Australian Indigenous Voice Referendum
stonespring
Shipmate
in Epiphanies
I was just in Oz for two weeks visiting family and I was sad to see that the leader of the opposition has made the referendum on a constitutional amendment to acknowledge indigenous people in the constitution and create an (advisory, not binding on legislation or policy) indigenous voice to parliament and executive government a partisan issue. The conservative members of my
in-law family were already parroting the opposition leader’s dog-whistle talking points (Labor is refusing to tell us the full scope of the proposed Voice’s powers, what indigenous people “really want” is an end to crime and child molestation in their communities) rather than having a nuanced discussion.
What do Aussie shipmates think about the tenor of the discussions about the Voice that they see going on around them in public and in private, and do you think the referendum will pass? (It needs a nationwide majority and a majority in a majority of states to pass - no easy task.)
in-law family were already parroting the opposition leader’s dog-whistle talking points (Labor is refusing to tell us the full scope of the proposed Voice’s powers, what indigenous people “really want” is an end to crime and child molestation in their communities) rather than having a nuanced discussion.
What do Aussie shipmates think about the tenor of the discussions about the Voice that they see going on around them in public and in private, and do you think the referendum will pass? (It needs a nationwide majority and a majority in a majority of states to pass - no easy task.)
Comments
So far, we do not know whether we will vote in favour or not. We shan't be making our decision until we've heard much more debate. The proposed amendment seems far from clear, vague to the point of lacking meaning. What we shall be looking for are comments from members of the indigenous community. If that community wants the amendment, we'll vote for it. If that community is split, I don't know what we'll do - probably vote against it.
The coverage I have read about the Uluru Statement from the Heart that inspired the referendum seems to indicate that it has broad support from the indigenous communities (although these communities are very diverse). I’m not sure how representative the indigenous figures that have aligned with the No campaign are of the consensus in the communities they come from. I think there is a concern among indigenous groups that all representative advisory bodies that have existed in the past have been created by government action or by legislation and were easily gotten rid of when there was a change in government, thus necessitating a constitutional amendment in order to create a permanent Voice.
The Greens originally voiced some skepticism because the broader issue of there being no treaty with indigenous groups remains unaddressed (although I think they now are supporting the referendum?) but the Uluru Statement, which again as far as I understand was the result of broad consultation across indigenous communities, specifically endorsed a sequence of Voice, Treaty, and then Truthtelling (of the History of Dispossession). You may think that the order should be reversed, but this is the order of priorities that was agreed to through that consultative process.
I guess the question is, to play devil’s advocate with my previous post, even taking the Uluru Statement from the Heart into account, how does one know what the the first People Want? Is a polling majority of people who identify as indigenous enough? How much support is needed across the many different indigenous communities with their different languages, histories, and cultures?
The coverage that I have read about the referendum has been from the ABC and the Guardian Australia, which given the progressive bent of their readership might not be giving me a full picture of the debate on the ground in Australia. Is there any other coverage you would recommend?
As to your first paragraph, we're relying on what we see and hear from those communities.
There are different objections to the Voice from the right, and from some constitutional lawyers. I'm happy enough with Dutton's opposition as I hope that the Federal Liberals remain a divided, feuding rabble for about 15 years.
I support the Voice because indigenous leaders I support are backing it, chief among them Noel Pearson, but also Ken Wyatt. That there is divison in Aboriginal circles is a good thing. It's to be expected and celebtated.
The Voice referendum is coming up (14 October 2023), and I honestly can't tell what is going to happen. I have been firmly in the "Yes" camp since the current government was elected and announced the referendum was happening. The federal opposition has elected to oppose the Voice, along with the powerful media voices controlled by the Murdochs (with some surprising exceptions). It certainly has brought out the worst in people, not unlike the lead up to the last plebiscite held down here, on marriage equality in 2017. If I am being generous, I could surmise that is mainly about fear. Certainly there are one or two prominent people I respect who are advocating for 'No,' if I understand it because they feel unable to trust the government (led by either party) to honour any commitments made, or to prioritise Aboriginal welfare. I'm not sanguine about the Yes vote getting up, but I hope very much it does. A shy hope, as Manning Clark might have put it.
As stated by stonespring, the Liberal arguments are probably just dog-whistles for anti-indigenous sentiment, but I am curious as to what they are claiming the hidden "full scope" of the Voice will be. Are they alleging it will somehow morph into a parallel government with actual policy-making powers? And if so, how exactly do they claim that will happen?
From what I can tell from this thread and wikipedia, the Voice would basically be just a glorified think-tank, which I'm guessing is one of the reasons some indigenous people oppose it, given the absence of a treaty with indigenous groups.
Have listened to Indigenous colleagues and patients, also to those involved in health/ education in rural/remote Oz, to friends who have Aboriginal grandchildren and have decided yes.
