Special: Australian Referendum on ‘The Voice’
The Australian Constitution’s Section 128 explains the process for altering the Constitution: “This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner: The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives. … And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s assent”. [I guess that will have to be amended to ‘King’!]
It’s not been an easy road. To date, 44 national referendums have been held, only eight of which have been carried. Voting is compulsory in Australia, and this also applies to referendums. Since multiple referendum questions are often asked on the same ballot, there have been 19 separate occasions that the Australian people have gone to the polls to vote on constitutional amendments, and 8 of these times have been concurrent with a federal election.
The most recent referendum was held on 6 November 1999. It sought agreement to making Australia a republic, and to having a President appointed by Parliament: these two proposed amendments were both rejected. The last time a referendum was passed was in May 1977, when three amendments were passed (on extending representation to the two territories of Australia, on a compulsory retirement age for judges of the High Court, and on casual Senate vacancies to be filled by a replacement of the same political party as that of the person vacating the Senate, and for the remainder of that person’s duration of appointment).
In general, the Australian electorate has shown itself unwilling to contemplate change, except on largely uncontroversial proposals. In addition to the three noted above, the other five that passed included one to do with the constitution of the Senate, two on financial arrangements with the States, another gave the Commonwealth the overview responsibility for a range of social services (with which it had not previously had a direct role), and the fifth dealt with the right of Aboriginal people to vote in federal elections. Many that failed dealt with various commercial matters, and other unsuccessful proposals sought a change which would establish simultaneous elections for the House and Senate, changing the term of appointment for members of the federal Parliament, and finally one seeking to enshrine a statement of rights.
The date for the 45th Referendum was recently announced. Voters will be asked to respond to the proposal to add a Clause 129 to the Constitution on 14 October, which deals with the establishment of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice:
“129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
- There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strat Islander Voice;
- The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people;
- The Parliament shall, subject to the Constitution, have the power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”
Many believe we are still trailing behind New Zealand, which has followed a very different approach. They have seven reserved positions in the New Zealand parliament for those elected in each of the seven Māori electorates (to vote in a Māori electorate, you are disbarred from voting again in a non-Māori electorate). Those elected can either sit as independents, or ally with one of the political parties (at present 2 are independents). Every area in New Zealand is covered by both a general and a Māori electorate. Since 1967, candidates in the seven Māori electorates have not needed to be Māori themselves, but to register as a voter in the Māori electorates an individual needs to declare that they are of Māori descent.
The NZ House of Representatives normally consists of 120 members, of whom 72 are elected directly in electorates, while the remainder of seats are assigned ‘list members’ based on each party’s share of the total party vote. While seven out of 72 (9.7%) is far from reflecting the proportion of voting-age New Zealanders who identify as being of Māori descent (about 14.8%), many Māori choose to enrol in general electorates, so the proportion is close to the proportion of voters on the Māori roll. Some Māori are elected in non-reserved electorates.
So what are the arguments in favour of and against establishing our more modest Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in Australia? As you can imagine, debate has spread across media, chat groups and other pressure groups and forums. However, there is one item seen by every elector, the Official Referendum Booklet. Apart from dealing with mechanics, the two sides were allowed 2,000 words to state their case. Unsurprisingly, the Yes case emphasises social justice, equity, and unity, while the No case argues the proposal is risky, full of unknown consequences and is divisive. Neither is compelling. While the Referendum Booklet deserves a more careful analysis, here are some initial comments.
Starting with the No case, it is structured to offer ten reasons to reject the establishment of the Voice. The first two claims are weak. It is claimed to be legally risky, the biggest change to the Constitution since 1977, and the biggest change to Australia’s democracy in the country’s history. There is no substantive basis for this claim. Quite reasonably, some might argue that Federation was by far the biggest change. Second, it points out the proposal lacks details. Is it possible to offer details on what the Voice will propose in advance, other than it will offer advice? If we knew what the advice was, we might not need the Voice to be established!
However, the third basis for rejection is more telling. “It divides us”. This is the familiar view that ‘we are all Australians’ and there is no need to single out Indigenous people for a different approach. It’s a veiled appeal to racist concerns. The same attack was used against multiculturalism and diversity, that people of diverse backgrounds do not need any special programs or services. The underlying sentiment in the No case is that we should ignore any distinctive needs that Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders have and ignore the oppression that has taken place and continues to this day. After invasion, this is now ‘our’ country.
Intriguingly, this is followed by the argument that the Voice won’t help indigenous Australians because it will be one voice among many representing concerns. “What is needed is action”. Yes, that does make some sense, but the response to this might be you don’t get action if concerns aren’t heard. Arguing Canberra needs ‘ears’ is a good point, and a Voice is devoted to offering just that – words for action. Then, immediately after this point, we read “no issue is beyond its scope”. What does this mean? It sounds like we are happy to hear what we want to hear! As if being heard wasn’t enough of a problem, the No case suggests it risks delays and dysfunction. Yes, progress might be slow, but advocates of the Voice point out that change has been very slow, even almost non-existent, to date.
The next three concerns are scarcely worth comment. “It opens the door for activists”. There is no evidence to suggest that activists haven’t been able to make their opinions heard. A deliberative body that offers advice to Parliament might well pick up on some activist concerns, with good reason. In addition, “it will be costly and bureaucratic”. I suppose we might want to compare the cost to that of buying nuclear submarines …. On top of all of that, it will be permanent – but that is exactly what the Constitutional amendment process is about: which allows the Australian people both to introduce and also to delete provisions.
