not their families who would suffer.”
