The facts
On 14 October 2023 eligible Australians of voting age will
go to the polls to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the following proposition:
“A Proposed Law: to alter the
Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
Do you approve this proposed
alteration?”
More detail is available on the Federal Government’s website
here: https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment
The proposed law that
Australians are being asked to approve at the referendum would insert the
following lines into the Constitution:
“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.”
Voting is compulsory.
For a referendum to be
successful ‘a 'double majority' must vote 'yes' to the proposed changes. A
double majority is:
·
a national majority of voters in the states and
territories
·
a majority of voters in at least 4 out of 6
states’.
The referendum is (largely) in response to the 2017 Uluru
Statement from the Heart, which is ‘the largest consensus of First Nations
peoples on a proposal for substantive recognition in Australian history’
calling for ‘the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution’.
So to summarise, a successful referendum will put in place an advisory body to provide advice to governments so that they can make better decisions. The advisory body holds no power or decision-making authority, and the government continues to have the ability to make the decisions.
The arguments for and against
changing the Constitution are being led by the current Federal Government
(Labor) and the opposition (Liberal, or Coalition if you prefer). Below are
statements from both sides of government.
The argument for ‘The Yes vote’
|
‘Vote Yes for a better future for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and All Australians’ Vote Yes for unity, hope and to make
a positive difference’ ‘Listening to advice from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people about
matters that affect their lives, so governments make better decisions’ ‘There are big challenges facing
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: ·
A life expectancy 8 years shorter than
non-Indigenous Australians ·
Worse rates of disease and infant mortality ·
A suicide rate twice as high ·
Fewer opportunities for education and
training. Clearly the current approach isn’t
working. To close the gaps, find solutions and
plan for the future we need to listen to advice from Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people about issues affecting their lives and communities.’ ‘When governments listen to people
about issues that affect them, they: ·
Make better decisions ·
Get better results ·
Deliver better value for money’. |
Official Referendum Booklet – The
case for voting Yes |
|
The Voice: ‘is an advisory body that will help: ·
get better results ·
make better decisions ·
deliver better value for money’ ‘is about recognition, listening
and achieving better results’ will ‘acknowledge 65,000 years of
culture and tradition’ ‘will achieve practical progress in
Indigenous health, education, employment and housing, so people have a better
life’. |
Amanda Rishworth MP – |
The argument for ‘The No vote’
|
‘It is legally risky, with unknown
consequences’ ‘It would be divisive and permanent’ ‘Enshrining a Voice in the
Constitution for only one group of Australian means permanently dividing our
country’ ‘It creates different classes of
citizenship through an unknown body that has the full force of the
Constitution behind it. Many Indigenous Australians do not support this’ |
Official Referendum Booklet – The
case for voting No |
|
‘Enshrining in our Constitution a
body for only one group of Australian means permanently dividing us’ ‘Many Indigenous Australians don’t
agree with the proposed change’ ‘The Voice covers all areas of
“Executive Government”. No issue would be beyond its reach’ ‘It risks legal challenges, delays
and dysfunctional government’ ‘No details have been provided on how
members of the Voice would be chosen or how it would operate’ …‘it will be just a first step to
reparations and compensation and other radical changes’ ‘If you don’t know, say no’. |
Letter to residents from Shadow
Ministers Kerrynne Liddle and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price |
About me
I am not affiliated with, or a member of any political
party. Never have been.
I work in local government for a council. A large part of my
role is community engagement. This is where council seeks the input of
stakeholders (community members, groups, businesses etc) to help council make
the best possible decisions.
My personal opinion
My opinion does not necessarily reflect the views of my
employer or the elected members that make up the Council where I work. However
my work in local government has definitely shaped my own personal views.
I believe that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
generally do it tougher than other Australians. This ranges from a lower life
expectancy, a suicide rate twice as high, and harder to gain meaningful
employment.
It is clear that many Aboriginal people continue to deal
with intergenerational trauma, which ‘is rooted in colonisation of and
dispossession from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander lands and in
subsequent (and continued) oppressive colonising policies and practices’ (Atkinson
2002.) The stolen generation is just one example.
Governments have traditionally struggled to find solutions
to these problems.
In more recent times (since the 1960s and 70s) governments
have seemed more willing to seek the views of their constituents outside of
election time. The public consultation has now been termed community
engagement. Managing and ‘solving’ societal issues had previously been
understood as a government responsibility, and more recently it has become more
common for governments to interact with the public in terms of consulting with
community members on issues that affect them. Source: Building Sustainable Communities: The Impact of
Engagement Copyright © 2022
I have seen this first hand in my work, where input from
communities has helped council’s better understand an issue, identify problems
and solutions that had not previously been considered, and choose a more
sustainable, publicly acceptable outcome. And don’t you think its morally the
right thing to ask people their thoughts about a decision that is going to
affect them?
