Disclaimer: The Voice Legal Literacy Project does not endorse either the Yes or the No Campaign. The purpose of these posts is to help the public accurately understand key arguments for both cases to allow informed decision-making. The posts adopt a good faith, evidence-based approach to understanding the arguments of both campaigns.
What Is this About?
There is no inherently ‘good’ or ‘bad’ option. Much of the campaigning for both YES and NO relies upon heavily emotive language (appeals to fairness or justice etc), which can make it difficult to understand the distinctive concerns of each side. The analysis of these pages is designed to help everyone – both those leaning YES or leaning NO – to understand the concerns and issues at play. A proposal to change the Constitution is an opportunity for us to reflect upon the type of nation we wish to be. In a democracy, that means valuing a wide range of different perspectives and opinions. But as citizens voting in a referendum, we each have an obligation to understand what is being proposed – and that means rising above appeals to emotion to understand the underlying policy positions and arguments. These pages are designed to assist in that task.
If you don't know; Learn
Understanding the Case for Yes
People will support the ‘Yes’ case for a wide variety of reasons – some of those reasons will be convincing for some, others less so. For some the Voice is a modest first step towards better engagement between the Australian polity and First Nations people. For others, it is the fact of the Dialogues and Uluru Statement from the Heart process that makes the Voice so compelling – this is what a significant portion of indigenous Australians want. Supporters of the Voice come from across the political spectrum.
The starting point for understanding the case for YES is to reflect on what it is the Voice is designed to do:
This core design helps highlight some of the essential concerns of the Yes case.
|
Overview of the the Voice
WHAT: Provides a constitutionalised platform (the 'megaphone') TO WHOM: To a particular marginalised group (Aboriginal and Torres-Strait peoples) TO WHAT END: By doing so the Voice aims to:
|
Reasons to Support the ‘What’
For supporters of YES, the proposed mechanism is an appropriate way to recognise First Nations peoples because:
- Entrenched: By ensuring the Voice is in the constitution, it cannot be removed at the whim of Politicians
- Amplifies Representations: The creation of the Voice will amplify representations and opinions of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander peoples on matters that concern them
- Constitutionally Consistent: The proposal is designed to not disrupt or distort existing constitutional norms and practices
- Modest and Achievable: The Voice will be an important new institution, but as it will have no governmental power it is relatively modest – making its introduction more acceptable and achievable for the general population
- Understandable: The Voice is predicated on a simple proposition: if you are going to make decisions about someone, it makes sense to listen to them first. This is an understandable and relatable framework.
Reasons to Support the ‘Whom’
Secondly, there are seen to be benefits with the focus on this particular group and the creation of a forum to amplify their voice.
For supporters of YES, there are a range of good reasons why it is appropriate to recognise First Nations peoples in the constitution, and to grant them a new institution for making representations. These include:
For supporters of YES, there are a range of good reasons why it is appropriate to recognise First Nations peoples in the constitution, and to grant them a new institution for making representations. These include:
- Recognition of History: The First Nations peoples of Australia have a historical connection to this land stretching back at least 60,000 years. That connection is deep and unique, and warrants distinct recognition in the constitution;
- Recognition of Settlement and its Trauma: For supporters of Yes, the trauma of colonisation – contrary to the laws and norms in operation at the time – remains an ongoing source of pain and suffering. Constitutional recognition through the Voice is seen as an important gesture of reconciliation, helping the nation to become better reconciled with our past and allow us to move to a better future.
- Recognition of Significant Ongoing Disadvantage: Despite the ancient connection to land, today Indigenous Australians remain one of the most marginalised groups in the country. They experience significantly worse rates of disease and infant mortality, a suicide rate twice as high, and an overall life expectancy 8 years shorter than non-Indigenous Australians. Proportionally, they are the most incarcerated people on the planet.
- Broader Cultural Change – ‘The Rising tide…:' For supporters of the Voice, part of the value of this mechanism is that it is designed to change the culture of decision-making by government, normalising a most open and consultative approach for all decision-making. In this way, it is hoped that this new culture will come to permeate all aspects of decision-making, improving the experiences of all marginalised groups in society.
