Why I'm Voting Yes: Reflection on the Voice to Parliament referendum
Kaya noonakort (hi everybody),
I wrote this reflection after chatting with a mate about why I’ll be voting yes at the upcoming Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament referendum and I thought it might be worth sharing my thoughts in case they prove valuable to anyone else who is unsure:
WHY I’M VOTING YES
It’s grass-roots.
Back in 2015 (under the Libs and with bipartisan support), the 16-member Referendum Council (1) travelled around Australia, conducted over 1,200 community conversations and reported on the outcomes of these discussions (2). The dialogues culminated in 2017 with the 4-day First Nations National Constitution Convention (3), where 250 delegates met and adopted the Uluru Statement from the Heart (4) which includes the line “We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution”.
The Voice to Parliament isn’t a top-down idea coming from politicians, it’s a bottom-up proposal that is the result of an immense consultation exercise. Delivering a clear-and-concise statement after two years, thousands of conversations and with the support of hundreds of signatories is an incredible feat.
The idea that this is a political endeavour or a ‘Canberra Voice’ is factually incorrect. Sure, it’s a voice in Canberra, but that’s because Parliament is in Canberra. Despite the location of the Parliament that The Voice to Parliament is speaking ‘to’, The Voice isn’t about Canberra. It came from the community, it’s supported by the community, and the issues it raises will reflect the needs of the community.
But indigenous people can’t even agree if they support it or not!
Why do they need to? Labor holds 77 of 151 (51%) seats in the Federal House of Representatives, and their primary vote was only 32.6%. 49% of electorates aren’t held by the Government, and the Government wasn’t the #1 pick for 67.4% of Australians. Despite this lack of consensus, no one questions the Government’s legitimacy.
Australian Financial Review polling shows that 80% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians support The Voice, 10% are undecided, and only 10% are unsupportive (5).
100% of Australians don’t agree on who should govern Australia, so why do we expect 100% of Indigenous Australians to agree with one-another on this matter?
The wording isn’t ‘vague’, it’s outcome-focussed.
I learnt this really quickly working on active transport infrastructure projects: If you consult on the design (i.e. the details) of a project (e.g. “What do you think about this bike path from A to B?”), you’ll get everyone arguing about the placement of a drain or the radius of a corner (etc). People that want the bike path might even oppose the project because they don’t like some superficial detail.
Alternatively, if you consult of the outcome of the project (e.g. “Would you like a bike path connecting A and B?”), then you get valuable feedback. You’re able to gauge community’s opinion on what the project aims to achieve – which is the whole point of the project in the first place.
If the community are on-board with the outcome (a bike path), then subject matter experts (transport planners, traffic engineers, etc) can get to work delivering the project with the support of the community. You might think that lessons learnt through my experience delivering infrastructure projects isn’t applicable to a referendum, but I’m not talking about the project specifics, I’m talking about the consultation that is undertaken as part of the project (whatever the project). A referendum is just empower-level community consultation (6), so the parallels are undeniable.
Before I shifted to an outcome-focussed approach to consultation, I often found myself questioning how an unqualified person felt they were in the position to tell planners, designers and engineers that they’re wrong. How would they know? This same way, how is the average person expected to make an informed decision on the specific details of the proposed amendment/s to the (far more complex than infrastructure design) Constitution? The Solicitor-General believes The Voice will enhance Australia’s system of government and doesn’t pose any threat to parliamentary democracy (7). If it’s good enough for the nation’s top lawyer, it’s good enough for me.
I firmly believe that the Government’s outcome-focussed approach is correct: The question that Australians need to answer isn’t about the specifics (leave that to the lawyers who will write the legislation), we simply need to ask ourselves “Do I want the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia?” Yes or no. That’s all. Leave the rest to the experts.
But we need more detail!
The Uluru Statement was accompanied by a 183-page report (2). Not only that, but it follows-on from a series of reports and discussion papers (etc). All up, there’s >1,600 pages and >13 hours of video providing ‘detail’ at UluruStatement.org (8) and I’m sure there’s even more out there in other locations too. How much more do you want?!
Despite calls for “We need more detail!”, each time it’s provided the response is “We need more detailed detail on the detail!” This is just a tactic. Opponents don’t want detail, they want confusion.
If this wasn’t obvious enough, the angle of the “If you don’t know, the answer is no” campaign makes the strategy crystal clear: Create confusion, and then convince everyone “well, if you’re confused, you better play-it-safe and vote no”.
Indigenous Australians already have a Voice to Parliament – it’s called the Westminster system.
Mining company CEOs already have a ‘voice to parliament’ through the Westminster system too, but they still employ lobbyists.
It sounds pretty cynical but think of the Voice to Parliament like a lobby advising the Government on matters that impact Aboriginal Australians – just like the mining industry’s lobby advising the Government on matters that impact their bottom-line. The key difference is that First Nations Australians would have a Voice to Parliament through the power of the Constitution, rather than the power of their cheque books.
It’s undeniably necessary.
