The Voice Referendum

In a democracy, everyone should have an equal say, supposedly.

But that has rarely been the case throughout the history of democracies. Perhaps Australia came closest to it in the 1970s when everyone could vote and the wealth gap was narrower. Those were simpler times culturally, too.

You might say, ‘But Aborigines are still in poverty.’ That raises the question, ‘What is wealth?’ because it is different things in different cultures. To some it is the built environment. To others, the natural environment. Perhaps well-being is a better priority.

In 1987 I lived among Aborigines in an urban setting for a year and visited their outback communities in the Centre and the North.

The Voice is a form of affirmative action… a policy that has a long history here and overseas. We know the results are mixed and it can be divisive. However, one thing was always certain – it is meant to be temporary. Aboriginal Senator Jacinta Price makes the point that the Voice “entrenches the idea that Indigenous people will always be disadvantaged”. Even if that is not so, it entrenches the idea that we are setting Indigenous people apart from the so-called melting pot of multicultural groups. One rule for them, another for the rest. That may be all very well, but not without public debate. In fact, this topic is so hampered by virulent accusations of racism that the conversation never gets to the point where we can come to a collective understanding of how multiculturalism is supposed to work. Is it supposed to be a melting pot? Or a tapestry? Are the expectations of all ethnic groups the same or not?

Is the Voice the right order of business? Section 25 of the Commonwealth constitution requires the Federal government to uphold a State’s law that disqualifies a person from voting at State elections by virtue of their race. This clearly out-dated and racist law is being called a ‘dead letter clause’, but it should be at the top of our list of reforms by referendum. One wonders why a clear winner like this is neglected.

Aborigines have a special place in the human history of this continent. That will never change. As such, it is only right, if they are to be part of our modern nation (not separate nations), that they be in the constitution’s preamble, which is historic in nature (it refers to ‘the Queen’ – Queen Victoria – but is interpreted as ‘the monarch’). Inclusion in the constitution’s Preamble (as was voted on in 1999) acknowledges the special status of First Australians whilst avoiding co-dependence. Australia was not ready to approve the 1999 Preamble proposal, or was unable to in conjunction with a proposal to abandon the monarchy. Perhaps it is time to revisit that proposal. Indeed, in hindsight, such a revisit should have been considered as a step more likely to succeed than The Voice. It seems the architects of these reforming referendums and the Statement from the Heart have made the same mistake again; over-reach.

The Voice is being called for to empower indigenous people and give them a special hearing in their own affairs. In 1973 the Whitlam government created the National Indigenous Consultative Committee (NICC) to advize government. The current iteration of that body is the National Indigenous Australians Agency. The main difference between it and The Voice is that it will be recognized in the constitution. There are 11 indigenous MPs now, more than the percentage of people who identify as Aboriginal in the population. So they already have a voice – in all parliamentary business – and good on them for getting there on their own merits, judged by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin (one hopes), as Martin Luther King said.

By contrast, the selection of Members of the Voice begins with screening for Aboriginality, which relies on the standard three part test;

• being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent
• identifying as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person
• being accepted as such by the community in which you live, or formerly lived.

‘The way you look or how you live are not requirements.’ Proof can be no more than a letter of ‘Proof’ or ‘Confirmation of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Heritage’ (AIATSIS Proof of Aboriginality). It is notoriously unreliable, open to abuse and in its excess, doesn’t actually preserve Aboriginal ethnicity. What it does do is allow anyone with a skerrick of Aboriginality to demote their non-indigenous heritage (whilst accepting all the benefits of it) in order to value-add both materially and in terms of cultural kudos.

From a psycho-social perspective, toxic relations assume a “Dreaded Drama Triangle” in which there is a Persecutor, Victim and Rescuer. How do we break this cycle, to become Challenger, Creator and Coach? By converting dependency into agency. Individuals with agency acknowledge their wholeness, not just that part of them that plays into the drama. The permanency of The Voice has the ironic effect of entrenching co-dependence. Proof that relations have become a dreaded drama triangle is in the over-reach that is The Voice – and why we’re not voting on the 1999 Preamble proposal again.

There have been many decades of welfare directed towards Aborigines in an attempt to Close the Gap. While this has helped somewhat, other factors have helped. The Gap has narrowed because the middle class of Australia has been gutted; the Gap in the broader community has widened. Wealthy industrialists and their hanger-oners have masterfully captured the state and media to dupe the public into believing that GDP growth is economic success. Their Big Australia program has enriched them and held the rest back. Our ecology has paid the biggest price – what you would expect to be a top priority for Aborigines.

Daily life has become immeasurably complicated. New technology is constantly changing and breaking down. Infrastructure is out-grown before reaching its use-by date and is remodelled [sic] into something more ‘sophisticated’. Neighbourhoods are repopulated and added to with an ever wider array of unfamiliar values and customs from a plethora of nationalities from overseas. Interpersonal and sexual relations morph into new forms that, while liberating for some, requires time and energy for others to adapt to.

Little wonder a sizable section of the community feel the ‘system’ is working against them. We’re now living in an urgent Polycrisis where “multiple global systems become causally entangled in ways that significantly degrade humanity’s prospects”. It is curious the Voice has nothing to say on the defining issue of our time.

Sadly, the Yes and No camps are digging their heals in just when they need to be listening to each other more intentionally. The No camp is populated by some jumping wildly to extraordinary conclusions, while the Yes camp seem to think “the argument should not be contentious.” I receved this flyer in my letterbox from my Federal MP, in ALP colours. It is called a Town Hall.

Clearly it is a Yes rally. All three panelists are Yes campaigners and it is festooned with Yes2023 badges. Are they hoping the Emperor (racism) has no clothes? My local UNAA (United Nations Australia Association) branch is doing the same thing; preaching to the converted.

Little wonder a social covenant is as remote as ever.

It is unfortunate that first Australians have failed to show that they could use the Voice to help not just themselves, but other Australians as well. To not just to be heard, but to advocate for those policies that reflect their culture and would benefit all; a sustainable economy and low immigration. The irony of holding the position that Australia always was and always will be aboriginal land whilst simultaneously holding the position that there should be unfettered immigration is completely lost on the inner city so-called intellectuals who are the unwitting volunteer foot soldiers of big business.

Aborigines still can advocate for these values in parliament where they already are and where it is appropriate, without any change to the constitution. Neville Bonner and Douglas Nicholls are just two of many models who have set an example of how to rise above a sense of victimhood.

The Voice is, in a word, over-reach.

The current Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay published an opinion piece questioning whether the Voice was constitutional overreach, suggesting that it is at odds with fundamental human rights principles such as equality and non-discrimination, and goes beyond the rights set out in UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

Sydney Morning Herald

Constitutional lawyers are also concerned about over-reach in the wording of the proposed referendum.

Constitutional lawyers remain divided over the potential for the Voice to Parliament to lead to government decisions being caught in a quagmire of High Court legal challenges.

ABC News

Prominent historian Professor Geoffrey Blainey brings some balance to the past with reminders of how Aborigines were counted in censuses as far back as 1871 and in the 1896 election in South Australia, Aboriginal women had the vote. The Saltbush Club.

---

8 August 2023 By Simon Cole