Australia has a black history #2

*photo courtesy of the Guardian

The Australians that drafted the Constitution and established the Australian government had great expectations for this country.

At the turn of the twentieth century Australia led the world in its innovation and idealism.

When the Australian democracy was established in 1901, it did not imitate any other system. It was materially different to the US system. It was a far cry from the British government which still relied on peerage based House of Lords.

Australians were not intimidated by change or innovation.

Australia gave women the vote, years and sometimes decades ahead of its European and US allies.

Australia introduced a secret ballot, compulsory voting, preferential voting, mobile voting booths and Saturday voting. We have one of the most stable and trusted voting systems in the world. The innovations have continued since those early days.

Australia began as a political experiment.

We were the first country in history to elect a Labour government.

Australians helped establish and lead the United Nations after World War II.

Early Australia was characterised by courage, vision and innovation.

Australians have always punched above their weight division on the world stage in areas as diverse as sport, science, medicine, entertainment, literature, technology and the list goes on.

We were never afraid.

Fast forward to 2023, as the same country considers a change to our Constitution to give our indigenous population a say in legislation and policies that affect them. How does present day Australia compare to early Australia?

Have we become fearful, timid, risk averse?

Let’s look at the upcoming referendum.

It is difficult to argue with the proposition that indigenous people should have a say in laws and policies that affect them.

Some will say the First Nations people should not receive any special treatment, their vote carries the same value as every other citizen’s. If they desire a voice they should participate more vigorously in our democracy.

However, our democracy, which includes First Nation representatives, has failed our indigenous people. Why is there a so called “Gap” if our current system is meeting the needs of indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders?

We have heard of and seen the litany of policy mistakes.

Even today the indigenous population labour under poor education and educational facilities, high rates of incarceration, poor health outcomes with reduced life expectancies, poor mental health including high rates of alcoholism and domestic violence.

We can do more. We are better than this.

If we are concerned about improving conditions for our indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders, change is necessary. Institutional change. Permanent change.

More of the same will not address these issues. More of the same represents neglect of a vulnerable sector of the population.

More of the same will not improve the current plight of indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders.

Let’s look at the reasons put forward by the NO campaign. .

We do not have enough detail for the Voice to make an informed decision.

The referendum sets out the principles of the Voice. The Voice “.. may make representations to parliament and executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people”.

How will the Voice work in real terms? This is to be decided by the parliament. What could be fairer? Yes, this means the Liberals, the Nationals and all other conservatives in Parliament will contribute to the formation of the Voice. The hard work does not cease with a YES vote. It begins with a YES vote.

The Voice is divisive.

There is a difference between division and debate. Those that thrive on division bring down people, ideas and institutions normally for their own benefit and advantage. By contrast, those who engage in debate show respect for their opponents and their opposing and divergent views.

When proponents for either side engage in vitriol, name calling, fear mongering, dog whistling and polemics they are not concerned about indigenous peoples. They are pushing a personal agenda. Ignore them.

The Voice is not divisive. Politicians and campaigners are divisive.

The Voice will not elevate Indigenous people above ordinary Australian citizens because the Voice will not have any power to make or implement decisions. It is an advisory group. It is no different than the dozens of committees, task forces, and advisory bodies that currently exist and advise parliament and government departments.

For example, the Advisory Committee on Medical Devices is an independent body that advises the Health Department on the safety, performance and manufacturing of medical devices supplied to Australian consumers. It has never been suggested that the existence and work of the ACMD somehow elevates the interests of the pharmaceutical and medical device industry.

The Halal Advisory Committee advises the Department of Agriculture on halal certification of food products. No one is suggesting we will all be eating halal food shortly.

There are dozens of such bodies advising and informing legislation and government policy. The Voice will be no different.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have had committees advising governments in the past but when governments have not welcomed their advice, these committees have been disbanded and not replaced. This cannot occur with a constitutionally guaranteed Voice.

Governments can ignore the advice of the Voice and even disband it but they must replace it with another Voice. For this reason the referendum could also be called “the Guarantee”.

The Voice is divisive because it introduces race into the Constitution

Race was always in the Constitution. In 1967 the Holt Liberal government proposed a referendum to amend the Constitution to permit the Federal government to legislate on Aboriginal people. Until that time the Constitution only permitted the States to deal with their indigenous populations. It also permitted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (for the first time) to be included in the National Census.

The 1967 referendum received the support of over 90% of Australian voters. It was supported in all six States.

We shouldn’t meddle with the Constitution.

The Constitution contains a mechanism to allow it to be amended. It was never envisaged that the document would never change. A country that does not evolve and adapt to a changing world will be left behind. The authors of the Constitution expected it to be changed and adapted over time.

Another thought. How many of those advocating for the inviolability of the Constitution wish Australia to become a Republic? Think about it. If a minor change like the Voice is not acceptable, how will a major shift such as a Republic ever be accepted?

The Voice is risky as it has unlimited scope.

This risk has not been properly explained or justified. Even if the Voice (as designed by Parliament) could make representations on every single issue before the Parliament, what risk does it pose? It is an advisory body only. It does not make laws and cannot set policy.

The Voice will change our system of government

This is not correct. After a Voice is established and protected by our Constitution, the way we elect our government will not change. The way laws are passed will not change. The way our public service is appointed and operates will not change.

There will be some change.

The government and public service may receive representations from the Voice on matters that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. How they respond to those representations is a matter for the government and the public service.

The government will not be able to remove the Voice. It can replace the Voice but there must always be a Voice.

Governments cannot be trusted.

I agree.

Governments are far from perfect.

The very reason for the Voice is to guarantee that the government hears from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on issues that affect them.

It is necessary to include the Voice in the Constitution to prevent interference and subjugation of the Voice by future governments.

It is because governments cannot be trusted that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have requested a Voice that is guaranteed by the Constitution.

There are better ways to “Close the Gap”

In the last 27 years, conservative governments have governed in all but 9 years. In fact, since World War II, Australia has predominantly been governed by conservative governments. During that time no legislation or policy or solution has been produced to narrow the significant divide that exists between the standard of living provided to our indigenous population and the rest of our community.

In 2017, after years of consultation the Uluṟu Statement from the Heart was published. This was an invitation from First Nations people to the rest of our society to embrace their traditions and share in over 60,000 years of insight, custom and wisdom. At the same time it sought reform, including a Voice to Parliament.

The conservative governments ignored the Statement. Not one of its initiatives was considered.

What better way does the NO campaign propose to narrow the gap, because after years of continuous conservative government we have not seen any change? Should they not provide the detail of their proposals. Have they not had several opportunities to address issues confronting indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders?

Conclusion

This is one of those moments in history that defines a nation.

To vote NO is to do nothing to address a situation that requires urgent attention.

Let us not be fearful and timid souls.

If you care for the welfare of First Nations people you will vote YES. I pray that on 14 October, Australia experiences a moment of a grace rather than a national disgrace.