The latest Closing the Gap report (9) shows that only 4/19 targets are on-track, 11 are lagging, and 4 are going backwards. As a nation we are quantifiably failing the First Peoples of Australia. Why would anyone be content to stick with a system clearly isn’t working?
Surely, creating a constitutionally enshrined means for Aboriginal representatives to provide advice on matters that effect Aboriginal people in order to improve Aboriginal outcomes (i.e. Close the Gap) is a no-brainer.
There are better ways to do it.
The opposition’s argument that “We support recognition, but we would do it differently” is laughable. Liberal MP Bridget Archer said it best in a recent interview (10). The Libs were in power for a decade and didn’t do anything. They can’t now say “Well, if it was up to us…” It was up to you and you sat on your hands.
There’s a saying in the military: “Lead, follow, or get out the way”: The Libs had the chance to lead for 10-years, and they didn’t. They have the opportunity to follow and provide bipartisan support, but I guess that’d be unacceptable to their increasingly far-right members (the moderates have jumped-ship to the Teals, which just leaves the crustiest of the crusty conservatives in the Party). Or they could get out the way and allow a conscious vote at the very least. Instead, the party that’s lead by a bloke who stormed out of parliament and boycotted the 2008 Apology is now (unsurprisingly) standing in the way of constitutional recognition too.
The Voice to Parliament doesn’t go far enough.
You might support a treaty, but voting No to The Voice because it isn’t a treaty is short-sighted. The referendum isn’t a choice between The Voice and a treaty, it’s a choice between The Voice and the status-quo. Even if you want indigenous recognition/empowerment to go further, surely The Voice is a step in the right direction? Surely an advisory voice is better than no voice at all?
I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that The Voice is going to instantly solve racial inequality, so why would anyone oppose it because it doesn’t deliver that impossibly immediate outcome? There’s another thing I learnt in the Army: “A 70% solution now is better than a 100% solution later” (or “Don’t let the great be the enemy of the good”). Just because The Voice isn’t perfect, it doesn’t mean it’s worthless.
No-matter the reasoning, if ‘progressives’ find themselves agreeing with Pauline Hanson and Tony Abbot on social issues and opposing The Voice, it’s time to surrender your Doc Martens and call it quits.
I hope this piece isn’t too sanctimonious, but I firmly believe it’s our civic duty to help disadvantaged people, and indigenous Australians are some of the most disadvantaged people on earth. We won’t get a second shot at this. If The Voice fails, I can’t imagine another polly putting their neck on the line to take another crack. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity and I’m unwilling to sit on my laurels and blindly hope the referendum will get up. The majority of Australians in the majority of states is a high bar for success, 36/44 referendums have failed, and all successful referendums enjoyed bipartisan support (unlike The Voice). Make no mistake, despite a slim majority in the polls, the Yes camp faces an uphill battle.
I hope my reflections have given you something to consider and/or more ammo to counter opposition. Have a look at the reports and references that are linked below, and I encourage you to sign-up with Together, Yes if you want to get stuck in and make the world a (slightly) better place. I have.
I won’t engage too much online, but feel free to reach out if you’d like to catch up face-to-face to discuss The Voice. I’m always keen to meet and debate the way-of-the-world over a beer or two.
References:
1. Referendum Council Home | Referendum Council
2. Referendum Council Final Report Referendum_Council_Final_Report_2017.pdf (wpengine.com)
3. First Nations National Constitution Convention Uluru - National Convention | Referendum Council
4. Uluru Statement from the Heart View The Statement - Uluru Statement from the Heart
5. Australian Financial Review news article: Voice to parliament: Anthony Albanese dismisses ‘radical’ opposition (afr.com)
6. IAP2 spectrum of Public Participation IAP2 IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum - IAP2 Australasia
7. ABC News article Voice to Parliament would be an 'enhancement' to constitution, according to solicitor-general - ABC News
8. Uluru Statement resources (including 13:40:29 of video and 1,668 pages of “detail”) Resources - Uluru Statement from the Heart
9. Closing the Gap report Commonwealth Closing the Gap Annual Report 2022 (niaa.gov.au)
Other Resources:
· Yes23 (Yes campaign) Yes 23
· Together, Yes (grass-roots community activation Yes campaign) Together, Yes - First Nations Voice to parliament (togetheryes.com.au)
· Uluru Statement from the Heart website The Statement - Uluru Statement from the Heart
Loving life.
2yIm voting NO
Consulting Enviro & Agronomy Scientist
2yGreat analogy with the bike path.
Manager Fleet Services | Chair Young Institute Public Works Engineering WA & Australasia | BEng (Hons)
2yI think you deserve a couple of beers for putting this together, with or without debate!
Para Performance Pathways Lead at Equestrian Australia
2yThanks Giles. I was stuck at "if Aboriginal people want it, then that's enough for me" because I think white people having been telling Aboriginal people for far too long what to do. Who am I to tell them what's best for them? You've helped me put a little more thought around my argument, apart from 'cos it's what Aboriginal people want (although to be fair, I'm not sure I need any more reason than that).