I'll be voting 'Yes' to the Voice. I don't say you should, you should make up your own mind, but here are my own reasons for doing so, and my responses to the criticisms being made by its opponents.
Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
These clauses set out the bare bones of recognition and the creation of the Voice, which means that if there is a Yes vote there will be a lot more debate about how it will be set up and how it will work. However, this debate will not be starting from scratch - the concept has been worked through in great detail first in the original consultations leading up to the Uluru Dialogue in 2017, and then in the subsequent co-design process on the Voice which reported in 2021. The history is summarised here, and there are links to the various reports for those who say 'we need more detail!'.
Reasons to vote Yes
I don't think the Voice idea is perfect, but perfection is too much to ask for in an imperfect world. What I do think is that it's a lot better than what we have already. Here is a set of reasons I will be voting 'yes'.
1. It is requested by a majority of First Nations leaders and people.
Not all support it, I know (I discuss the dissenting views below), but the concept comes from a wide-ranging consultation process that ended with the Uluru Statement from the Heart, is supported by First Nations leaders and organisations across the country, and the limited wide-scale polling of First Nations people indicates somewhere around 80% support. Supporters include people who have always held more conservative political views, such as Noel Pearson and Ken Wyatt, along with more progressive people like Marcia Langton or Thomas Mayo. My view is that if the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities say to us 'this is what it will take for us to build better lives' then we should support that.
2. It is Step 1 of a three-step process.
The Uluru Statement from the Heart outlines three steps - Voice, Treaty, Truth - and asks us to start with the Voice. Some people would prefer to start with Treaty but I can see the logic of the Uluru Statement's process. Once you have a Voice in place, there is a structure and process which has the moral authority to represent First Nations in the process of treaty-making, and to facilitate a truth-telling process. Without such a structure, the process of negotiation is a lot more murky, as we see already in Native Title negotiations. It won't mean that First Nations will now magically speak with one voice - why should they? Of course there will continue to be different views in their communities as there are in any community, but this will provide a channel for them to be discussed and processed.
3. It will be a secure, enduring body.
By including the Voice in the constitution, it will become embedded as an ongoing feature of our political landscape rather than being at the whim of the government of the day, as was, say, ATSIC, which was legislated by a Labor government, only to be abolished by a Coalition one. This will give First Nations people the assurance that they will have a say 'as of right', not at the whim of whoever is in power.
This doesn't mean that it will be outside the realm of politics by any means. The structure of the Voice, and its process of appointment or election, will be set by legislation. There are a thousand ways a future government could hamstring it or neuter it by changing the legislation. But since it must always exist, there will always be that presence in government. To be successful, its members will also need to be politically savvy. As an advisory body it has no power to make legislation and needs to rely on its powers of persuasion and its ability to work the political system to get the outcomes First Nations communities are looking for.
4. The symbolic power of 'Yes'.
The Voice in itself is a very modest reform. It grants First Nations an advisory structure, and provides constitutional acknowledgement of their status as First Peoples. It does not grant sovereignty (nor cede it), it does not directly improve services or provide compensation for past wrongs. If it works well (and this is not guaranteed) it may pave the way for some of these things. This paving of the way seems to me to be the key to the Voice.
In 1967 the overwhelming 'yes' vote to give the Commonwealth the power to make laws about First Nations people and count them in the Census - also a very modest reform - was a seminal moment in Australian history. For the first time since the British invasion began in 1788, First Nations people felt seen at the national level, felt that their humanity and citizenship was acknowledged and respected. It took on a symbolic significance far beyond the simple legal changes it enshrined in the Constitution. The same can be true of the Voice. If we say 'yes', it will represent a huge affirmation that Australia as a nation is prepared to listen respectfully to First Nations communities, and perhaps represent a fresh starting point for moving forward on many of the crucial issues that still exist between us.
Responses to the arguments for 'No'.
So, that's my quick, personal reasons for voting 'yes'. Others will no doubt have different reasons, and these are far from a complete list of mine, just the highlights. Now, to the reasons I am not persuaded by the arguments for 'No'.
1. We should prioritise practical issues.
Some people point to the massive practical issues facing First Nations communities - health, law and order, family violence, unemployment and so forth - and say 'why are we focusing on the Voice not on these things? How will the Voice improve these situations?'
I agree that these issues are very important, and I'm 100% sure that the proponents of the Voice do as well. What I don't see is that this is some kind of 'either/or' zero sum game - either do the Voice, or fix domestic violence. That is because these issues are fundamentally issues of social exclusion, and are bound up with the disempowerment of First Nations communities.
So for me, the question I ask back is, 'how will you address these issues without a Voice?'. It's not like these issues are new. One of the drivers behind the Voice is First Nations people repeatedly saying, 'you're not listening to us. We know how to address these issues but you keep doing things we know won't work.' The Voice, as envisaged through the co-design process, would provide a network of local and regional bodies which would feed into a national Voice to Parliament. If you want to respond to an issue at a local or regional level you would engage with the local or regional groups. If you are developing national legislation or policy you would discuss that with the national body. This is a way of building better policies and programs and better implementation.
