White annoyance with Black discordance has been a standing feature of race relations in Australia since Indigenous peoples first found any voice at all. Now that we’re talking about the Voice proper, we need to get comfortable with the fact that not all First Nations peoples are going to like it.
The media’s role isn’t to just publicise every objection to the Voice, but to critically analyse it and help the public form assessments of each argument’s validity.
Powerful Indigenous voices are raising some objections. At Invasion Day rallies around the country last week, the Voice was finding little popular support but a lot of anger (although polling indicates that 80% of First Nations peoples currently intend to vote Yes in the referendum). This should cause neither surprise nor concern, but curiosity.
Speaking at the Melbourne rally, Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe maintained her position of ambivalence, saying she would “entertain” the Voice, subject to one condition that has not yet been satisfied: “I have not [been] guaranteed our sovereignty will not be ceded.”
Thorpe’s concern is that a byproduct of the amendment of the constitution to include the establishment of a permanent Indigenous Voice to Parliament would be an implicit sublimation of Aboriginal sovereignty to that of the Commonwealth of Australia.
It is a fact that the British settlement of Australia was imposed by force and that the sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples was displaced without their consent or agreement in any form. It has never been ceded. That much was recognised, formally and finally, by the High Court’s Mabo judgment.
The constitution legally entrenches the sovereignty of the Crown, through the Commonwealth, as the ruler of this land. That is inconsistent with Aboriginal sovereignty, and Mabo’s compromise is an uncomfortable one.
If Indigenous peoples are given any status in the constitution’s structural governance arrangements, does that mean they become part of the architecture, and in doing so lose their sovereignty altogether (because the inconsistency becomes complete)?
Various constitutional scholars have said no, definitely not, and I agree. You can’t surrender sovereignty by accident. More importantly, it can’t be lost by means of the amendment of a document that never had any relationship to your sovereignty in the first place. Australia’s system of government has always ignored Aboriginal sovereignty, and the Voice won’t change that. To the extent that it exists at all, it will continue.
That leads to a second ground of objection, raised by Thorpe and others: that it makes no sense to talk about anything except treaty first. Treaty is the only legitimate path to reconciliation of the competing claims to sovereignty because it can rectify the 235-year-old failure to make terms.
That is a perfectly valid argument. The Uluru Statement calls for Voice-Treaty-Truth, in that order, because the wise minds that negotiated its form believed it was the best and surest path to reconciliation. It’s open to debate, and the Uluru process’ attempt to allow and then conclude that debate clearly didn’t quite succeed.
There are good points on each side of the argument — principled, practical and political. They boil down to one question: would the Voice make a treaty more likely, or would a treaty make the Voice unnecessary? My answer is that either outcome points to the Voice being the best option to pursue, because it will change the conversation permanently. Then, and only then, is a treaty potentially going to come into realistic view.
A different objection is that articulated by Vanessa Turnbull-Roberts in Guardian Australia this week: “We have always had a voice, but we have never been listened to.” Turnbull-Roberts, a passionate and uncompromising human rights advocate, sees the Voice proposal as a “gesture”; “we don’t need gestures”, she argues, “we need genuine change and our community already has the solution”.
This is a more sophisticated variation on the simplistic “symbolism” objection being promoted by Warren Mundine and Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa-Price and disingenuously championed by the Coalition parties. The pre-existing “voice” Turnbull-Roberts is referring to is contained in “the demands we have been urgently calling on for too long” — detailed in the “stories and pain” recorded by “royal commissions, reports, consultation and community organisation submissions to Parliament”.
Turnbull-Roberts predicts “a shift in voting towards a Yes majority” for the Voice if the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (1987) and the Bringing Them Home report (1997) were finally implemented. That’s the solution she means.
It’s a subtle and worthy argument, whether or not one accepts the premise that the Uluru process was insufficiently representative of Indigenous peoples’ interests and views. What will a constitutionally enshrined “Voice”, which by design will be powerless but advisory only, be able to achieve that royal commissions and parliamentary reports have not? Are Indigenous peoples about to fall into an age-old trap?
