Those who argue against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament because they believe it will be racially divisive must be ignorant of the founding of this country. In 1788, the violent occupation of unceded Aboriginal lands began. But this story was hidden in Australian history, with a narrative of lawful settlement peddled instead.
The Australian constitution provided the means for racial division through the first act of the new parliament in the passing of the Immigration and Restriction Act of 1901. This act gave force to the White Australia policy, which, until it ended in practice in 1975, declared that Australia was for whites only. But when the High Court made its infamous Mabo decision in 1992, Australian law could no longer deny our existence as the first people of this country.
This was too much for many Australians. In 1997, former prime minister John Howard led a campaign arguing that the pendulum had swung too far in favour of Aborigines, that we were coming for your backyard. Just like the Howard government’s lie that asylum seekers were throwing their babies overboard, many Australians believed its rhetoric regarding Aboriginal peoples — and many still do.
In October 2023, the Australian people will vote on whether Aboriginal peoples will provide advice to Parliament via the constitution. “Advice” is the operative word here, as the Voice would have no power to implement anything. Thousands of non-Indigenous advisory bodies provide advice to government, yet none are as powerful and as large as the voice of Rupert Murdoch’s press. Sky News has dedicated a 24/7 channel to covering the referendum, with a section of coverage repeating misinformation and disinformation about the Voice. The impact of this kind of coverage on Indigenous peoples has been an increase in racism in everyday encounters.
However, unlike the power of the press, the Voice would provide information or recommendations that may not result in any action, because the recipient of the advice — Parliament — decides how it will respond. Aboriginal peoples are not asking for very much, and no Australians will lose or give up anything.
To our shame, Australia lags in its international obligations, with other countries already recognising Indigenous peoples in their respective constitutions, such as Canada and New Zealand, which have signed treaties. This is also not the first time in Australia’s history that Aboriginal peoples have called for a Voice. There have been several iterations over the years, such as the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples — but as history shows, these bodies were forced out of operation by governments. However, once enshrined in the constitution, the Voice can only be removed by the Australian people via a referendum.
It is very telling that those who advocate No to the Voice are usually old white men who grew up under the White Australia policy. The Yes campaigners are up against these white patriarchs who wield enormous influence through the press and Parliament — John Howard, Rupert Murdoch, Gary Johns and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton are a few names that come to mind. It’s history repeating itself: only white men know what is best for Aboriginal peoples. John Howard calls on No voters to “maintain the rage”, and he would know a thing or two about how to treat natives, having benefited from his family’s plantations in Papua New Guinea.
Recognising Aboriginal peoples in the Australian constitution is a pendulum that has swung too far for this very vocal group of small white men, even though Parliament retains the power to make laws with respect to the Voice’s composition, functions, powers and procedures. Some Aboriginal people have argued that this is a good reason to vote against it, and they are entitled to express their concerns. Some argue the Voice undermines Indigenous sovereignty by being in the constitution, but Aboriginal peoples were named in the constitution up until 1967 and we did not cede our sovereignty. We have never ceded our sovereignty; it does not originate in the Australian constitution.
Advocates of the No campaign argue the Voice undermines equality of citizenship. If this is the case, then all Australians should share equally in our poverty and the reduction in life chances that it brings. One cannot advocate for the need for equality and then not partake equally in sharing inequality.
The Productivity Commission clearly shows things need to change to improve the life chances of Aboriginal peoples. We are the most impoverished population of Australian citizens, we live less, are more unhealthy, more likely to be imprisoned, more likely to be removed from families, more likely to suicide, more likely to be less educated, more likely to live in poor housing or be homeless — more likely is a list that can go on.
There are many things the Voice will not do. It will not cede Aboriginal sovereignty, it will not undermine Parliament, and it will not take anything away from other Australians. But it will provide a forum for Aboriginal peoples to express their concerns about policies that impact our lives.
Irrespective of how Aboriginal peoples vote, our numbers are small, only 3% of the nation. So, non-Indigenous Australia, it is time to be on the right side of history by voting Yes. It’s a change only you can make happen. In the words of Paul Kelly: “If not us, who? If not now, when?”
Footnote added 8th Sept 2023: Following publication of the above opinion piece, Sky News contacted Crikey regarding the assertion “Sky News has dedicated a 24/7 channel to spread misinformation and disinformation about the Voice, and has been vigilant in its assault against the proposal” to say it “expressly rejects the claims made by Emeritus Professor Aileen Moreton-Robinson about The Voice Debate channel”.
Crikey has amended the original line to: “Sky News has dedicated a 24/7 channel to covering the referendum, with a section of coverage repeating misinformation and disinformation about the Voice. The impact of this kind of coverage on Indigenous peoples has been an increase in racism in everyday encounters.”
