My View on The Voice to Parliament
Note: I wrote this in my own capacity as a private citizen and do not represent the views of any institution or group I am associated with.
On 14 October, Australians will vote in a referendum about whether to change the Constitution to recognize the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an advisory body – a “voice” to our elected parliament – to represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander concerns.
A successful “yes” vote would mean that the Australian constitution is changed by the addition of a new section:
“Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
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 Strait Islander Voice;
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”
The Voice is not a legislature and does not have a vote or rights of veto, it is only an advisory body to the government.
I will be voting “yes,” but with some serious reservations. Let me explain.
The Case for Yes
In favour of the “yes” vote are several things.
First, the Voice will grant agency to Australian First Peoples in matters that effect them.
The Voice will compel Australian governments to talk to First Peoples and not just about them. It will advise the government on matters of desperate need among First Peoples including health, education, employment, incarceration, etc. The Voice has no legislative authority, only the moral authority of the case it makes. But it is an indigenous Voice to those in power.
Remember, First Peoples were only included in the Australian census in 1971 and only acquired voting rights in 1967. The Voice gives agency to First Peoples and offers a chance to advance the well-being and prospects of Australia’s First Peoples.
Second, establishing a Voice will continue post-colonial Australia’s attempt to right the wrongs of the past and to establish a better life for Australia’s First Peoples.
The European settlement and colonisation of Australia was done through the violence, subjugation, and exploitation of the First Peoples. There were massacres of Aboriginal tribes, they were driven off their own lands, women were taken into sexual slavery by white settlers, even up until the 1970s Aboriginal children were forcibly taken from their families. The past is littered with inhumanity and injustice towards Australia’s First Peoples and those wrongs must be righted, and rightness starts with listening, and listening requires giving First Peoples a voice.
Third, one purpose of Constitutions is to protect minorities from the majority.
To stop democracy from becoming mob rule, a Constitution safeguards the rights of minorities, religious or ethnic, against a mixture of prejudice and power becoming united in parliament. The Voice would provide legal protections to Australian First Peoples should there ever be an Australian version of Jim Crow or a more extreme version of Pauline Hanson.
A constitutionally sanctioned Voice will mean, hopefully, that the 4% of Australia who are indigenous will not be forgotten or exploited by the other 96%.
Fourth, Christians have historically been the foremost advocates for First Peoples in Australia.
Many of the earliest advocates for indigenous communities were Christian leaders who called out injustice and did their best to advocate for indigenous people. The Catholic priest Father Pierre-Marie Bucas (1840-1930) was an amazing chap, he fought in the Papal armies against Italian nationalists, he helped train Māori warriors for an uprising against the British in New Zealand, and then set up an orphanage for indigenous children in North Queensland in the 1870s. If you haven’t read about it, you must read the story of Deacon James Noble (1876-1941), the first indigenous Anglican clergyman, and his gripping story of reporting massacres and setting up missions for indigenous Australians.
NAIDOC week began in the late 1940s as a week of prayer and advocacy for indigenous Australians led by churches until it was taken up (and over) by the federal government in the 1970s and turned into a secular and national week of celebration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.
As a Christian, I am proud to stand in that tradition and do whatever I can to advance the well-being of Australian First Peoples.
So that’s why I’m voting “Yes” to the referendum on establishing a Voice to Parliament.
The Case for No
That said, I do have several genuine concerns about establishing a Voice to Parliament.
First, the Voice does not go far enough.
A case could be made that what we really need is not another bureaucratic instrument in the Indigenous Affairs portfolio, but a formal Treaty with the Australian First Peoples. The British Commonwealth made a Treaty with the Māori in New Zealand and we need a treaty in Australia too to establish the terms and conditions of colonial settlement that includes recognition, reparations, and reconciliation.
All controversial points I know, but a Treaty is a better option in the long run and the Voice is not a Treaty.
Second, the Voice referendum will probably fail.
