The same-sex marriage postal survey delivered a just result. Despite mismanagement and attempts at thwarting by politicians, Australians spoke up to give due recognition and equality to same-sex relationships.

The result lays bare the disconnect between politicians and the Australian people.

In Tony Abbott’s electorate of Warringah, 75% supported same-sex marriage. Abbott’s claim that his oppositional view represented a “silent majority” was disproven. The time has come for Abbott and his reactionary colleagues to rename their putative constituency the “silent minority”.

There was also less support for same-sex marriage in Labor electorates than Liberal electorates. This too was telling, since Labor politicians are more passionately in favour, whereas more Liberal politicians are against.

Politicians don’t always represent their constituents. When they claim to represent a “silent majority” or “ordinary Australians”, their claims must be interrogated. They must not be passively accepted. As the same-sex marriage result shows, Australians can be ahead of the politicians on social justice.

Prime minister Malcolm Turnbull’s rejection of the Uluru statement from the heart and his claim the Australian people would not support an Indigenous voice to parliament, must be equally interrogated. On this issue of justice, Turnbull demonstrates unfair double standards.

Despite his procedural incompetence, Turnbull stood up and advocated same-sex marriage. “Lucy and I will be voting yes,” he said. He provided optimistic moral authority. With such leadership, Australians voted 61% in favour.

But he showed no such leadership on Indigenous recognition. On this issue, he was a deliberate wet blanket.

Turnbull’s response to the Uluru statement and the referendum council’s report was dishonest and obstructive. He propagated mistruths about the proposal – a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous advisory body. It’s “a third chamber of parliament”, he lied. It’s “contrary to principles of equality”. The idea came too late, he said. And most presumptuous of all: it wouldn’t be accepted by Australians.

This was the same proposal he told Noel Pearson and I he supported as “sensible” in 2015.

The double standard is clear.

When the religious freedom detractors asked for more legislative detail on same-sex marriage, Turnbull’s response was happy-go-lucky. We’ll see parliament “at its best” to develop such detail, he assured Australians. On same-sex marriage, Turnbull indicated it was acceptable for parliament to provide necessary detail after the vote – such detail is now being debated.

But on the Indigenous voice proposal, Turnbull used “lack of detail” as an excuse not to have a vote. No assurances that his parliament will be “at its best” to flesh out such detail in due course. Yet the proposal deliberately respects parliamentary supremacy by leaving design detail to parliament. On same-sex marriage, Turnbull made the positive case and promised to do the necessary parliamentary work. On Indigenous recognition, he makes the no case and shirks responsibility.

It’s not as if one reform idea is good and the other bad. The case for marriage equality is just and right. The case for Indigenous people having a guaranteed voice in their affairs is just and right.

Most unfair of all are the indications that Turnbull is wrong about the levels of public support for an Indigenous voice.

On same-sex marriage, Australians voted 61% in favour – with the prime minister advocating for it. Yet Omnipoll found 61% of Australians would vote yes in a referendum for an Indigenous voice – with the prime minister pushing against the proposal. Indeed, it’s in the face of government’s sustained negative spin.

Sixty-one per cent for same-sex marriage, with prime ministerial support. Sixty-one per cent for an Indigenous voice, without the same support.

The Indigenous voice proposal has supporters on both left and right. On the left, it’s supported by Labor and the Greens, and prominent unions, plus eminent Australians like author Thomas Kenneally and lawyer Julian Burnside – who signed the petition run by professor Fiona Stanley, which has gathered thousands of signatures. On the right, it’s supported by people such as radio host Alan Jones, former Victorian Liberal premier Jeff Kennett, former Liberal minister Fred Chaney, Brendan Nelson, Andrew Robb, journalist Chris Kenny, Major General Michael Jeffrey, Sir Angus Houston, Greg Craven, Liberal MP Julian Leeser and others. Not to mention the proposal is backed by unprecedented Indigenous consensus through the Uluru statement from the heart.

Turnbull says the Australian people would not support an Indigenous voice in the constitution, but the evidence says the opposite.

On 16 November, in the wake of the same-sex marriage result, Les Bryant from Durack in Brisbane wrote this letter to the Courier Mail editor:

Well done Australia, another example in proving that we are a more mature, broadminded nation than some people thought … The people have spoken, listen to them on the issues that matter and we will all be better off. Sure, politicians can have and are entitled to their own opinions, but should not act in a manner that is contrary to the aspirations, needs and future of all Australians. Politicians stuffed it up, the people fixed it. What next then? Indigenous recognition? Are they game to do a postal survey on that and act accordingly on the result? I am happy for the taxpayer to foot the bill on that one too. We should not have to come begging with cap in hand to federal politicians about recognising our First Australians, the core of our nation.”

Bryant said it better than I could.

The politicians are blocking progress on Indigenous recognition, not the people. The prime minister is grossly underestimating the intelligence and goodwill of the Australian people who want to see real change in Indigenous affairs.

Run a plebiscite on an Indigenous voice, prime minister. Let the Australians people have their say, then act on the result.