It is 56 years since Australian Aborginals were recognised as citizens.
Enough is enough.
The last part is important. I think the Voice is understood as a first step by some in mob toward a treaty. Others, like perhaps Noel Pearson, are talking about it as a final step, which seems odd to me - there will still be massive Indigenous disadvantage the day after the referendum, no matter what the outcome is.
The beauty of putting this in the constitution is that subsequent governments will not simply be able to repeal it, or at least not without another referendum.
Re the think tank analogy - I think of the body advocated in the Statement from the Heart more in terms of the lobby groups which already play this function for enormous corporate interests, like iron ore and fossil fuels. Unlike those, the Voice body will not (one hopes) be party to more or less bribing politicians to pursue private interests rather than the good of the country. Also unlike those, this body will have constitutional legitimacy. So - not the same as those lobbies, but a similar category of thing. But maybe that is unhelpful.
Thanks for clarifying, Gee, I don't follow you around on the ship and so had no idea what you do on many other posts.
(As an aside - The actual day of voting is the same as the General election here. )
Hi! Sorry to take so long to respond to this. You've already read this I think, but here is the proposed amendment to the Australian Constitution (from voice.gov.au):
My husband's family's rhetoric at the time - this was April and I have not been in Australia since and have not discussed the matter further with his family - was that any change to the constitution was potentially opening Pandora's box, that the wording of the amendment about the voice's role is vague and could be interpreted expansively, and generally that this was a waste of time and money. The speculation about the Voice's potential powers was fleshed out in more detail in some of the early questions put by the Opposition to the PM and ministers in Parliament at the time (this was long before the referendum date had been set). And social media mis- and dis-information was just starting to kick off. I've heard some of the tenor of the debate, especially on social media, has got worse since then.
None of my husband's family are experts in law or politics, and I don't know that much about the Australian constitution or legal system either. The discussion of the merits of the Voice was brief (none of them like to discuss Australian politics much, and like quite a few people I have met in various countries are much more comfortable discussing American politics). The conversation pretty soon stopped being serious - at least one member of my husband's family loves to hijack any serious discussion with her jokes.
It's sad that the polling for the Yes campaign looks so bad. The ABC analysts I've been listening to have been saying that the voters who are persuadable are concentrated in the outer suburbs. Was the Yes campaign too slow in reaching out to them, or was its original media strategy unwise?
A technical note which has not been the subject of much attention is the method of amendment, with the requirement that any constitutional amendment needs to achieve the so-called double majority - that is a majority overall of all voters, and also a majority of voters in a majority of States. Many past proposals for amendments have failed to deliver both these majorities.
It’ll be pushing 100% in these parts where we are so many leftie gay greenie woke wikkid libruls however among those influenced by Fox news, the Murdoch press and other such malignant organs it could be another matter.
I understand that up the road at St Frank’s there is not only a polling station with snags but also a delayed blessing of local animals by one of the friars👍
We voted at a nearby Catholic school which says it's for children with disabilities. Not the usual people hanging around selling lamingtons, tea and coffee, etc. I hope that the absence does not make the vote informal. Strangely, it's only a couple of hundred metres from another booth - once the Methodist hall but on the great division of property it went to the Presbyterians (who lost a very fine building nearby in the merger re-arrangements).
Now back to the referendum before a Host comes by with a big stick….
I then found out I had gone to a booth in the wrong electorate, as I am on the border of two electorates. While finding this out an older man collapsed nearby. I told the staff I had first aid training, but another first aider volunteered to help, which was better as I am pretty small and the man who collapsed was a quite large. I kept an eye out to see if they needed extra assistance and asked about a defib, but I don't think there was one. Thankfully the man regained consciousness quickly and the ambulance didn't take long to arrive.
After filling out a form and voting at the table for people from other electorates I headed out to buy a sausage, only to end up near the No guy again. He started cracking jokes about how the man being taken away in an ambulance was the first casualty of the election and the stress must have been too much for him. All of us who witnessed what happened, including children, were pretty shaken up so I bluntly told him the man could have died and it was nothing to make jokes about.
I'm not too optimistic about the Yes vote getting up, based on polling and the difficulty of passing referendums. I do know some people who are voting No for reasonable reasons, but people like the man at the polling booth who think allowing Indigenous Australians more of a voice in matters that affect them is the same as the evil policies and actions of the Nazis really upset me and there are too many of them in Australia
Very disappointed.
Been trying to catch up.
Someone mentioned some No voters making that choice for 'good reasons'.
What were the arguments against?
Surely you mean Torres Strait rather than Polynesian islanders?
TSI are largely unknown and disregarded not only overseas but also in central and western parts of the continent.
They are a distinct entity and have their own flag: Google is your friend.
I think I said some people voted No for reasonable reasons. Some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people didn't think the Voice went far enough and voted no while pushing for a full Treaty.