Reasons to Support the Objectives
For supporters of Yes, the objectives the Voice seeks to achieve are desirable and achievable with this mechanism because:
- Respects Dignity: Firstly, the Voice aims to include in the national conversation those who have, historically, been excluded from decisions about them. Doing so is inherently respectful, and recognises the dignity of those peoples
- Likely to Enhanced Decision-Making: By creating a platform to hear from affected persons, relevant decisions lead to enhanced outcomes. This has two aspects:
|
- Provides Symbolic Recognition: Supporters of the Voice argue that it is important that the Australian constitution explicitly recognises the First Nations people of this country - that such recognition provides a critical symbolic role in helping to define the narrative of who we wish to be as a country.
- Provides a Foundation for Subsequent Reconciliation: The Uluru Statement from the Heart set out two objectives: Voice and Makarrata (Truth + Treaty) . Implementing the Voice, then, is for supporters of this broader agenda, a critical foundational step in advancing these overarching objectives.
- Respects the Process: For many supporters, one of the key reasons for supporting these objectives is that these are the goals championed by First Nations people themselves, as articulated through the Uluru Statement from the Heart. According to this argument, these are the objectives that we should pursue, and the mechanism to pursue it, because an open, consultative and expansive Dialogues process led to a representative group of indigenous leaders agree - with consensus - that this was the best path forward.
We can think of some of the key concerns of the Yes case in the following way:
|
Key Concerns of the Yes Case
If the Voice referendum does not succeed then:
|
|
As should be apparent from the above discussion, people will support the Voice for a very wide variety of reasons: some people will support Yes, on the basis of some of these reasons but be convinced by other arguments. As citizens our job is to try to understand as much about the issues as possible.
The Arguments for YES
The follow sections seek to articulate the main arguments for the Yes case. These arguments are drawn from a variety of sources, and are presented in their best light to allow citizens to make their own decision.
The Process Argument |
One of the most common arguments for the Yes case is that the Voice should be supported because it is the best way of respecting the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the open, consultative and expansive Dialogues process led to its adoption. According to this argument, the Uluru Statement was an historic moment of national indigenous consensus. An informed and engaged body of indigenous leaders articulated a powerful and poetic vision of how this country can best constitutionally recognise and engage with indigenous people: Voice and Makarrata (Truth + Treaty).
According to this 'Process' argument, the Voice should be supported because of the process that led to its adoption in the Uluru Statement - in essence, that this is the recognition that indigenous people themselves want. |
The REspect Argument |
A second argument is that the Voice should be supported because the mechanism is inherently respectful of indigenous Australians - both in the process leading to its proposal, and in its proposed operation. Under this argument, the Voice is about creating a culture of decision-making whereby those who are affected by decisions are routinely listened to as part of that process:
The end goal of the Voice is recognition through being heard. A better, respectful relationship so better decisions are made & lives are improved. Eddie Synot, Lecturer, Griffith Law School
According to this argument, the benefit of this approach will not be confined to decisions only affecting indigenous Australians. The more habituated the government and Parliament become to listening to minority and marginalised people in one context, the more likely they are to do so in other context. |
The Symbolism Argument |
The Symbolism argument asserts that it is important that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (and their special relationship to the land) are recognised in the Constitution, and that such recognition should be in a manner that reflects the wishes of Australia's First Nations peoples. Constitutions serve a vital symbolic as well as technical role: they become focal points for the articulation of the aspirations of the nation, a potent tool for crafting a national identity. According to this argument, amending the Constitution in a manner that reflects the wishes of Australia's First Nations peoples projects a hopeful narrative of a nation confronting its past and looking forward to a future it can celebrate.
|
The Equality Argument
|
The Equality argument builds upon the idea that to achieve justice and fairness, it is not sufficient that we treat everyone exactly the same, but that we support everyone so that they have the same opportunities. According to this argument, indigenous Australians need additional support to help them have the same opportunities available to non-indigenous Australians. The Voice offers a discrete privilege of amplification of opinion to a group who have historically been deeply underprivileged. The argument goes that the Voice does not diminish the privileges available to others (eg wealth, connection, education, class) in what is an already unequal society, but rather grants a small privilege to one of the most marginalised groups in society.
To that end, the Voice is seen to be about achieving fairness and justice - supporting one group so that they have the opportunities that others take for granted. |
Further Resources
- The Australia Institute - Transcript of The Voice to Parliament Handbook – with Thomas Mayo and Kerry O’Brien
- The Hon Linda Burney MP Minister for Indigenous Australians - Press Club Address and Video - 5 July 2023
- Australian Productivity Commission - Review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap Draft report Executive summary - July 2023