A key figure behind the Indigenous Voice has urged the Government to have a comprehensive back-up plan should the referendum fail.
Australians will be asked to vote on October 14 to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution through a new advisory body.
Indigenous academic Marcia Langton, a co-chair of the Voice design group, said many people on the “frontlines of dealing with the problems” were worried about the prospect of the Voice referendum failing.
“They already have little say and a loss will mean they have even less,“ Professor Langton told the National Press Club on Wednesday.
She said a reform plan should be based on common sense, inquiry and royal commission recommendations and the Voice co-design process report she authored with Tom Calma.
“There is another opportunity for this Government and that is to consider what it would do should the Voice referendum fail,” she said.
“I do hope that this Government would turn to our report for inspiration for policy settings, to empower us, to involve us in closing the gap, and other issues that affect our lives.”
Professor Langton also shot down Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s proposal for a second referendum, should the first one fail, to recognise Indigenous people but not enshrine a Voice.
“There’s no point in a second referendum, because it’s not what we want,” she said.
“We asked for recognition through a voice combining the symbolic and practical. To give us both dignity and a sense of empowerment and responsibility in matters that affect us.
“The purpose of his (Mr Dutton’s) referendum … is not what we asked for.
“So, on those grounds — no, I’m not interested. And I know that over 80 per cent of Indigenous Australians would not be interested. And we would communicate that very clearly to the Australian people, should he ever be elected.”
The Federal Government has accused the Coalition of trying to sabotage the referendum next month by promising a second vote.
Professor Langton said the Voice was not about opening wounds over the country’s colonisation and would take nothing away from others.
“This is not intended to make Australians feel guilty about the often-painful past of Australia’s settlement and treatment of Indigenous people,” she said.
Don’t imagine that there’s another opportunity around the corner. Don’t think your No vote goes into a different pile marked next time.
With tears welling in her eyes, Professor Langton spoke of the toll public vitriol and trolls had taken on leaders advocating for change.
She pleaded for the media not to take part in “pile-ons” on decent people.
It was the nation’s “one chance” to turn around disadvantage, she said.
“Don’t imagine that there’s another opportunity around the corner. Don’t think your No vote goes into a different pile marked next time,” Professor Langton said.
She said the Yes vote would deliver hope and healing by working together.
A No vote would bind the country closely to a “broken status quo” which would continue the cycle of disadvantage.
The academic blasted the No camp for claiming the proposal would racially divide Australia.
The No case argues the constitutional change is legally risky, divisive, permanent and lacks enough detail for Australians to make an informed decision.