David Hughes: What is ‘Indigenous policy’?

We increasingly use ‘catch all’ terms such as ‘Women’s Policy’, ‘Youth Policy’ and ‘Indigenous Policy’, when in reality most areas of public policy impact these groups.

A rising star in the Australian Federal parliament, Zoe McKenzie expressed her frustration the other week at the use of the term ‘Women’s Policy’. She has a point: it is far too simplistic (and even demeaning) to package up childcare measures and women's workforce participation measures and think you have ticked a box to satisfy female voters. In reality, most women care just as much about tax policy as men, and fathers care just as much about childcare subsidies as mothers.

This week the Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton was asked to nominate the top issue facing Indigenous Australians. He pointed to cost of living, making the obvious point that indigenous communities are not immune from cost pressures impacting groceries and electricity.

There is one unresolved question around the Indigenous Voice proposal: who gets to decide the remit for what constitutes ‘Indigenous policy’?

There is one emerging area of alignment between the architects of the Indigenous Voice and the Coalition Opposition — both groups point out that Indigenous policy cannot be easily constrained to just a few areas of policy. Of course, the Opposition points this out as a warning and Voice advocates point this out as a requirement.

Voice architect, Professor Megan Davis explains the demands for a broad remit:

It’s important that the voice speaks not just on matters that directly, or explicitly, affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but on matters that have an indirect but significant effect on them, so as to bring about the necessary connection….it is not limited to matters specifically or directly related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait ­Islander peoples….

The voice will be able to speak to all parts of the government, including the cabinet, ministers, public servants, and independent statutory offices and agencies – such as the Reserve Bank, as well as a wide array of other agencies…

This makes the reaction to Peter Dutton’s comments interesting. Dutton suggested that Indigenous Australians may rank cost of living and economic policy as a top concern. Yet Voice advocates shut him down. ANU academic, Dr Liz Allen said:

‘This is why the Voice is so important. Input about priorities can be informed by First Nations peoples themselves, not some non-Indigenous fella who knows nothing about what it’s like to experience discrimination and racism.’

In response to declining support for the Voice, Anthony Albanese is now considering placing limits around its scope.

You would have thought such a retreat from Mr Albanese would have invoked a similar backlash from Voice advocates. We may see this emerge as a divisive issue amongst the ‘Yes’ case.

All of this is growing evidence of policy-on-the-run from Albanese on an issue that requires the most careful consideration. It is no wonder support is declining rapidly. Latest polling shows support for the ‘Yes’ case in the low 40s.

If it fails, then the Prime Minister should dwell on his own political mismanagement before he seeks to blame it on the Opposition’s resistance.

The Prime Minister has also stuck to a high-risk communication strategy. Albanese is continuing to simplify the proposition to one of “supporting recognition in our Constitution” but Australians now realise much more than that is being proposed.

Simplifying the proposition to an emotional plea is a powerful tool. But Australians are a smart bunch, and they are starting to ask questions. If the Prime Minister doesn’t have the answers, then Australians will vote against what they don't understand. 

David Hughes is the Executive Director of the Australian-based Menzies Research Centre and a former Prime Ministerial advisor.