In Australia, proposed changes to the constitution very rarely succeed, there is a high bar to change the constitution, they only succeed with bi-partisan support, like the referendum to enfranchise indigenous Australians in 1967. Sadly, this referendum does not have bi-partisan support, it divides the left and the right, between “yes” and “no.”
What would have gained bi-partisan support is adding a preamble to the constitution that recognized the First Peoples of Australia prior to British settlement and then establishing a Voice to Parliament by an act of Parliament not via a constitutional amendment. But alas, it was decided to try to establish the Voice via a referendum not through the normal legislative procedure in Parliament. This is why it will fail.
Furthermore, and to be cynical, the day after the referendum fails, the left-wing media will be awash with angry editorials saying that Australia is still an evil, racist country and nothing has changed since 1967 or even 1788. To be extra cynical, some lefty politicians and journalists will enjoy the Voice’s defeat more than its success precisely for the rage-inducing factor.
Third, the ghost of ATSIC.
We have already had a voice to Parliament, it was called ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission), which was an elected representative body for First Peoples, and it was a monumental disaster.
ATSIC was established by Parliament in 1990, yet it was plagued with scandals, corruption, in-fighting, and turmoil. It was so bad that the Torres Strait Islanders asked for their own representative body and one ATSIC chairman faced numerous criminal proceedings. After a review, ATSIC was abolished in 2005 with bi-partisan support.
To be fair, there are clear differences between the processes and powers of ATSIC and the Voice, however, there are also similarities. Accordingly, the disaster of ATSIC should not be forgotten.
If the Voice succeeds, by constitutional amendment or by an act of Parliament, one would hope it does not repeat the failures of ATSIC.
Fourth, identity groups and liberal democracy.
My biggest reservation about the Voice is that it means that the Government will relate to one segment of the population as an identity group rather than as individuals with equality before the law and rights under the law. Liberal Democracy only works if the Government treats its citizens as individuals before the law and does not view them through the lens of their ethnic, religious, or sexual identities.
I’m worried that the Voice loosely resembles something like the Millet System of the Ottoman Empire whereby the Ottomans had one legal framework for Muslims, another for the Orthodox, another for Jews, another for Catholics, another for Arabs, another for one Armenians, etc. I’m worried that this politicizes identity and every group will want their own voice to parliament. For case in point, there are calls for an LGBTIQ+ voice to parliament. Then we have one for Irish Catholics, another one for Lebanese Brick Layers, another one for Asian Dentists etc.
We have to remember that the Parliament is the primary voice of the people and anything that tinkers with that should be treated with suspicion. Now, I could grant the Voice is the exception that proves the rule, and it is a necessary exception due to Australia’s colonial past and the glacial pace at which the lives of First Peoples improve. However, I believe Liberal Democracy should be vigilantly guarded against anything that would corrupt it and identity politics is one such possible corruption even if for a seemingly good cause.
A Plea for Civility
To be clear, some of the rhetoric around the referendum has not been healthy.
The suggestion that voting “No” means one is racist, or that indigenous No-voters have internalized their own white supremacy is appalling. Some rancorous Yes-activists are becoming the best argument for voting “No.”
Also, voting “Yes” does not mean one is a sooky woke liberal, the Yes campaign is not a commy or lefty enterprise, people of all stripes will be voting yes.
I want my fellow Aussies to note this, there are good reasons to vote “Yes” and legitimate reasons to vote “No.” I respect people on both sides as I understand their reasons for voting the way they are.
Yet what we need above all is respect, civil discourse, and to persuade people with honest debate not with invective polemics. Nobody changes their mind by being abused, mocked, or humiliated. Both campaigns should remember that.
Anyway, as I said, I’ll be voting “Yes,” albeit with some serious reservations.
Otherwise, my Ridley College colleague gave a sermon on this topic, in light of Proverbs, at City on a Hill - Melbourne. He sets out the case for both “Yes” and “No.” Worth the listen:
Thanks Mike,
This is a really good analysis. Is this shareable to people not paid subscribers to your substack?
Helpful. Thank you.