Finally, the No case suggests there are better ways forward: sadly, we are not told what these “less risky” options might be. However, the No campaigners must feel pleased with their final blow, as it will encourage the usual Australian caution over change … perhaps we should wait and see if there is something better that comes along. Not a great argument if you’ve been waiting since 1788, however.
If the No case keeps hammering at concerns, the Yes case is based on making you feel good. It opens with an explanation, that this proposal is about recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, it’s about hearing their concerns as a basis for better decision making in the future, and it is about making progress for a marginalised group. What are the challenges to be addressed? The Yes case mentions Indigenous peoples’ life expectancy, disease, infant mortality, high suicide rates, and limited education and training, and argues the Voice will give advice on issues like these to lead to better solutions. That’s weak. We know the problems. On that point, the No case has a good point: it is action that is required. Will the Voice identify more effective approaches and see them implemented? Hopefully, it will.
There are other aspects of the Yes case that are important to bear in mind. It is important to acknowledge this idea came from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It is important to acknowledge their place in the history of Australia and in Australia today. We should be working to ensure they have a better life. The Yes case places a lot of emphasis on the importance of ‘listening’. Does this mean that our parliamentarians don’t spend much time listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander concerns? Yes, there is evidence that this correct. You can read Hansard over the years to see how seldom their concerns surface.
Just as in the No case, some claims are a little hard to accept. This will save money, because the government will be listening, and will stop wasting money on less essential changes. Right! That leads to the statement that this will lead to advice on “practical steps to improve indigenous health, education, employment and housing”, and will ensure the Government is “getting better advice and delivering better outcomes”. That could well be true. I hope so. If the government, in Parliament, is advised on issues and fails to act, that will be very ‘public’, and there is some possibility that this will encourage better funded, practical and effective steps. If Aboriginal and Torres Straits people are largely invisible most of the time, the Voice should make them and their concerns (which should be our concerns) more visible.
When I worked for the federal government in an agency concerned with multicultural programs and services, we were told (not just advised) that matters to do with indigenous people were outside our remit. Fortunately, our last Chairman simply ignored the instruction. I went with him to some Aboriginal communities and saw how far both understanding and action lagged . How could this be? Perhaps, it was unsurprising. Ethnic communities are big, visible, and in some cases huge groups in the major cities of Australia. If you want to know what was happening to first- or second-generation Greek, Italian or Lebanese migrants, or any other of the 30-40 groups, mainly from Europe and SE Asia, visiting them is easy; you can meet their representatives at almost any time. They are ‘in your face’.
Indigenous people are largely invisible. Numbers in Melbourne and Sydney are relatively small, and they tend to keep away from the spotlight. That is less true in Adelaide or Brisbane. However, for most Australians, and I fear for most agencies, they are out of sight, most to be found in the Northern Territory and northern Queensland. It is easy to fall into another trap, too. Many indigenous people do have a distinctive physiognomy, but many don’t. In other words, “we know what Indigenous people look like, and they aren’t like us” represents a view that isn’t true, but easily believed. If that simplification isn’t already a problem, movies and even news programs are likely to present ‘typical’ Aboriginal people for their reports, which only serve to reinforce a misleading visual difference.
Is the Voice the answer? No, it is not the answer to the situation and the needs of indigenous Australians. It is only a step, a rather small one, down a path that should be short and clear. It is an acknowledgement, but no more than that. There have been advisory bodies to the government on indigenous issues since 1967, when the Council on Aboriginal Affairs was created by Prime Minster Holt. Today some 900 lobbyists harass the government on many issues, but the Voice would be clear of that mess and give us key insights into a pressing and horribly complex problem as well as offering suggestions as to what can be done next.
In some ways even more important, establishing the Voice in the Constitution would be a visible, significant and symbolic step forward. This isn’t just an addition to the lobbyists. It is a statement about the place of Indigenous people in the Australian government system. However, it is a horribly complex problem. Their situation is about much more than money and services, although these do matter. The situation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in Australia involves a clash of cultures that are so far apart, in their substance and in their implications, that it is almost impossible to see how we can overcome the differences. It is within this context that a refusal to establish the Voice should be understood: as Noel Pearson has said, to do so would be a devastating and unforgettable insult.
I had the opportunity to visit some Indigenous groups forty years ago. The people I met were kind, thoughtful and happy to talk. I must have seemed as strange to them as they appeared to me. We inhabited different worlds. Back then, and still today, there are huge challenges in building the bridges that are needed. There is an Indigenous leadership which is working hard to narrow that gap, and to find ways to make ‘our’ programs and services available to ‘them’. However, each time I read about ways in which we are being brought closer, next I read a story about exploitation and bad faith. I listen to an Aboriginal artist talk about her work, happy to explain the symbolism she references and how she rethinks illustration and representation, and then I see a ‘white fella’ selling rip-off art to credulous city dwellers.
Two hundred and thirty-five years after we invaded Australia and began to crush and eliminate the locals, we are still a long way from expressing regret, let alone bringing about reconciliation and providing the country’s dispossessed inhabitants with that much vaunted Australian ‘fair go’. I have a gloomy feeling that this referendum will not pass: agreed in five states and with an overall majority of people in favour seems beyond us. If that is the way things go, it will have two consequences. The Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander people of Australia will face yet another moment when they realise that the rest of Australia doesn’t care about them, doesn’t even acknowledge them. The people of Australia will, once again, be seen as racist. The thought that both those statements will be true is almost unbearable.