A lot of people voted No because the referendum only allows changes to the constitution in order to create a Voice and therefore the government couldn't provide a full description of exactly how things would work. Some of these people fell for misinformation that voting Yes would allow changes that would make their lives worse or give Indigenous Australians special rights that other Australians don't have, but many just didn't understand what it all meant and didn't feel comfortable voting for something they didn't know whether they agreed with or not.
There were also a minority of Indigenous people voting No because they didn't feel Aboriginal Land Councils were doing enough in their local areas and thought the Voice committee would be more of the same and run by 'elites'. These views were then shared to non-Indigenous people who felt excused to vote No as only 'elite' Indigenous people would benefit (more misinformation in that case, but based on a kernel of truth).
But I'm not surprised a thenational outcome, given theamount of lies told by "no" crowd, enthusiastically led by PC Dutton, leader of the parliamentary Opposition.
The "No" camp was divided into the Conservative No camp and the Progressive No camp.
The Conservative No argument argued that no one racial or ethnic group should be given special rights in the constitution that other groups do not have, and that creating the Voice would divide Australians against each other by race.
The Progressive No argument was that the voice, a powerless advisory body, was only scraps from the table when what was needed instead was a treaty (unlike NZ, Canada, and the US, Australia and the British before it never made a treaty with Indigenous Australians. The British just declared Australia terra nullius, or "nobody's land", and took it). These treaties in other countries meant little (except in NZ) until the last century when Indigenous rights campaigners won victories in court recognizing them. Australia has had legal cases that have granted limited land rights to Indigenous groups, but in the absence of any treaty, the government's policy towards indigenous people, even after the horrible abuses of the past such as the stolen generations have ended, has been inconsistent, subject to political whims, and often guided by the paternalism and moral panic of the non-indigenous majority rather than the actual needs and concerns of indigenous people themselves.
The Progressive No camp also argued that approving the voice might signal that indigenous Australians were allowing themselves to be constitutionally recognized in a way that did not acknowledge that indigenous people's sovereignty ever existed, as a treaty would, and therefore was a trojan horse. However, polls from early in the referendum campaign showed overwhelming support from indigenous Australians for the referendum. That support might have slipped over the course of the campaign, but there never was any indication that the Progressive No camp ever represented a majority of Indigenous Australians.
One thing I've learned is that there is nothing in the Australian constitution that prevents the government from making something illegal for one race only, such as when the Howard Government banned alcohol and pornography in indigenous communities in the Northern Territory in 2007 (among a host of other restrictions, including quarantining welfare payments and acquiring indigenous land) in response to a child sexual abuse scandal in indigenous communities. Racial discrimination laws may prevent this, but those laws have exceptions, which the Howard Government employed, and nothing in the constitution stopped them from doing so. The Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton, who actively campaigned against the referendum (from the conservative side of course), from early on said that what Indigenous communities "really want" (based on the carefully selected indigenous people who would stand next to him at press conferences) is a crack down on crime and sexual and other abuse of children, so politicians like him haven't changed much. An Australian with a better understanding of your legal system can probably better explain this and correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, Warren Mundine was an interesting figure in the No Campaign. There were indigenous Australians in both the Conservative No and Progressive No campaign, and Mundine often sounded like a Conservative No campaigner, except for when he said that, assuming Australia would and should vote No, the next day Australians would begin the hard work such as a treaty or changing the date Australia Day (which currently is date of the arrival of the First Fleet, convicts included, to establish the first British settlement in Australia, so Indigenous Australians associate it with colonization and displacement). Needless to say, Peter Dutton other Conservative No campaigners, who are against a Treaty and many of whom had been scaremongering about how a Voice would lead to a Treaty that would take away the land of non-indigenous Australians, were none too enthused about those comments.
Just checked: I live on the Wentworth/ Sydney boundary and the yes vote was similar about 65%. Sydney has some considerable pockets of poverty despite gentrification and there is quite an Aboriginal presence in Woolloomooloo public housing.
Parramatta ( on main western line) had a yes vote of 45%.
Further to this: just read that the silvertail electorate of Kooyong ( once a blue -ribbon Liberal bastion in Melbourne) returned a Yes vote of 72%.
Who’d have thunk it 20 years ago?
Admittedly I do have a university degree plus post grad teaching and majored in history and anthropology so am fairly well educated about Australian history.
The polling booth I voted in also voted Yes by about 200 votes, so too bad to the not nice No guy handing out cards there. That electorate is in the balance though, an almost 50/50 vote. I only saw Yes campaigners in Kooyong and Yes signs in people's front yards. Kooyong tends to be conservative economically, but has become socially progressive in recent years.
Sounds complicated.
I think I can work out what is meant by the 'trainline' but could someone on the ground expand on that for me, please?
Does that help?
"but a little bit further from the station than we do." is what I meant.