Community engagement works. It saves time, leads to better,
more sustainable decisions, (which means that decisions won’t need to be
revisited), which ultimately saves money.
This concept of community engagement, or seeking advice from
the people who are affected by an issue, is fundamentally what the Voice seeks
to achieve. That and constitutionally
recognising First Nations people, which I’ll get to shortly.
Having a recognised body providing advice to government on
issues that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is a good idea.
It too will save time, lead to better decisions, and ultimately save money.
The second part of what the Voice is trying to achieve is
constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
This just makes sense to me. They were here first, and 65,000 years of
tradition and caring for the land should be acknowledged in what is arguably
Australia’s most important document.
Tackling the No vote
Isn’t it expected that the Liberals/Coalition will oppose
most things that Labor try to achieve while they are in power? The Libs even
admit that constitutional recognition is needed, but say they’d go about it in
a different way.
Those advocating for a No vote are making several claims
that try and influence us into voting no in the referendum. Ultimately all
their arguments are based on fear and doubt.
Creating doubt and instilling and building fear in the community.
Let me tackle their arguments one by one.
‘The Voice is legally risky’ – An advisory body comes with
almost no risk. Many governments establish community reference groups to seek
their views to help inform their decision-making process. Ultimately the decision still sits with the
government who can choose to heed or ignore the advice of the advisory
body. This is no different.
‘There are no details’ – Much of this argument is about how
the members of the Voice will be chosen, how many members it will have, how it
would make recommendations, and how it will help Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people. All of this will be worked out through proper processes if the
Voice comes to fruition. Why spend time on all of those details if it doesn’t
end up going ahead? Its only an advisory body after all, so how much does it
even matter how many members it has, and how they are chosen?
‘It divides us’ – This concept argues that naming only one
group of people in the Constitution is divisive. But what better way to
formally recognise our First Nations people? Shouldn’t their 65,000 years of
traditional ownership and care for our country be recognised formally by the
government? This could even be a small way of undoing the harm of the past.
Importantly (for those worried about this) it doesn’t give Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people any additional rights or privileges, outside of
having an advisory body.
‘Many Indigenous Australians do not support this’ – There
are a small minority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that don’t
support the Voice to Parliament, but the vast majority do – many surveys put First
Nations support for the Voice at over 80%. Of those that do not support it,
many believe that the Voice doesn’t go far enough. Some say a tokenistic
advisory body is a slap in the face to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people who should have more say in how our country is run. Whether they are
right or wrong, this is not what has been proposed in the referendum. And
wouldn’t this proposed step forward of an advisory body and constitutional
recognition be a good outcome regardless?
‘It won’t help Indigenous Australians’ – Well it sure as
heck won’t do any harm to ask Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
their advice on how governments can deal with the traditional issues they’ve
struggled with. This is the most flawed argument of them all!
‘No issue is beyond its scope’ – Another argument based on
fear, with the ridiculous examples given that the Voice can comment on things
like submarines and parking tickets. The Voice will be tackling issues that
directly affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I don’t think
they will be too worried about parking tickets. And if they want to provide
advice on things that seem ‘out of scope’ then the government can simply ignore
their advice if it chooses to.
‘It risks delays and dysfunction’ and ‘It will be costly and
bureaucratic’ – These two arguments propose that the advisory body will be
costly to run and will slow down parliamentary processes. I wonder how much
time and money has been wasted on bad decisions of previous governments where Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people were not given a chance to provide input? Do
you think the state guardianship of all Aboriginal children (‘stolen
generation’ policy) and laws that segregated Indigenous people into separate
living areas would have happened if there was an Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people advisory body? While there may be times a government waits for
a month or two for advice from the Voice, the decisions of government will
likely be improved due to that advice. This means bad decisions are less likely
to be made and governments are less likely to have to revisit a decision which
can be time consuming and costly. The cost of the advisory body will be far
outweighed by the cost savings through getting the decision right the first
time. I cannot emphasise this enough.
‘This Voice will be permanent’ – And? This is a non-issue. An advisory body and constitutional
recognition of our First Nations people is a good thing, and should be
permanent.
‘There are better ways forward’ – To me this is the only
legitimate argument I’ve heard from the ‘No’ camp, but it shouldn’t prevent the
Voice from going ahead. With an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
advisory body hopefully we can find those better ways forward, and improve the
lives of our First Nations brothers and sisters. Voting No is embracing the
status quo, and we all know this is not working.
Your decision
If you’re considering voting ‘No’, ask yourself why. Is it based on fear and doubt, rather than
hope for the future?
I’ll leave you with these two final thoughts:
1. Do
you think that First Nations people should be acknowledged in our Constitution?
2. Do
you think an advisory body could help governments make better decisions about
the issues that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people?
If you’ve answered ‘Yes’ to these two questions you know how
you need to vote on 14 October. I hope
you do the right thing, because the status quo simply isn’t working.
No comments:
Post a Comment