13 April 2023

Politicising the Voice vote is a regrettable step that hinders the national conversation

| Genevieve Jacobs
Ken Wyatt

Former Liberal minister Ken Wyatt has resigned from the Liberal party over its decision to enforce a No vote on party lines. Photo: File.

In 1992, the High Court handed down the Mabo decision, laying the groundwork for native title claims later reinforced by the Wik decision in 1996.

It caused near hysteria in many regional communities.

I recall a meeting at the Young Golf Club where speaker after speaker said farms would be taken, long-standing land rights challenged and the economic basis of our existence fundamentally undermined.

All of us were on freehold land that had been that way for a century and a half. It was a legal impossibility that native title, co-existing on pastoral leases, could extinguish those rights.

But the political argument was, nevertheless, couched in highly emotive terms that bore no resemblance to the court’s decision or what actually happened in the intervening quarter century.

READ ALSO Dutton says no to Indigenous Voice

Regrettably, the Voice referendum conversation appears to be heading in the same direction as the Liberal Party enforces a No vote without the conscience option, framing the issue as a “Canberra Voice”.

Former Liberal Health and Indigenous Affairs minister Ken Wyatt – the first Aboriginal person to hold the portfolio – resigned from the party on Thursday (6 April), expressing his profound disappointment after working closely with other senior Indigenous leaders across party lines.

Peter Dutton’s position will also cause significant discomfort to moderates in the party leadership like Simon Birmingham and others, including Bridget Archer, who will likely cross the floor on the issue.

Most worryingly, the Liberals’ decision changes the Voice debate from a bipartisan conversation about our national future to a fractured, politicised, point-scoring argument.

Cape York Indigenous leader Noel Pearson views the decision as “a Judas betrayal”, noting that the Liberals had 11 years in power to work on a proposal for Indigenous recognition.

READ ALSO Public servants can have their own say on Voice, but they must remember who they are

It is worth repeating what the Voice will be – and will not be – in plain language.

It will advise the government of the day on matters closely pertaining to Aboriginal people. That’s all.

The Voice cannot make laws. It cannot mandate expenditure. All it can do is offer advice. All the government must do is listen. The government has no obligation to act.

The Voice provides transparency on who is advising the government on Aboriginal matters. It assures Aboriginal people that other Aboriginal people have given that advice, not mysterious “stakeholders” with other interests.

As Ken Wyatt points out, every other advisory body of this kind set up by Parliament has been disbanded when it suited governments to do so. The Voice would be in the constitution rather than legislated, so government can’t get rid of it.

READ ALSO Lidia Thorpe, Linda Burney, Jacinta Price and the difficult game of choosing a Voice

There has been plenty of discussion about the referendum’s lack of detail.

Former High Court judge Kenneth Hayne notes that the constitution provides a framework for how we run the country, not extensive details about how to do it. That’s for governments, elected by voters, to decide (a side note – NT and ACT residents’ referendum votes have only been counted since 1977).

The referendum change would enshrine the principle that the statistically most vulnerable people in Australia, the first people of the nation, have a guaranteed way to talk to government about issues overwhelmingly affecting them.

The notion that the Voice would proffer ideas on foreign policy and the like is nonsense.

READ ALSO Imprisoned First Nations people should be allowed to vote in Voice referendum, say Greens

Aboriginal people are catastrophically worse off than almost all other Australians as a demographic. In the 13th biggest global economy, Aboriginal health, education and social outcomes are often at Third World levels.

The Voice would have enough to contend with trying to help government fix issues like extreme poverty, infant mortality and diseases that have been eradicated in every other developed country. Why on earth would the Voice prioritise discussing nuclear submarine purchases or manufacturing industry policy?

There’s also been plenty of media attention on internal Aboriginal opposition to the Voice. This is not unexpected – all communities will differ in their opinions. But polling shows around 80 per cent of Aboriginal people have “very strong” support for the Voice.

The Liberal Party risks demeaning itself by the decision to mandate a No vote or force moderates to cross the floor. The Voice should not be a political discussion, but a national discussion.

Peter Dutton says he will bring the nation together. In reality, he is likely to tear his own party apart.

