|
Addressing Some Concerns About the VoiceLainie Anderson is a Sunday Mail columnist, Author and PhD candidate at UniSA.
|
Acknowledgement: A version of this post was first published in the Sunday Mail on 16 July 2023
In early July, I posted photographs on Facebook from the Adelaide launch of the Yes campaign for an Indigenous Voice to federal parliament. The Facebook post prompted a lively, mostly respectful conversation about the Voice, and generated a number of questions. This post, written initially for my Sunday Mail column, is an attempt to address those concerns, recognising that many people in the community are likely to feel similarly.
What is the significance of the vocal opposition to the Voice among some federal Indigenous MPs?
There has been some very vocal, and widely reported, opposition to the Voice by some federal Indigenous MPs. These opponents include Country Liberal Senator Jacinta Price, who believes the Voice will not lead to practical solutions or equality, and Independent Senator Lidia Thorpe, who believes the Voice is a useless distraction, and wants a treaty process instead.
There are 11 Indigenous parliamentarians in Canberra (a record number): six are from Labor (all Yes); one from Greens (Yes); and two from the Coalition (Ms Price is No, while SA Liberal Senator Kerrynne Liddle supports constitutional recognition but not a Voice). The remaining two are Independent Senators: Ms Thorpe (No) and Jacqui Lambie, who supports the principle but wants more detail.
So the majority of federal Indigenous MPs (eight out of 11) are either fully supportive or leaning towards supporting the Voice. But like most issues in politics, yays and nays run along party lines.
If there are 11 First Nations MPs in federal parliament, why do we need a Voice?
As Australian National University academics explain, Aboriginal politicians represent their party and their (white-dominated) electorates first and foremost. It is not their role to represent Aboriginal people.
Another common question is “If Aboriginal people can’t agree, what hope have we got?”
There is a pretty simple answer to this question: do all non-Indigenous Australians think the same? Of course not.
Some Aboriginal people want a Treaty before a Voice. Some – like Ms Price – don’t believe a Voice will offer practical solutions. And still others don’t trust white Australians to do anything that will benefit their people. (Incidentally, that’s why you hear the Uluru Statement from the Heart being called a “generous” offer – because it’s inviting us white Australians to walk together despite all the horror and hardship that’s come before.)
It is critical to note, though, that Polls consistently show 80 per cent support among Aboriginal Australians for the Voice.
Why does the Voice need to be in the Constitution?
One option that is sometimes put forward is that we could have some recognition of Aboriginal people in the constitution, but this should be done without enshrining a permanent Voice.
It’s important to remember the Voice will be an advisory body only, with no power to create programs or to demand that their advice is even adopted. But it will give Indigenous communities a way to inform policies and laws that affect them.
Perhaps most importantly, though, there is extraordinarily high support from Aboriginal Australians – in light of their past experiences – to have the Voice constitutionally enshrined. As constitutional lawyer Prof Megan Davis says, Aboriginal Australians overwhelmingly want the Voice enshrined in the constitution, as opposed to merely symbolic recognition, because it will ensure permanency, demonstrate respect and “endow the Voice with legitimacy”.
The advantage of putting the Voice in the Constitution is that its existence is not subject to the whims of government. There will be a commitment from the Australian people that when decisions are being made about Aboriginal Australians, then Aboriginal Australians have a right to speak to those decisions. Put simply, if parliament is debating policies around issues such as Aboriginal suicide, incarceration and shocking rates of children in care (all Closing the Gap targets currently going backwards) politicians and bureaucrats will have to listen to the advice of Aboriginal people.
After decades of failure and billions of misspent dollars, why would we not want to ask a representative group of Indigenous Australians for fresh ideas?
And if you were in their shoes, wouldn’t you want a say?
What is the significance of the vocal opposition to the Voice among some federal Indigenous MPs?
There has been some very vocal, and widely reported, opposition to the Voice by some federal Indigenous MPs. These opponents include Country Liberal Senator Jacinta Price, who believes the Voice will not lead to practical solutions or equality, and Independent Senator Lidia Thorpe, who believes the Voice is a useless distraction, and wants a treaty process instead.
There are 11 Indigenous parliamentarians in Canberra (a record number): six are from Labor (all Yes); one from Greens (Yes); and two from the Coalition (Ms Price is No, while SA Liberal Senator Kerrynne Liddle supports constitutional recognition but not a Voice). The remaining two are Independent Senators: Ms Thorpe (No) and Jacqui Lambie, who supports the principle but wants more detail.
So the majority of federal Indigenous MPs (eight out of 11) are either fully supportive or leaning towards supporting the Voice. But like most issues in politics, yays and nays run along party lines.
If there are 11 First Nations MPs in federal parliament, why do we need a Voice?
As Australian National University academics explain, Aboriginal politicians represent their party and their (white-dominated) electorates first and foremost. It is not their role to represent Aboriginal people.
Another common question is “If Aboriginal people can’t agree, what hope have we got?”
There is a pretty simple answer to this question: do all non-Indigenous Australians think the same? Of course not.
Some Aboriginal people want a Treaty before a Voice. Some – like Ms Price – don’t believe a Voice will offer practical solutions. And still others don’t trust white Australians to do anything that will benefit their people. (Incidentally, that’s why you hear the Uluru Statement from the Heart being called a “generous” offer – because it’s inviting us white Australians to walk together despite all the horror and hardship that’s come before.)
It is critical to note, though, that Polls consistently show 80 per cent support among Aboriginal Australians for the Voice.
Why does the Voice need to be in the Constitution?
One option that is sometimes put forward is that we could have some recognition of Aboriginal people in the constitution, but this should be done without enshrining a permanent Voice.
It’s important to remember the Voice will be an advisory body only, with no power to create programs or to demand that their advice is even adopted. But it will give Indigenous communities a way to inform policies and laws that affect them.
Perhaps most importantly, though, there is extraordinarily high support from Aboriginal Australians – in light of their past experiences – to have the Voice constitutionally enshrined. As constitutional lawyer Prof Megan Davis says, Aboriginal Australians overwhelmingly want the Voice enshrined in the constitution, as opposed to merely symbolic recognition, because it will ensure permanency, demonstrate respect and “endow the Voice with legitimacy”.
The advantage of putting the Voice in the Constitution is that its existence is not subject to the whims of government. There will be a commitment from the Australian people that when decisions are being made about Aboriginal Australians, then Aboriginal Australians have a right to speak to those decisions. Put simply, if parliament is debating policies around issues such as Aboriginal suicide, incarceration and shocking rates of children in care (all Closing the Gap targets currently going backwards) politicians and bureaucrats will have to listen to the advice of Aboriginal people.
After decades of failure and billions of misspent dollars, why would we not want to ask a representative group of Indigenous Australians for fresh ideas?
And if you were in their shoes, wouldn’t you want a say?