Incidentally, the Coalition implicitly acknowledges this in its position. It says it will legislate a set of local and regional 'voices' but not a national one. The problem with this position is twofold - firstly, as a piece of legislation it provides no security to these bodies. Secondly, it cuts the 'voices' out of the crucial part of the puzzle - the framing of legislation and policy - and only brings them in at the implementation stage, once the big decisions have been made. It is a 'voice', but one that is effectively silenced from the beginning.
2. It will divide the nation and entrench racial discrimination.
In a sense this is the argument that holds the strongest emotional appeal, since it sounds like a plea for equality. However, I think this is deceptive.
For me the problem with this argument is that it equates 'equality' with sameness. It is a-historical and a-cultural, suggesting that the differences between our cultures and the different positions we occupy in the history of Australia don't matter. In fact, Australia has always been divided - between black and white, between Indigenous peoples and invaders, between the conquerors and the conquered. As such, there have also always been different laws for the two peoples, and this continues to be the case today. 'Native Title' is different to other forms of title, 'Cultural Heritage' laws treat Aboriginal heritage differently to the way 'Heritage' laws treat European heritage. Historically, 'protection' laws prescribed different rights and obligations for First Nations people, and criminal laws, while now formally the same, continue to be applied differently to Black and White peoples.
Since it became clear that Australia's First Nations would not simply 'die out' in the face of the British invasion, Australia has had a strong drive towards assimilation - to incorporating First Nations people into British Australia in a way that eliminates cultural difference, making them 'coconuts', brown on the outside but white on the inside.
You will hear a lot of assimilationist rhetoric from the 'no' campaigners. The trick is that it sounds like equality but actually it is not, because it says 'Aboriginal culture, and Aboriginal ways of being, are not relevant in Australian society'. Under this vision, First Nations people will always be second class, will always have to conceal who they are. A Voice allows them to be themselves, and gives them, as they are with their own cultures and ways of being, a seat at the table. It is fundamentally inclusive, not only allowing but celebrating and welcoming difference.
3. 'The Executive issue'.
Since the question was announced the 'no' campaign has focused a lot on the inclusion of Executive Government alongside Parliament in the proposal. 'No' campaigners have argued that this gives the Voice too much power and has the potential to freeze up government. To my mind, this is not a good faith argument.
The Executive consists of the various parts of government that are accountable to Parliament - the Ministers and their Departments - along with the Governor-General and his/her 'Council' which is essentially the Cabinet under another name. What the proposal is saying is that the Voice can make representations to Ministers and Departments as well as to the Parliament itself.
To my mind, it's difficult to see how any consultative body could do its job without being able to advise the Executive, because this is where 90% of the work of government takes place. This is where legislation is developed, where program guidelines are set, where policies are made. Everything that goes to the Parliament has passed through the Executive. It is also the Executive that does the consulting - that goes out to the community and stakeholders, seeks their views, listens to their issues, invites them to comment on draft legislation and policies, and so forth. Of course the Executive will want to hear from the Voice on matters affecting First Nations people. This is the whole point of its existence.
4. Is it just a token?
Finally, the objection from the other side, from various grassroots activists and from Senator Lydia Thorpe who see the Voice as a diversion from issues of treaty and sovereignty. For them, the Voice is a token gesture that once again fobs off Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and takes the heat off their more challenging demands.
I have some sympathy with this view. Because the Voice is an advisory body, it relies on the goodwill of government to be effective. In a worst case scenario it could simply amount to a constitutional right to be ignored.
My response to this, which I understand is the response of those who framed the Uluru Statement, is as mentioned in my second reason to vote 'yes'. The Uluru Statement represents a three step process - Voice, Treaty, Truth. It represents the first stage of a three-step strategy mapped out by its First Nations architects to achieve the things the more radical activists also want. It may be that we get the Voice but never get to Treaty or Truth, in which case the Voice will remain at risk of being a token. But at this point, with the referendum train having left the station, if the nation votes 'no' the treaty and truth will inevitably fall by the wayside because, in effect, we will be voting 'no' to the whole Statement.
Some concluding comments.
The Voice is a modest reform. It enshrines an advisory, consultative mechanism for First Nations people in the Australian Constitution. It is a small step along the path to righting the wrongs experienced by First Nations and addressing the ongoing issues between them and the rest of us.
As such, we shouldn't expect too much. The Voice will not immediately solve the entrenched issues of poverty, trauma and exclusion experienced by so many First Nations people. It will not instantly lead us to properly respect their cultures and appreciate the riches of their living heritage. If we treat it with bad faith, it is possible it will achieve very little.
However, saying 'yes' to the Voice is better than saying 'no'. A group of highly respected First Nations leaders from across the country, informed by a broad consultation process, have brought us this roadmap for addressing the issues between us. It represents a modest, generous offer, an olive branch, a chance for a new beginning. Why say 'no' when we can so easily say 'yes'?
Comments