All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

The Voice to Parliament is not threatening.
The reform is modest and enables Indigenous Australians to speak and make representations to the federal parliament on matters relating to their peoples. The Voice does not make laws or mandate expenditure and does not oblige the government to act on representations.
There were over 1200 Indigenous representatives from 12 different locations and another 250 people throughout Australia who were involved in writing the Uluru Statement from the Heart. According to opinion polls, the vast majority of Australian people support the Voice. All recent and current state and territory governments support and have signed on to the proposal.
We now have an antiquated and stale opposition party dominated by a group of angry and paternalistic old white men who think they know what is best for Indigenous Australians. Cheered on by the Mudoch Press and past leaders like John Howard and Tony Abbott. Not to mention those racist internet trolls who infect these news sites.
Since 1996, the Coalition has spent 20 years in government. During this time they failed to take a lead on reconciliation with our Indigenous peoples. They now have the chance to right past wrongs. Instead of uniting Australians they turn this proposal into a fractured, politicised, point-scoring argument.
The Coalition’s position to reject the Voice is an affront to Australians and its human rights obligations.

“According to opinion polls, the vast majority of Australian people support the Voice”

Latest Newspoll has support sitting at 54%. You must have a different definition of what a “vast majority” is Jack.

@chewy14
Nice obfuscation of the figures, chewy
Yes 54% in favour … 34% against.
If they were the figures in a pre-election poll, pundits would predict a landslide victory for the Yes party. Unless you are going to claim that every one of the 12% undecided, will vote No, it is perfectly reasonable to assert that a vast majority support the Voice -= especially when compared to those that don’t.

Justsaying,
“If they were the figures in a pre-election poll”

What has a pre-election poll got to do with anything? Talk about obfuscation.

Even if you look at the most recent polls where people are forced to choose yes or no as they will be in the referendum, support currently sits between 57-59%. Which has been dropping from previous high consistently for months.

To assert that “a vast majority currently support it” is clearly false based on the numbers.

Just providing the facts.

Side note that the referendum would definitely pass based on today’s polling numbers but that doesn’t mean deliberately claiming inflated support like Jack and others have is correct.

@chewy14
“What has a pre-election poll got to do with anything?”
Sorry, chewy14, my bad. I thought you knew that the referendum is being run in exactly the same way as an election by the AEC – exactly the same voters, following exactly the same process. So the comparison is very apt.

Nevertheless, as with any poll, the numbers are moot … there’s only one poll that counts.

Mind you, the next poll will be interesting. If for no other reason than to see the impact the non-partisan resignation of the Shadow Attorney General and Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Julian Leeser, has on the undecided (especially moderate Liberal) voters.

Definitely a blow for Dutton (despite their respective kumbaya, post resignation statements), when the MP he charged with steering the Coalition policy on legal (like constitutional challenges) and indigenous matters (like the Voice), resigns so he can unequivocally campaign in favour of the Voice.

“Sorry, chewy14, my bad. I thought you knew that the referendum is being run in exactly the same way as an election by the AEC – exactly the same voters, following exactly the same process”

Oh, so we are voting for a voice in each electorate are we? Who are the other candidates?

Your comparison was just plain ridiculous when compared to the statements Jack made and your attempts to double down on it make you look even more foolish.

The rest of your comment is just irrelevant and partisan guff and as I’m not a Liberal or Dutton supporter, who cares?

“… a side note – NT and ACT residents’ referendum votes have only been counted since 1977 …”
As you would be aware, Genevieve, the vote of citizens of the Territories only counts towards the national count.
For the referendum to be successful, a majority of eligible voters throughout the country (i.e. incl. Territorians) must vote in favour PLUS a majority of voters in a majority of states must also vote in favour – if only a majority of voters in 3 of the 6 states vote in favour, the referendum will not be approved.
So, the votes of Territorians probably won’t make a difference in the final determination of the outcome.
I understand that in the latest polls (for what they are actually worth) a majority of voters in all states bar Queensland have indicated they would vote Yes if the question were put now.

Of course it is political, but it does not have to be about party politics. It is annoying that there is so much disinformation out there and that the situation is so unclear as a result. This might be less likely if we did not have opposing parties with opposing views on the issue.

It’s worth listening to those who are not coming at it from a party political perspective, including Ken Wyatt, Julian Leeser and Bridget Archer along with a whole bunch of indigenous and non-inigenous people who are not aligned to a particular party.

Then there’s the Constitutional lawyers, who put their credibility on the line by stating their opinions publicly on the value and risks of the Constitutional changes. As always, find those credible voices that are backed by facts and knowledge, rather than partisan or selfish views.

@psycho
You raise some very good points, in particular your reference to the opinions of various ‘Constitutional Lawyers’.
I for one would never see a potential High Court challenge as a valid reason for not making a change to the Constitution. Since the proclamation of the Constitution, there have been challenges to the ‘constutionality’ of government actions which have necessitated interpretation, clarification or ratification of the Constitution by courts at various levels. That’s the sign of a healthy democracy – having an independent judiciary which can make these rulings and have all sides accept the “umpire’s decsion”.

