The Voice: What is it and why is it controversial?
Welcome to Rotation cubed’s first article coinciding with a significant time in Australian history - the week of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament Referendum.
By Jess Watson
The proposal to amend the Australian constitution to include an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament (Voice) has been in the media spotlight for some time. With the referendum determining the fate of the Voice this week, now is a good time for a refresher before you vote on 14 October.
Recap
The Voice to Parliament, or simply the Voice, is the name of a proposed Indigenous Australian advisory body which would advise parliament on matters concerning Australia’s First Nations peoples
The advisory body’s purpose is to advise more effective policies surrounding Indigenous affairs and symbolically acknowledge Indigenous Australians longstanding presence in and relationship to Australia
The advisory body would be elected by Indigenous peoples and aims to be inclusive of different Indigenous groups and nations
The Voice is not designed to affect or advise on decisions unrelated to Indigenous affairs
The Voice would not have the power to implement or change any decisions made by parliament and would not have the power to allocate government funding
What is the purpose of the Voice?
Currently, Indigenous Australians are well represented in government, with 4.8% of parliament being Indigenous in comparison to 3.3% of Australia’s total population. The role of these politicians is to represent the interests of the entire population, not only Aboriginal Australians. The Voice on the other hand, is intended to address issues specific to Indigenous Australians.
In 1835, colonial settlers officially titled Australia ‘Terra Nullius’ (a Latin word meaning ‘no body’s land’ or ‘uninhabited land’), which justified its violent occupation. Between the years 1860 to 1930 there were 19 genocidal massacres of Indigenous Australians recorded. This history of dispossession has caused intergenerational trauma and resulted in a significant socio-economic gap. Indigenous Australians have less wealth, a lower life expectancy, differential access to healthcare and education and a higher incarceration (imprisonment) rate than non-Indigenous Australians.
In the past, efforts to address these issues have often excluded Indigenous Australians and have been short-term. There is little evidence to support the long-term benefits of these strategies. For example, the government's Closing the Gap targets have not been met and the Northern Territory intervention had a negative impact on the overall wellbeing of Aboriginal people in the area. Currently, the staff of the government funded Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies are paid the second lowest wages in the public service, despite doing similar work to other agencies in fields of social and historical research.
Initiatives which have involved Indigenous Australians in decision-making processes, have had some prior success. For example, The Indigenous Land Corporation succeeded in creating a Native Title Act to protect areas of land which are significant to Indigenous peoples. The joint management of the Uluru-Kaka Tjuta national park by the Anangu people and the Australian government has succeeded in protecting that environment since 1985. Aside from the Native Title Act, initiatives have been small-scale and localised.
The Voice would federalise (commonwealth) these efforts, potentially increasing their effectiveness on a larger scale. It would provide Indigenous Australians with a space in parliament. The inclusion of the Voice in the Constitution protects it long term, meaning that it cannot be abolished with a wave of the hand. It is also a symbolic recognition of past and present Indigenous claims to sovereignty in Australia.
Why is the Voice controversial within the Indigenous community?
While controversy surrounding the Voice has frequently appeared in the media, the Australian Reconciliation Barometre Poll (survey) has shown that over 90% of Indigenous Australians support the Voice. The Voice proposal itself was founded on the Uluru Statement of the Heart which was written in collaboration with over 250 Indigenous Australians and expressed desire for a constitutionally enshrined voice to increase Indigenous participation in parliament.
Some of the reasons Indigenous Australians want a Voice include:
To create a pathway for Indigenous people to speak and be heard in parliament and for Indigenous people to represent themselves in the process of making of decisions which affect them (Ruth Dunn, Indigenous elder)
The Voice is “a simple change but profound”, a practical inclusion of Indigenous perspectives in parliament which has been considered for longer than any other policy (Noel Pearson, Indigenous activist and academic)
As one step closer towards “unifying Australia” (Linda Burney of the Labor Party)
The controversy within the Indigenous community shown in the media largely stems from a few prominent Indigenous Australian figures who do not support the Voice for a number of reasons, including:
The Voice would be “a dividing in the heart of our nation” and “another federal-funded bureaucracy” which fails to deliver outcomes (Jacinta Nampijinpa of the Liberal Party)
The Voice will be ineffective in its goals as there is no guarantee that the government will properly consider or act upon the advice which it provide
The Voice has too little power in actual policy implementation and a Treaty, possibly like that of New Zealand’s, should come before a Voice.
The Constitution is a “colonial mechanism” and the Voice is therefore a continuing example of colonial constructs (Lidia Thorpe, Independent)
Whatever the outcome, the Voice proposal has rekindled discussions surrounding the place of Indigenous voices in Australian politics and will be significant in determining the future of Indigenous political representation and participation.
Glossary:
Referendum: All voters in Australia vote “yes” or “no” to a political question given to them by the parliament
Intergenerational Trauma: The passing on of traumatic experiences, such as violence, oppression, or cultural loss, from one generation to the next
Treaty: A formal agreement between countries or groups, typically outlining rights, rules, and relationships.
Closing the gap: Refers to specific goals and indicators set by the Australian government to reduce the gap in health, education, employment, and other areas between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
Socio-economic gap: Refers to the differences in income, wealth, education, employment, and other indicators between different groups in society.
Great article! A very clear summary of how the Voice affects Australians