The Voice Referendum

In a democracy, everyone should have an equal say, supposedly.

But that has rarely been the case throughout the history of democracies. Perhaps Australia came closest to it in the 1970s when everyone could vote and the wealth gap was narrower. Those were simpler times culturally, too.

You might say, ‘But Aborigines are still in poverty.’ That raises the question, ‘What is wealth?’ because it is different things in different cultures. To some it is the built environment. To others, the natural environment. Perhaps well-being is a better priority.

In 1987 I lived among Aborigines in an urban setting for a year and visited their outback communities in the Centre and the North.

The Voice is a form of affirmative action… a policy that has a long history here and overseas. We know the results are mixed and it can be divisive. However, one thing was always certain — it is meant to be temporary. Aboriginal Senator Jacinta Price makes the point that the Voice “entrenches the idea that Indigenous people will always be disadvantaged”.

Is the Voice the right order of business? Section 25 of the Commonwealth constitution requires the Federal government to uphold a State’s law that disqualifies a person from voting at State elections by virtue of their race. This clearly out-dated and racist law is being called a ‘dead letter clause’, but it should be at the top of our list of reforms by referendum — along with other reforms equally deserving of attention.

Aborigines have a special place in the human history of this continent. That will never change. As such, it is only right, if they are to be part of our modern nation (not separate nations), that they be in the constitution’s preamble, which is historic in nature (it refers to ‘the Queen’ — Queen Victoria).

The Voice is being called for to empower indigenous people and give them a special hearing in their own affairs. There are 11 indigenous MPs now, more than the percentage of people who identify as Aboriginal in the population. So they already have a voice — in all parliamentary business — and good on them for getting there on their own merits, judged by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin, as Martin Luther King said.

By contrast, the selection of Members of the Voice begins with screening for Aboriginality, which relies on the standard three part test;

• being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent
• identifying as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person
• being accepted as such by the community in which you live, or formerly lived.

‘The way you look or how you live are not requirements.’ Proof can be no more than a letter of ‘Proof’ or ‘Confirmation of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Heritage’ ( AIATSIS Proof of Aboriginality). It is notoriously unreliable, open to abuse and in its excess, doesn’t actually preserve Aboriginal ethnicity.

There have been many decades of welfare directed towards Aborigines in an attempt to Close the Gap. All the while the gap has widened elsewhere and gutted the middle class of Australia. Wealthy industrialists and their hanger-oners have masterfully captured the state and media to dupe the public into believing that GDP growth is economic success.

Therefore, a program of building Australia’s human presence up has enriched them and held the rest back. Our ecology has paid the biggest price.

Daily life has become immeasurably complicated. New technology is constantly changing and breaking down. Infrastructure is out-grown before reaching its use-by date and is remodelled [sic] into something more ‘sophisticated’. Neighbourhoods are repopulated and added to with an ever wider array of unfamiliar values and customs from a plethora of nationalities from overseas. Interpersonal and sexual relations morph into new forms that, while liberating for some, requires time and energy for others to adapt to.

Little wonder a sizable section of the community feel the ‘system’ is working against them.

Sadly, the Yes and No camps are digging their heals in just when they need to be talking to each other. The No camp is populated by some jumping wildly to extraordinary conclusions, while the Yes camp seem to think “the argument should not be contentious.” I receved this flyer in my letterbox from my Federal MP, in ALP colours. It is called a Town Hall.

Clearly it is a Yes rally. All three panelists are Yes campaigners and it is festooned with Yes2023 badges. Are they hoping the Emperor (racism) has no clothes? My local UNAA (United Nations Australia Association) branch is doing the same thing; preaching to the converted.

Little wonder a social covenant is as remote as ever.

It is unfortunate that first Australians have failed to show that they could use the Voice to help not just themselves, but other Australians as well. To not just to be heard, but to advocate for those policies that reflect their culture and would benefit all; a sustainable economy and low immigration. The irony of holding the position that Australia always was and always will be aboriginal land whilst simultaneously holding the position that there should be unfettered immigration is completely lost on the inner city so-called intellectuals who are the unwitting volunteer foot soldiers of big business.

Aborigines still can advocate for these values in parliament where they already are and where it is appropriate, without any change to the constitution. Neville Bonner and Douglas Nicholls are just two of many models who have set an example of how to rise above a sense of victimhood.

We’re now living in a Polycrisis where “multiple global systems become causally entangled in ways that significantly degrade humanity’s prospects”. Infinite growth on a finite continent/planet is central to this crisis and is a far more pressing issue than the Voice.

So sadly, reconciliation will have to proceed more slowly than those progressives, who have played no small part in allowing us to reach this point, would like it to.

Originally published at http://equanimity.blog on August 7, 2023.