You don’t have to be an avid follower of mainstream media to know that the upcoming Voice to Parliament referendum has been a hot topic in the early days of 2023.
With a date slated for the second half of this year, debate is likely to become even more dominant in the news cycles ahead.
The debate has split many Australians along the ‘traditional’ political fault line, with ‘yes’ voters, those in favour of enshrining an ‘Indigenous Voice to Parliament’ into the constitution generally coming from the left, and those against on the right.
Both sides have been using social media to promote their arguments in recent weeks, and this has led to some controversy, with Facebook removing some posts deemed by fact checkers as misleading.
What is the Voice to Parliament?
Given the near certainty that you will be required to vote one way or the other later this year, understanding what the Voice is, and what its consequences will be, is important.
Read: Our country, our way – why Australia must embrace Indigenous knowledge
The seed for the Voice was sown in the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart, a petition by Australian Aboriginal leaders to change the constitution of Australia to improve the representation of Indigenous Australians.
The text of the statement includes the line, “We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.”
Successive Liberal governments denied the call but Anthony Albanese, upon becoming Prime Minister last May, promised to put the call to a vote via a referendum during his term in office.
In a speech in July last year, Mr Albanese suggested the question: “Do you support an alteration to the constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice?”
Read: Albanese’s history-making Labor ministry sworn in
Mr Albanese also added three sentences that could be added to the constitution:
- There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice.
- It may make representations to parliament and the executive government 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 the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice.
Since then, debate has raged over what the Voice will mean in practical terms. In a letter to the Prime Minister this week, federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton expressed concerns about a lack of available detail.
Mr Dutton’s letter does not mince words, and he states, “I believe you are making a catastrophic mistake in not providing accessible, clear and complete information regarding your government’s version of the Voice, condemning it to failure and, in turn, damaging reconciliation efforts in our country.”
But critics of Mr Dutton have accused him of scaremongering, arguing that the vote is simply one in favour or otherwise of the concept of a Voice, and also that plenty of detail has already been provided by academics such as Marcia Langton, Megan Davis and Tom Calma.
Read: Seven accessible Indigenous experiences from Cairns
Writing in response to Mr Dutton’s letter, Michael Bradley, managing partner at Sydney firm Marque Lawyers, says that the Opposition Leader’s concerns are unfounded, and that his tactics mirror those of his predecessor, John Howard, when Australia voted on becoming a republic in 1999.
“The play is an attempted repeat of John Howard’s successful three-card trick that brought down the 1999 republic referendum,” he says.
“One, demand the detail; two, when it’s provided, demand more detail; three, claim there’s now too much detail and advocate a ‘no’ vote on the basis that, if you don’t understand it, you’re being conned.”
Mr Dutton asks, “Is [the Voice] purely advisory, or will it have decision-making capabilities?”
Mr Bradley claims this is proof of Mr Dutton’s disingenuousness. “Nobody has ever said, suggested or implied that it will or should be anything more than advisory in construct and effect,” he said.
With no fixed date yet for the referendum, the debate is set to remain in the news for some time yet.
Are you uncertain about what the proposed Voice to Parliament will mean? What further information would you like? Why not share your thoughts in the comments section below?
A Definite NO from me ……..
The Voice is the most divisive example of racism I have ever witnessed during my life on Terra Australis. We are all born equal, and we all have the same equal rights. There is no earthly reason why indigenous people should receive preferential treatment over and above other Australian Citizens. It is giving genuine Indigenous people and the 300,000 fake indigenous people identified in the last census a SECOND VOICE which they should not be entitled to, just because of the colour of their skin. It is racist, unfair and divisive and it will do nothing to address the underlying issues affecting indigenous people or improve the welfare of those living in marginalised communities.
Yes, Stephen, With this sentence you have stated my thoughts.
Purely we are all included under the Australian flag. As the song states “we are one but we are many”, so why a separate flag for one race? I will definitely vote NO
Simon, You have written all my thoughts and those of others I have talked to’
Simon Wyatt is spot on. And regardless of what some people think, many of us believe Mr Dutton’s questions are fine, reasonable an require answering, even if they will not help many of us change our minds about voting NO. A YES vote will divide Australia and also lead to the High Court making decisions that should be made by elected politicians. Finally, multiple efforts by many, including aboriginal people, so far have not improved the lives of many remote aborigines; please tell me how he Voice will be more successful!
