This year, Australians have an opportunity to take another huge step towards righting the wrongs of the past. We have an opportunity to recognise their continued connection to the land, and we have the opportunity to listen. Yet in this historic moment, there is a chance we might scuttle this chance as the nation falls victim to fearmongering and misinformation. It is time to educate ourselves and dispel uncertainties that risk allowing this opportunity to slip away. It’s time to vote ‘Yes’.

‘Yes’ for righting past wrongs

The indigenous community of Australian have faced centuries of abuse, discrimination, and genocide for which modern Australians should continue to make amends. This goes back to the arrival of British settlers and the declaration of indigenous land as terra nullius to the massacres that followed in the frontier wars. Recent studies suggest that as many as 14 thousand indigenous Australians were killed in over 400 separate incidents including more than a dozen since federation. The fact that most of these atrocities and reprisals were carried out by police and other government forces demonstrate an obvious reason for the level of mistrust felt by indigenous communities.

However, new evils arose in the implementation of the boards of protection and the justification of removals which gave rise to the stolen generations. In 2019 a staggering 27,200 people aged 50 years and over comprised 1 in 5 (21%) of Indigenous Australians in that age group are survivors of the Stolen Generations. All of which continue to lead untold generations of trauma as indigenous Australians have grown up disconnected from culture and family with personal histories often filled with abuse and violence. As a nation this history is our great shame and must be accepted rather than swept under the carpet with excuses. We the inheritors of this nation need to make amends to those still impacted by these past events. The ‘Yes’ vote does not undo these acts of genocide but through recognition in the constitution it is formal recognition that Australia was not Terra Nullius and therefore stands as a recognition of this first act of disposition.

‘Yes’ for addressing current issues

Indigenous communities continue to face widespread social and economic problems that continue to be difficult to address. The gap between literacy rates at 2.5 years between the literacy rates of non-Indigenous and Indigenous children and life expectancy with a gap of 8.6 years for males and 7.8 years for females highlight significant issues in education and health care. However, these factors contribute to the disparity and over representation of Indigenous Australians receiving finical aid at 5.3% of all income support recipients in December 2020, yet they represent just 2.8% of the Australian population aged 16 and over. More concerning is the 21,523 Indigenous children that were in out-of-home care as of June 30, 2020, or the incarceration rate where indigenous Australians are imprisoned at a rate of 1,935 people per 100,000 compared to 166 people per 100,000 adults. Some of these numbers have shown an alarming increase over the last decade despite the efforts of several governments.  

This means a new approach is needed if we are going to address this serious disparity and the effects of generational trauma, poverty, and discrimination. However, the distrust of authority created by historical abuse makes any innovative approach almost doomed to failure. In this instance the voice to parliament allows indigenous communities an opportunity to contribute to discussions and inform policy that can consider cultural sensitivity and be therefore potentially more successful. In addition, the involvement of the voice in these policy decisions may also help to counter act the distrust of authority which also impacts any policy implemented to address indigenous issues.

‘Yes’ to give voice to a silenced minority

As an exceedingly small minority Indigenous Australians are silenced by the normal democratic process and therefore the voice will provide an opportunity to be heard. Traditionally, within a democracy, the process of voting in State and Federal elections as well as the opportunity to engage through other means of political action would seem sufficient influence for different minority groups. However, Indigenous Australians because of historical abuse as well as the spread of European disease with 50% of the population believed to have been wiped out from smallpox now only represent a maximum of 3.8% of all Australians. Overall, this means that Indigenous Australians represent extraordinarily little voting power and they’re for have a limited ability to directly influence elections. This is an even greater issue when considering that indigenous populations are spread out which means some areas like Victoria only an indigenous population of about 1%. Effectively this means that indigenous issues are unlikely to motivate or influence elections and the first Australians are effectively silenced.

The result is that Indigenous Australians’ there must rely on engaging with the wider Australian population through rising awareness, demonstrations, and other forms of action. In this way the plight of Indigenous Australians has been raised to the national consciousness and over the last 60 years from the 1967 referendum we have made progress, this year’s referendum is in fact further evidence. However, this method of political action is indirect, slow and can easily lead to issues surrounding indigenous rights becoming highjacked or appropriated by other groups which is in part why current agencies are insufficient. Some members of the ‘No’ campaign have even argued that this is occurring with the voice campaign even though it comes from Uluru Statement from the Heart and is therefore a direct message from indigenous leaders. The only way to really avoid this is to provide a means for an important minority to be heard directly and this is effectively what the Voice to parliament hopes to address. In effect it will provide an avenue for indigenous views to be heard by those in government without the potential distortion of the wider population and address the silence enforced by the democratic process.