Martin Keast7:59 am 12 Apr 23

Genevieve, don’t accus Mr Dutton of “politicising the Voice”! This was political right from the start and is inherently political. We have to have a debate on this rather than trying to soft-soap the thing as just a symbolic move to improve race relations. The Voice is a constitutional change of enormous magnitude that enshrines racial division into Australian political life for the foreseeable future. It must be discussed and both the reasons for it and the significant reasons that suggest this is not the right solution to the problem are discussed and eventually voted on.

HiddenDragon7:18 pm 11 Apr 23

It would have been so much easier to have a “national conversation” if the Albanese government had been prepared to legislate its preferred Voice model under existing powers (as will likely happen if the referendum fails), give it a few years to run and show its worth, and then take the proposal for Constitutional amendment to the voters at the next federal election.

The issues about judicial adventurism etc. would still have been raised under that approach, but at least the conversation/debate/slanging match would have also been informed, and perhaps balanced, by the lived experience of the proposed body.

“Peter Dutton says he will bring the nation together.”
He can’t even keep his own Shadow Cabinet together!

The ‘Canberra Voice’ reference is more a dig at a centralised Federal Voice that will only advise a Federal Government.
What will happen to the NIAA? It gets billions every year to do exactly what The Voice will do. Have a look at the NIAA website and read their RESPONSIBILITIES. It is The Voice verbatim.
Recognition of indigenous peoples can be done in the preamble to The Constitution.
Pleas to make the referendum apolitical are heard to so as to shut down reasoned debate. The YES side want to appeal to emotion and guilt without having to explain the likelihood of unintended consequences unless every possible ramification is explored.
The Voice will advise the parliamentary and executive government on what’s best for indigenous Australians. Over the last 50 years or more how many government inquiries, university research studies, Land Council Annual Reports, NGO submissions, mainstream media documentaries and exposes, NITV, ABC and SBS series, have there been on indigenous status at the time they were presented? Many of these channels of communication are led and staffed by indigenous Australians. We know what is needed regarding health, housing and general living conditions are concerned. We are told ad infinitum on Sorry Day, Naidoc Week and every episode of Q & A. How will another bureaucratic layer staffed by the usual suspects make anything better?

@waggamick
You probably haven’t even bothered to read the proposed wording so let me help you. It doesn’t say that the Australian government Department of the Voice will be created. Oh and I have a look at the NIAA website – it’s a public service agency

“… without having to explain the likelihood of unintended consequences unless every possible ramification is explored.”
With comments like that, it’s a good thing that the original Constitution didn’t have to go to a referendum – otherwise the debate over this referendum would be moot, as we’d still be arguing over the lack of detail in the Constitution.
e.g. Proclamation of the Commonwealth:
“It shall be lawful for the Queen …to declare by proclamation … the passing of this Act, … if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto … shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia.”
What if Her Majesty isn’t satisfied? We need to account for that. How do we determine the people of WA have agreed? We better account for that.
… and that’s only one (1) clause (edited to save space) in a 42 page document.

“The Voice should not be a political discussion”
Of course the discussion is political. How could it not be political when there is a proposed change to the Constitution to enshrine the political influence of one race over all others. That is abhorrent.

There is already power in the Constitution to make laws for aboriginals:
“Part V – Powers of the Parliament 51. Legislative powers of the Parliament
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

(xxvi) the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;”

“The referendum change would enshrine the principle that the statistically most vulnerable people in Australia, the first people of the nation, have a guaranteed way to talk to government about issues overwhelmingly affecting them.”
Census results show the number of Australians who say they are Aboriginal has been increasing for decades at a rate far faster than the broader population, or that can be explained by births. Aboriginality does not have to be proven, it can just be claimed, even if a person has only remote or no aboriginal background, connection, ancestry or resemblance.

Dr Grieve-Williams, a Warraimaay woman and adjunct professor at RMIT University highlighted the growing number of Australians who claim to be Indigenous when they have no such ancestry.
“The benefits are to do with status, you have a certain status when you’re a recognised Aboriginal person,’ Dr Grieve-Williams said. ‘But the main benefit is material. ‘People get promoted very quickly. The interesting thing is box-tickers, or those committing identity fraud, seem to get the big jobs.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9759809/Box-tickers-pretend-Aboriginal-taking-universities.html

Perhaps what is meant by the ‘Canberra Voice’ are those who have obtained tenured and lucrative positions of power, influence, advancement and funding by claiming to be, or to somehow represent aboriginals. Reality shows they have done a far better job of advancing themselves, than improving the conditions in disadvantaged indigenous communities. The Voice will only succeed in promoting and entrenching the vested interests of an elite.

