When the Opposition Leader Peter Dutton recently announced that the Liberals would not support a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament he added that he would be actively campaigning against it in the lead-up to the referendum later this year.
Explaining the Liberal’s position, Mr Dutton said his party proposes symbolic recognition of Aboriginal people in the constitution and a framework of local and regional voices set up by parliamentary legislation.
However, his comments in relation to the Liberal Party position do require some scrutiny.
In this campaign, it is important that information is accurate, so the Australian people are able to make a well-informed decision when they come to vote.
So, Mr Dutton’s comments, when referring to the Voice to Parliament as the ‘Canberra Voice’ with a membership of “city-based academics”, are disappointing.
They are designed to be not only disingenuous but deliberately misleading.
The idea of the Voice is the result of the many consultations across the country, culminating in the coming together of representatives at Uluru.
It has come from First Nations peoples who stated in the Uluru Statement from the Heart that they wanted “substantive constitutional change and structural reform”.
As Thomas Mayo, Kaurareg Aboriginal and Kalkalgal, Erubamle Torres Strait Islander man and Uluru Convention delegate said recently:
“Indigenous peoples collectively chose a path to constitutional recognition through a representative body …”
The Calma-Langton Report — regarded as the basis of the Voice — suggests that the make-up of the Voice is designed to be representative with delegates from each state and territory as well as remote communities and gender parity part of the design.
Comments that the Voice will be a “Canberra Voice” led by academics are plainly wrong and designed to muddy the waters.
The suggestion by the Liberals, that there be symbolic recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait people in the constitution — with a framework of local and regional voices set up by parliamentary legislation — has been rejected by First Nations people.
When interviewed by The Guardian after his resignation from the Liberal front bench, Julian Lessor said: “Uluru changed things. Uluru, with its dialogues and consultation, led to the view that Indigenous people wanted something that was not just symbolic in the constitution.”
Symbolic recognition is not enough.
Local and regional voices are not enough.
Parliamentary legislation to enact this is not enough.
As explained in the ANU’s paper Responding to Common Concerns about an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice there are three good reasons why the Voice needs to be put in the Constitution.
1. The Constitution will provide the Voice with security and stability. The Parliament has established three national Indigenous representative bodies in the past. These bodies empowered Indigenous Australians to speak to government about laws and policies that affected them. In each case, however, the body was abolished after several years. Putting an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Constitution will make it harder for government and Parliament to do away with the Voice.
2. Putting the Voice in the Constitution will make it more likely to succeed. The Voice will not be able to force the Parliament or government to change laws or policies. Its success will rely on political and moral pressure. However, Parliament and the government are more likely to listen to the Voice if it has been endorsed by the Australian people at a referendum. Australians will have made clear that they want their political leaders to take the Voice seriously. Without a referendum, Parliament and government will find it easier to ignore the Voice.
3. Putting the Voice in the Constitution is an Act of Recognition and Respect. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have more than 60,000 years of connection to this continent. Putting the Voice in the Constitution would mean that the Australian people formally recognise that history and status. It is also the form of recognition asked for by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. For over a decade Australians have debated whether and how to recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution. In the Uluru Statement from the Heart, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people said that putting a Voice in the Constitution is the way that they would like to be recognised.
Mr Dutton, in advocating only local and regional voices, is a rejecting a Voice at a national level.
It seems strange that local and regional voices are acceptable, but a national Voice that would advise the Federal Government is not part of the Liberal’s plan.
As former Liberal politician Trent Zimmerman noted last week: “But here’s the rub – how can it be consistent to say that local and regional voices have merit but a voice to national government – where so much of decision-making relevant to Indigenous Australians occurs – does not?”
Two former Chief Justices of the High Court of Australia, Murray Gleeson and Robert French, have both expressed public support for the Voice.
Mr French has noted, the Voice is ‘high return against low risk’, because it will ‘provide a practical opportunity for First Peoples to give informed and coherent and reliable advice to the Parliament and the executive to assist them in law and policy making in one of the most difficult areas of contemporary government’.
Mr Gleeson has expressing public support for the Voice.
“A proposal that the Constitution should provide for Parliament to design, establish, and determine from time to time the make-up and operations of a body to represent Indigenous people, with a specific function of advising about the exercise of that power, hardly seems revolutionary.”
A change in the Australian Constitution is an important step in our evolution as a nation.
It is vital that Australians understand the proposal and understand why Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have called for a Voice to be put in the Constitution.
This is an issue that is beyond party politics.
It is about the Australian people taking up the invitation offered through the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
About making a decision that will determine the nature of our nation.
But our politicians also have a responsibility – a responsibility to ensure they are providing accurate information, to move beyond points scoring, to discuss this issue in a respectful way.
To take a principled stand.
The recent comments on Melbourne radio 3AW by deputy Opposition Leader Sussan Ley raised the spectre of the Voice having a say on national days such as Australia Day and Anzac Day.
In response, host Tony Jones called her comments “scaremongering”.
So, consider the language the politicians are using and the actions they are taking.
Is it designed to stoke fear and division in the electorate?
Is it aimed at a vulnerable part of our population or does it make some members of our population feel unsafe?
Or is it about having respectful conversations, about being open to working together for the future of our nation?
Many could take a lesson from Mr Lessor’s recent carefully considered resignation – a matter of principle – and the way he spoke about the decision he made.
Although this issue will ultimately be decided by the Australian people and not the politicians, we do deserve better from our politicians.
We deserve truthful statements.
And we deserve respectful discussions and not just the grubbiness of highly bipartisan politicking.
For more information about the background to the Voice visit the following sites.
https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement/the-dialogues/
www.unsw.edu.au/news/2023/03/the-voice--what-is-it--where-did-it-come-from--and-what-can-it-achieve
Together, Yes is holding an information session in Shepparton on Tuesday, May 9, from 5pm to 6.30pm (venue to be confirmed).
To register, visit https://events.humanitix.com/together-yes-community-information-session-or-shepparton