Indigenous persons already have a Voice in our constitution, and it is called representational democracy. This is a second voice and gives additional privileges to indigenous persons based on the colour of their skin and their self-identified claims to being indigenous. It is totally unfair and racist. The referendum is just an enormous waste of taxpayers money.
I am all for Constitutional recognition of First Nations people but not via this Voice structure. Just imagine the consequences when ( not if) the ” selecred pannel” becomes radicalised with the likes of Lidia Thorpe and that lot.
Also , will it address the issues of ,infant abuse and sexual assaults , crime and employment with in aboriginal communities.?
Imagine somone asking me to sign something and telling me not to worry about the details or content , just trust them they would fill in everything afterwards and to make it worse , they are a politican… No Way.
Well said and I totally agree with you!
Michael Bradley obviously knows all there is to know about the Voice so why doesn’t he answer Dutton’s question? He’s accusing Dutton of playing politics simply because he’s asked for a clarification. The reason the republic referendum failed was for exactly the same reasons as Dutton is citing – there was no clear and complete information on how the republic would work – only vague ideas.
The same is happening this time only now we are being accused of being racist if we ask for more detail. Albanese has been quoted as saying “Even some of the oldest, most stable democracies have come under attack from a whole range of corrosive, insidious forces. No one is immune.” I think this might be one of those forces.
Including me ,many people I know have said `The Voice`…do you mean The TV talent show??
We need to know EXACTLY what it all means for ALL concerned!
TRANSPERENCY PLEASE for us to consider before voting in a referendum!
Albo has a bee in his bonnet about this and I think would like to leave a legacy !
The indigenous already have a blatent advantage; on most government forms there is the question ..”are you aboriginal or torres strait islander”? It’s there for a reason and results in special consideration, but aren’t we all supposed to be equal? Then there ‘s the Melbourne lawyer who stated they need the Voice to give them ‘power and reparation’. Dark days ahead if this passes but it won’t be because of my vote.
This is another diversion tactic to distract us from what is really going on and of importance to our life. A total waste of money, indigenous people already are well represented in our parliament.
Mr Bradley says “Nobody has ever said, suggested or implied that it will or should be anything more than advisory in construct and effect”. Well you are correct Mr Bradley. But so far nobody has said anything about what it is or isn’t. And that is the point Mr Dutton is making. I already feel that the indigenous flag is a racist symbol. Surely we are all included under the Australian flag. As the song states “we are one but we are many”, so why a separate flag for one race ? I will definitely vote NO unless “the voice” is explained fully to me.
“Nobody has ever said, suggested or implied that it will or should be anything more than advisory in construct and effect” – true sort of. Except Mr Albanese has already conceded that it would be a very brave government that disregards any advice the Voice chooses to offer. This means in reality, this Voice is about as far from ‘advisory’ as you could possibly get. Just imagine the ramifications that will certainly ensue should any bit of advice be ignored or discarded. In this respect alone The Voice is unlike any other advisory body. For that reason, a No vote is the only possible outcome.
Having said that, an acknowledgement that Aboriginal people were already resident at the time of the First Fleet landings would be appropriate to include in the Constitution preamble. This would provide recognition of the historic culture but not impinge on the rights of all other Australians who have arrived since. ALL Australians would then be appropriately recognised and the nuts and bolts of the Constitution clearly including everyone no matter how long their tenure in Australia.
Yes, Stephen, With this sentence you have stated my thoughts.
“Purely we are all included under the Australian flag. As the song states “we are one but we are many”, so why a separate flag for one race”? I will definitely vote NO
Let’s correct one misleading statement at the get go. There never was a “one nation”. The indigenous inhabitants of Australia were a numerous number of individual tribes with their own territories, languages and traditions/cultures. Some of them even fought each other. So if we are going to have a “voice” that will be part of the “truth telling” let’s start with the truth right up front.
Then please someone tell the truth about what the “voice” is, how the representatives will be elected, what difference it will make to the indigenous population in the bush and why it has to be enshrined in the constitution. Until then it’s a no vote from me.
You are correct of course which is why the newish nomenclature has become ‘First NationS People’.
They may have been the first inhabitants but they were never a nation.