The key figure behind the indigenous voice urges the government to have a backup plan in case the referendum fails

A key figure behind the indigenous voice has urged the government to create a comprehensive backup plan if the referendum fails.

Australians will be asked on October 14 to vote by a new advisory body to recognize Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the constitution.

Indigenous academic Marcia Langton, a co-chair of the Voice design group, said many people who are “on the front lines of addressing the issues” are concerned at the prospect of the Voice referendum failing.

“They already have little say and a loss would 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, research and recommendations from the Royal Commission, and the report she co-authored with Professor Tom Calma on the voice co-design process.

Professor Marcia Langton AO addresses the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday, urging Australians to “reverse” their disadvantage by voting “yes” in the referendum

“There is one more chance for this government: it needs to think about what it would do if the referendum fails,” she said.

“I sincerely hope that this government will take our report as a guide to inspire policy making, empower us, engage us in closing the gap and solve other problems affecting our lives.”

Professor Langton also rejected opposition leader Peter Dutton’s proposal for a second referendum, should the first fail, to recognize tribal peoples but not give them a voice.

“A second referendum makes no sense because it’s not what we want,” she said.

“We asked for recognition through a voice that combines the symbolic and the practical to give us both dignity and a sense of empowerment and responsibility in matters that affect us.”

The government accuses the coalition of sabotaging next month’s referendum by promising a second vote.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has been criticized for “not bringing the debate to the forefront of why Australians should vote for an Indigenous vote”.

Prof Langton said the voice is not about opening wounds about colonizing the country and would not take anything away from others.

“This is not to make Australians feel guilty about the often painful history of Australian settlement and treatment of Indigenous people,” she said.

With tears in his eyes, Prof. Langton spoke about the toll public criticism and trolls had taken on leaders who advocated for change.

She argued that the media should not engage in mass attacks on decent people.

It is the nation’s “only chance” to reverse the disadvantage, she said.

‘Don’t think there’s another opportunity just around the corner.’ ‘Don’t think your no-vote will end up on a different marked pile next time,’ Prof Langton said.

She said the “yes” would bring hope and healing through working together.

A “no” would tie the country tightly to a “broken status quo,” perpetuating the cycle of disadvantage and disempowerment.

Professor Langton warned that a second referendum without a vote would be “pointless”.

The scholar slammed the ‘no’ camp for its ‘utter nonsense’, claiming the proposal would racially divide Australia.

In the “no” case, it is argued that the constitutional amendment is legally risky, divisive and permanent, and lacks enough detail for Australians to make an informed decision.

On the day of the referendum, voters will be asked to vote “yes” or “no” on a single question.

The question on the ballot reads: ‘A legislative proposal: to amend the Constitution to recognize the Indigenous Peoples of Australia by creating a voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.’ Do you agree with this proposed amendment?’