The Sky News statement in full below:
“Sky News Australia expressly rejects the claims made by Emeritus Professor Aileen Moreton-Robinson about The Voice Debate channel. The publication by Crikey does the very thing Ms Moreton-Robinson accuses Sky News Australia of – spreading misinformation – in this case surrounding Sky News Australia’s coverage of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament debate. Sky News Australia’s The Voice Debate channel is devoted to covering all sides of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament discussion with comprehensive, up-to-the-minute news updates and rolling coverage to ensure every perspective of the debate is heard in the lead up to the historic referendum. The channel does not share just one view, nor does all opinion programming on Sky News Australia support just one viewpoint.
If the author or the readers of Crikey were to view the Sky News The Voice Debate channel, they would see press conferences, in-depth government and community announcements and townhall meetings from across the country. They would also see original programming such as the documentary “The Voice: Australia Decides” hearing from all sides including key Indigenous leaders, traditional owners of the land, leaders of the Yes and No campaigns, and politicians including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. The creation of the dedicated channel is a demonstration of Sky News Australia’s commitment to bring Australians around-the-clock coverage during major news moments, as seen in previous years with the launches of the Sky News COVID-19 channel and the Sky News Election channel.”
Good article and good to hear an Indigenous voice.
Yes, the Voice referendum does occur in a Western country and will be decided by Western ears and eyes. Within our Western system of democracy and with our Western customs and culture. ‘(O)nly white men know what is best for Aboriginal peoples,’ that is the key line in this piece and is suitably referenced in the article’s title. Personally, as white man, I can see that The Voice to parliament is what Indigenous Australians want and desire (from the grassroots to the elites, and pretty much everyone in between). This was expressed in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. This is what Indigenous Australians want, and surely the first step in ensuring the institutional disadvantages which Aileen Moreton-Robinson helpfully lists for us, is listening. Listening attentively and closely and quietly – as a first movement at integration, and in closing the Gap of inequality which is in our midst. The great thing about the proposed instrument of the Voice is that this advisory Council’s empowerment will institutionalise this for our disadvantaged neighbours. Thus, the Voice is an apt name, because it positions our political leaders with their Western mores in a register and ambit of listening.
As to the division Aileen alludes between Indigenous figures in the public debate, this stems from what is a deliberate, calculated assault launched by the Dutton-led Coalition. They prep-ed Jacinta Nampijinpa Price for her advocacy role. She had virtually no national profile before this debate emerged. Likewise, the popping-up of Mundine – though he had prior profile of course. (His self-interest is borne out and evident already in that he may gain pre-selection in a Liberal-held seat.) The idea is to play in and around with the preconceptions, and what they hoped would emerge as the preconceptions to the debate. The NLP has been successful in this – betting on the simplistic and shallow popularism on which they both regularly rely and with which they typically patronise wider Australian society. They are playing with ‘the look’ of the debate, dabbling in phenomenology. Such is of course, and basically a pre-empting and is insouciant. For if you have obvious Indigenous individuals calling loudest and hardest for a No vote, how can you then accuse them, the No campaign of being racist. Tricky, sneering and cynical to a tee is the I-want-power Coalition’s take on this whole debate.
Finally, let me say, that the referendum will not impact me directly in terms of the content, policy and shifting the Gap to a better place. Nonetheless, as part of the wider community, and under a social structural and longer-term lens, if the Voice referendum is successful, this will mean that I live in a more just, fair and cohesive community. If I were to advocate then I’d say stuff just like that and speak of how the Yes vote will help make for a greater moral integration across our community. And surely that is something worth considering and voting positively for?
Well said.
Mundine also has form playing on both sides of the divide: he was National President of the ALP up until 2012 when he became entranced by the egregious Tony Abbott.
To be fair, these particular old white men think they know what is best for everyone, even other old white men.
And for all women – regardless of ethnicity or skin colour.
Representing too many of that ilk and bipartisan bigotry, inc. unconscious, but as ‘elites’ by anyone’s definition, not in touch with more community based Australia, except top down using RW MSM to shout down, influence and intimidate their own side or generation?
I know many NP types who would probably support The Voice, inc. past NP candidates for preselection, but will not be too vocal about it; like LGBTIQ rights, climate science etc. they have to keep their heads down and tolerant opinions to themselves.
I will follow Howard’s advice absolutely and maintain my rage..against him and the miserable, cringing racist scum that he brought into the party. Even my lifetime LNP voting dad refused to vote for him in the end and I will never vote for any party he is associated with. The reason that there is such bile and venom is that Howard and his racist coterie made it OK. They gave us Hanson. Previous LIberal elders would hgave scarified her the length and breadth of the land. he mumbled I don’t agree, though with what he never said. Howard has made the Liberals a ghastly shadow of the Republican party, with the few remaining decent people shunned and driven out. Like their American analogue they have become the refuge of racists and kleptocrat capitalists and there seems no one willing to break the stranglehold. Perhaps it is the odious Crosby path that has similarly blighted the Conservatives having ruined the Liberals.
Yes. I totally agree.
This piece presents a clear reason to vote Yes.
Let us all have daily conversations to educate. Everyone benefits when our most impoverished are supported to improve their lives. It needs to be US and now.