I don’t think so, because in the end I have placed my trust in the people of goodwill and good faith who spoke from the heart of Australia to all of us, and I’d rather take whatever risks are entailed in grasping that open hand. I believe, all things considered, that the Voice is the best next step.
But I’m still listening, as should we all.
Great article Michael – thanks. Like you I have placed my trust in the people of goodwill and good faith who spoke from the heart of Australia to all of us.
I am finding it difficult to follow all the discussion as some of it appears in news sites that I do not subscribe to. But what I do read is not dissuading me from my early stance of intending to vote YES.
Lidia Thorpe has a much greater media profile than either Adam Bandt or Sarah-Hanson Young because she is an iconic figure as a cool rebel. The parliamentary Greens are having their confab at Mt Macedon today and maybe that will straighten out their messaging but as it is Thorpe’s no to the Voice has probably resonated and it is already too late. In my opinion she is as narcissistic and an actor in bad faith as is Hanson. I will not be listening to her but rather the older, wiser members of our Indigenous community who have in some cases a lifetime of activism behind them.
Hmm .. I think Lidia’s point on the possibility of it being seen as the ceding Aboriginal sovereignty is worthy of consideration.
She should listen to her Elders and shut up.
It is. Interestingly though in other countries where treaties exist often First Nations cite exactly that reason for not wanting treaty over their land or sea. So complex both ways. There’s been a shallow engagement with what ‘treaty’ actually entails.
That point is dealt with very well in Bradley’s article
If you haven’t read this, you might find it interesting – https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/26/will-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-impact-first-nations-sovereignty-explainer?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Also, let’s not forget that Statement from the Heart group does contain constitutional lawyers and those who aren’t qualified in the area did learn about it as part of a rigorous learning process.
Good piece. You can have skepticism about aspects of the voice but still support it as worth a try. I don’t think it negates those other things somehow. And I agree that it won’t be a magic cure. People should stop selling it as such. But neither are treaties or truth commissions. They can all on the other hand help move things forward. I’m more interested in what the existence of the Voice might do to overshadow or bypass existing local and regional organisations it doesn’t ‘like’ or prioritise, that nonetheless are worthy of paying attention to. Indigenous Australia is crying out for better national policy overall. But also is made up of individual autonomous or quasi autonomous local groupings around language , culture , clan, organisation etc which should not automatically be overridden in some hierarchical process . Or that it be seen to be some kind of final word on an issue overriding other Indigenous orgs automatically . That’s a complex thing to work through. And for a media and commentariat that often only superficially engages with any policy let alone Indigenous policy a real concern. Whether your view is left right or the mythical centre. That said I still think it’s worth a try. But the pro- campaign needs to lift its game substantially to win. The messages need to persuade the moveable undecided, not pronounce them as beneath contempt. Get the academics and pontificators away from the messaging -or send them off to talk to their fans – and get some real persuaders out there. Quick smart.
The Yes campaign is really ramping up. Lots of good, grassroots stuff planned. If you’re interested in helping out, check out the From the Heart website.
The Voice will in, in my view, effect change. Not only will The Voice permanently be constitutionally be empowered to articulate indigenous perspectives and demands, that will constitutionally imply (perhaps even express) an obligation of the parliament to LISTEN. Because we whitefellas have never listened, that will be the change!
If the Uluru statement was the product of a genuine community consultation that consulted widely then a YES vote seems the obvious next step to me, a non-indigenous Australian. If the process was not representative then that should be explained and an alternative process should be described which can represent as many first nations people as possible. Until that process happens I don’t understand who Lydia Thorpe will negotiate on behalf of. Which indigenous nation is she proposing to negotiate a treaty for?. Until someone can explain how a group demanding a treaty has the confirmed support of a majority of first nations people I am sticking with supporting the establishment of a Voice.