‘Yes’ to a balanced approach

Despite the importance of Indigenous Australians, our national is a multicultural society with diverse needs and values which is why the rights of a minority still needs to be carefully balanced against others. This means that while it is important to provide our first nations people with a way to heard and their views considered it would be problematic for their recommendations to be binding. Firstly, as this suggests that their views and consideration is more important than others and would therefore risk devaluing the overall values of democracy, equity, and justice that we are attempting to reinforce as part of modern Australia. Secondly, it is also fundamentally problematic to building equality if we too heavily promote one group above others to the extent that they appear to overall the rights and voice of the remaining ethnic, religious, and cultural groups in Australia.

Now many would argue that due to past atrocities the idea for a binding advisory body is adequate compensation and means of reconciliation. However, even if this is the position of some ‘No’ voters; that the voice does not go far enough they need to recognise the impossibility of an Australian Government to prose such a change due to the greater constitutional implications it would have on our democracy. In addition, such a suggestion would seemingly legitimise the fearmongering of the right arm of politics and therefore allow them more effectively to stock cultural division and disharmony. Therefore, the current proposal for a non-binding advisory body is in many ways an acceptable concession as it does not dilute our democracy while provides a voice to indigenous Australians. As some people have said it has great potential for good and zero risk for bad as it is a balancing act of the rights of all Australians with an opportunity to address the needs of our indigenous communities.

‘Yes’ to better representation

The implementation of a Voice to parliament will also take unfair responsibility off individual members of parliament to represent the indigenous community. This does not prevent members in the House or Senate from speaking on indigenous issues based on their experience or the views of their constitutes. Politicians should not ignore their humanity but in the Westminster System members or senators do not represent their own race or gender, but are representatives of all voters in their respective electorates and therefore indigenous members should be free to act in this capacity. Currently the absence of a body that speaks on behalf of first nations people means that individual members are always asked to address indigenous issues regardless of their electorates or politics. Therefore, the voice would allow for these members to more effectively resist these expectations to speak based on race and potentially improve their freedom to represent the electorate in line with democratic principles.

Not only does this currently undermine the democratic system but is equally based on a broad racial stereotype. It is perpetrated on the ideas that all indigenous Australians share a similar viewpoint which based on the 11 current representatives they clearly do not. This is a ridicules assumption as it is unfair to expect that members like Linda Burney from NSW would be able to capture indigenous experience of those living in the Northern Territory. This is in fact one of Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s concerns about the voice and that it would become dominated by those from privileged backgrounds. However, this eventuality has been considered and addressed in the design principles. These state that representatives would be selected by their communities, that members would be chosen from each state, territory, and Torries Staite Islands and at the national level would have a gender balance. All of these elements clear point to defined attempt to provide a voice from different indigenous communities that takes account of a broad experience around the country.

‘Yes’ to legal protection

The mixed implementation of the voice once again attempts to strike a balance which can adapt to a continually changing political landscape. Through the implementation of a referendum and a change to the constitution the existence of the Voice will be enshrined in our founding document providing recognition and mandating the existence of advisory body which may make “make representations to the Parliament”. The inclusion of such an amendment means the Voice is effectively protected from the continual changes of government and different trends in politics as any subsequent change would need to go through the same process and eventually achieve a double majority at a referendum. However, the structure and composition of the Voice can be more easily changed through the normal legislative process. This in turn means that depending on the changing circumstances the Voice can adapt to the needs of the indigenous community and the will of an elected government it can be altered to respond more adequately to circumstance. Even in this any such change proposed in the House of Representatives still must go through the Senate and would likely need crossbench of some level of bipartisan support in most situations. Therefore, this method makes sure the existence of the body is protected but that the details can be altered as needed as the country continues to reconcile our past treatment of Indigenous Australians  

Overall, the Voice to parliament is another great step towards addressing the issues and historical mistreatment of indigenous Australians. It is structured and implemented in a way to balance a desire to address past wrongs with the democratic principles of modern Australia and maintains an ability to adapt to continual progress within our society. It is therefore time we stop giving into fearmongering, that we stop being beholden to extremism in all its forms and we stop the proliferation of hate. It’s time we grew up and recognised the merits of such an approach. It’s time that we take our next step on the path to progress. It’s time to vote ‘Yes’      

---

Read my likely controversial views on the 26th of January