There was something profoundly odd about this entire Voice thing from the beginning. Suddenly it was there, at least in the media, seemingly coming out of nowhere.
Apparently, this was some kind of done deal, and all we had to do was vote Yes. But Yes to what exactly? There was precious little detail on what this Voice was about.
As the campaign train was gathering speed, I thought I better inform myself. After all, it’s the Constitution, the rule book of our country, we’re talking about.
I think I’ve heard enough now. I digested the various arguments from both sides, through a range of sources (no, Facebook wasn’t one of them!), from the official pamphlet to watching various Yes-adds, listening to interviews, including aboriginal Yes- and No-voters.
Frankly: there isn’t a single argument by the Yes campaign I find convincing enough.
Below are some of my reasons for my resounding No to the Voice.
I refuse to be emotionally blackmailed. I’m not voting Yes just because it’s the right thing to do and you’re called a racist if you vote against this proposition. I know I’m not racist. I don’t need to vote Yes to confirm that or to feel good about myself. All the abuse-shouting Yes-campaigners who prove by their very actions that this vote is divisive and not uniting won’t change that. Even clever covid-type propaganda methods, as this article suggests, will not work on me.
By his own admission, the prime minister himself hasn’t even bothered to read beyond the executive summary of the ‘Statement from the Heart’. Relying purely on that one-pager is about as ridiculously shallow as basing your views on climate change entirely on the IPCC’s executive summary (or rather the hyperventilating media reports on it), which, sadly, … but I won’t go there now.
There is indeed more to the ‘Statement of the Heart’ than the one page. You can download the full document here. Unlike Mr Albanese, I have read through document 14. The story is more nuanced and it’s obvious to me that the Voice is a stepping stone to treaty, truth telling, possibly reparation. There is clearly a roadmap that’s being followed. Why is the Yes campaign not being honest and forthcoming about that? And what would all of that really mean for all Australians – what legal, political and social implications would this have? The PM and Yes campaigners have done nothing to clarify. If anything, they’ve given evasive answers and tried to gloss over it. Not a good look.
Given Indigenous people already have the same opportunities to talk to government and parliament like any other Australian citizen has through the customary channels, I can’t see any reason why a particular group of people needs any special rights in the Constitution – especially when the Constitution is a purely technical instrument devoid of the consideration of human rights. And so the Voice, whatever it would become, has no place in the Constitution.
If anything, we should vote about getting rid of the remaining existing race-related paragraphs of the Constitution (sections 25 and 51xxvi). I’d be happy to vote Yes to that.
There’s nothing now that stops parliament from enacting another body, if the myriad of existing Indigenous bodies really aren’t enough to give advice to parliament.
There is nothing the governments of the day couldn’t already do to alleviate the suffering that does exist in disadvantaged Aboriginal communities. In fact, an address by fervent Yes-campaigner Julian Leeser confirms this. He gave the example where advice from Aborigines was taken seriously, resulting in an improvement of the situation relating to breast cancer in Aboriginal communities. Clearly, good things can already happen, without the need to tinker with the Constitution.
Adding another section to the Constitution would hardly contribute to fixing the existing issues. As Aboriginal senator Jacinta Price has pointed out many times: governments and program providers just need to listen to Indigenous voices, take meaningful action, and be accountable. If governments don’t listen and waste the money invested in the various programs, then it’s up to parliamentarians, if need be pressured by us, the people, to hold them to account.
If, for example, alcohol-fuelled male violence in some aboriginal communities is a problem, as it seems to be, then those calling it out need to be taken seriously, instead of being condemned for speaking out. Governments and the existing support organisations then need to work with these communities to find practical solutions that work for them. The problems seem to be well known. What’s missing is not a Voice, but action and courage to do something about these real problems. More virtue signaling will not improve the situation one iota.
In my view, the whole concept of a Voice is flawed. Indigenous Australians aren’t homogenous in terms of needs or opinions. Consequently, there can never be just one voice. If a diverse group of people speak with one voice, we’re talking about political parties perhaps, or lobby and activist groups. These institutions are already problematic enough for democracy, so no thank you to more of that. I can’t see the point of enshrining an institutionalised advisory body in the Constitution.
The Voice has already proved very divisive, and there is in my view no good reason to adopt this proposal. If the outcome of this referendum in a week’s time is No, I suspect we’ll soon have a new prime minister. We may also have to deal with some fallout for a while. But perhaps this debate has thrown enough light on the real issues at hand, and governments will listen to the many voices already giving them advice on Indigenous issues, and they will finally meaningfully support Indigenous communities in fixing the existing issues.
As to the full roadmap expressed in the full Statement of the Heart document, there is a much broader and deeper discussion to be had.