Macquariephil3:12 pm 11 Apr 23

“Aboriginality does not have to be proven, it can just be claimed, even if a person has only remote or no aboriginal background, connection, ancestry or resemblance.”

Not true. There are well established rules, with checks and balances, for recognition of aboriginality. This includes acceptance by the relevant Indigenous community and proof of descent.

The benefits are to do with status, you have a certain status when you’re a recognised Aboriginal person,’ Dr Grieve-Williams said. ‘But the main benefit is material. ‘People get promoted very quickly.

What? There is a benefit in being discriminated against an abused? The only benefit would be in specifically Indigenous fields.

There is too much disinformation and partisan bias in the no case arguments.

@Acton
It’s a shame you didn’t bother to read the proposed wording of the change to the Constitution before you posted.

1. Where in the wording is proposed to “enshrine the political influence of one race over all others” mentioned? It certainly mentions Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders – but it is in the context of the undisputable recognition that they were the first peoples of Australia. It doesn’t say that “Because you are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders we are going to give you …”. What’s abhorrent is your inability to accept that fact – even after the High Court as affirmed and reaffirmed it on many occasions. The Voice relates to recognition of the First Peoples.

2. “There is already power in the Constitution to make laws for …” Correct. Is anyone disputing that? Again, if you had bothered to read the proposed wording, you would have seen “… may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”. As I said in another post, the Voice will not have the right to veto and/or amend such legislation. It will merely have the right to have input

3. “Aboriginality does not have to be proven, it can just be claimed, even if a person has only remote or no aboriginal background, connection, ancestry or resemblance.” So? What is your point? Because people may choose to identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, it does not grant them any special privilege with respect to the Voice. They won’t suddenly be individually vested with the right to march into Parliament to make a representation.

By all means, exercise your right of enfranchisement in relation to the referendum however you decide, but don’t expect your fatuous attempts to support your position to go unchallenged.

Capital Retro4:47 pm 11 Apr 23

And you have to pay a fat fee as well. Some young people already claiming Austudy then chose aboriginality to do it to get bigger benefits through ABSTUDY. https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/abstudy

@Capital Retro
So, we’ve had ‘don’t vote for the Voice if you don’t like the tram’ from you.
Now, we have “don’t vote for the Voice because some young people are getting Austudy and Abstudy’.
Thank heavens the Raiders and Brumbies had a win on the weekend – otherwise you’d have a third reason not to vote for the Voice.

Capital Retro9:20 pm 11 Apr 23

When you confront an inconvenient fact or two, do you always go into a rage?

And what has it got to do with professional football teams?

@Capital Retro
“When you confront an inconvenient fact or two, do you always go into a rage?”
To answer that I’ll actually have to wait until I’m confronted by a single fact, let alone two, from you.

@Capital Retro
“And what has it got to do with professional football teams?”
I thought I’d follow your propensity for introducing ‘meaningless irrelevancy’. Yeah you’re right – it doesn’t work.

Balance needed1:28 pm 11 Apr 23

The yes case is based almost exclusively on appeals to emotion, ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. How can they argue otherwise, when Albo refuses to release any details of the product he’s trying to sell, nor the legal advice?

Max_Rockatansky10:52 am 11 Apr 23

Genevieve Jacobs, why won’t Albanese release draft legislation on how this proposed new voice would operate before we go to vote? Why sign a blank cheque and hand it over for a politician to fill in the details later, when they could detail the composition, functions, powers and procedures before we vote?

Max Scheckenbac1:38 pm 11 Apr 23

They have not released the draft legislation as they are rewriting the the solicitor General’s response to say all is good nothing to fear or see here.
Remember ATSIC…(Aboriginal Torres straight islander commission) a group of people who raided Federal Government funding for the benefit of an elite few. The voice will make rich inner city lawyers richer extremely rich.
Be careful what you wish for it may come true.
$60 billion per year and still issues not resolved.

Because it won’t be the Albanese government who decides on the legislation or the way the voice operates. That’s up to Parliament, including all MPs from all parties and including independents, as with all legislation. There may be many draft bills from different MPs, with many amendments before it passes the House or gets dumped. If it passes, it will then go to the Senate where it may, or may not. be accepted. So any draft issued now is likely to be meaningless.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.