All or nothing Voice defeat compounds the national tragedy

But we warned that the high bar of achieving constitutional change, the risks that such a referendum would fail, and the high costs of such failure meant that Mr Albanese should consider legislating to get a novel “Voice” up and running before attempting to insert it in the Constitution.

Amid such Brexit-like polarisation, seeking to blame Peter Dutton or the misinformation of the No campaign serves little purpose.

On Saturday night, Mr Albanese said he accepted responsibility for the referendum’s failure. But when asked to explain the defeat, he immediately pointed the finger at Peter Dutton and the Coalition by blaming lack of bipartisanship.

Yet the fault here also lies with Mr Albanese’s failure to genuinely consult with Mr Dutton to try to secure bi-partisan support for the Voice - a crash-through-or-crash hubris that defied the history of political contested constitutional referendums always losing.

Mr Albanese bet all or nothing on the constitutionally enshrined Voice that now has been doubly rejected by a majority of all voters and by a majority of voters in every state.

Now he has compounded the tragedy of the referendum defeat by ruling out pursuing other forms of constitutional recognition or legislating for an Indigenous advisory body.

That worst-case result comes despite Mr Albanese’s campaign mantra that listening to Indigenous communities was essential to improve outcomes for disadvantaged Indigenous people.

Yet, despite the supposed centrality of the issue, the referendum debate contained little discussion about the actual practical solutions for tackling entrenched social problems in Indigenous communities such as school non-attendance and welfare dependency.

That failed to neutralise the No campaign’s suggestion that the Voice would focus on the progressive Indigenous agenda of truth-telling, sovereignty, treaty, and reparations, rather than coming to grips with how to spend the billions of dollars of government funding for Indigenous service more effectively, or why the royalties earned from native title spanning half the Australian landmass don’t do more to improve the economic circumstances on the ground in remote communities.

No campaign co-leader Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s attack on giving constitutional form to Indigenous “separatism” also gave voters reason to think that in an age of identity politics, the Voice could undermine the principle of equality of citizenship at the heart of Australia’s liberal democracy and multicultural society.

Aspirational middle Australia in the suburbs and regions voted No, while all the 32 seats out of the 151 seats in the federal parliament that recorded Yes majorities were located in well-off cosmopolitan inner-city areas. Amid such Brexit-like polarisation, seeking to blame Dutton or the misinformation of the No campaign serves little purpose.

The question now is what is the way forward for overcoming the shameful Indigenous health, employment, and educational outcomes that mock the idea of Australian equality.

Having defeated the Voice, the onus is surely on the No camp to now constructively help drive the political debate about how to end the national tragedy that is the gap between remote Indigenous Australia and the rest of the country.

The challenge for Labor will be to engage with that debate, and re-engage those Indigenous Australians whose hopes have been cruelly dashed, while also returning to the cost of living and economic growth issues important to most Australians.

All parts of the debate should also seek to reassure Indigenous Australians feeling hurt and denied the goodwill and appreciation of their ancient culture by the overwhelming majority of their fellow citizens.