On 14 October Australians will be asked to vote on a referendum to change the Constitution to include an indigenous council – the Voice – which will advise the national government on things that affect indigenous people, specifically. It’s probably the major political issue making Australians red in the face right now.
Those pushing for a YES vote (the YES case) say it’s a way of recognising that indigenous people were here first – 60,000 years worth of first. They say that the Voice will make sure that government listens to indigenous people and consults with them before it does stuff to ‘help’ them. They point to good things that have happened because government has listened. Finally, they say, we’ll be able to close ‘the gap’ – the big difference in life expectancy, health outcomes, educational achievement, etc etc – between indigenous and other Australians.
The NO case don’t believe this (and neither do I). They point out, anyway, that plenty of indigenous people live perfectly ordinary lives on the coastal fringe like everybody else, and that ‘the gap’ mostly affects the relatively few people living in remote or outback communities. Where, admittedly, horrible shit seems to go on.
We’d all agree that good things happen when governments listen. So I’d ask, why don’t they just listen now then? Why change the constitution? Because, they say, once in the constitution the Voice can’t be got rid of. Governments of all persuasions will HAVE to listen. But that’s just the problem, say the NO case. They’ll be sticking their noses into every damn thing! Don’t get your knickers in a twist, say the YES case, it’s just another advisory group. The government already has hundreds – even some on indigenous affairs (I rest my case).
So then, I wonder, why should the government of the day necessarily listen to the Voice any more than it listens to any other advisory group? Sure, it can’t get rid of it, but it can ignore it. Either the Voice is going to be especially influential, or it isn’t – you can’t have it both ways. (If we really want the Voice to be influential, we should give it a couple of big mines and call it BHP. Or a stash of brown paper bribe bags and VIP tickets to major sporting events).
Then – say the NO case – this referendum will enshrine race in the Constitution. Specifically, you’re going to have to be indigenous to be on this Voice thingo. But race is already in the Constitution, say YES – ‘the government shall have power to make laws for any race’. Any race, sure, but this is going to specify a particular race – Aboriginals – and that’s new. Just how Aboriginal you’re going to have to be, to be on the Voice, is an interesting question – increasingly so, since indigenous and non-indigenous people continue to recklessly intermingle to the extent that eventually it’s going to be hard to tell one from the other. Half? A fifth? A tenth?
But anyway, I’m going to vote YES. Because indigenous people got together at Uluru and asked for it, because they think it’ll make a difference (whatever I think), and because us more recent immigrants into Australia owe them a small leap of faith. We took their country and it really is a pretty special one. We’re not going to give it back, we’re not going to pay rent, we’re not going to ‘cede’ sovereignty. Indigenous people lost that battle two hundred and fifty years ago and to pretend they didn’t is almost as meaningless as trying to kick out the Norman conquest. That match is over.
But voting YES to the Voice is the least I feel we can do, so I will.
butimbeautiful 
How long are you guys around as an official country … with a constitution? 247 years, ffs!!! And still haven’t figured out the most basic things. Lemme help you get up to speed:
1) Biologically there are no races in humanity. Not enough deciding differences in between various ethnologies to constítute races.
2) Reasonable constitutions – for example the German, based on the internationally renowned Belgium blueprint – have this as the first paragraph:
Before the law all humans are equal.
3) That’s it! Easy as that. Of course there are countless laws that go into more detail, particularly in the male vs female stuff. But in general we have all we need to know. All fucking hoomanz are fucking equal! No matter if their skin is black, white, coloured or Scottish plaid.
4) The German constitution is legally effective for all Germans/citizens of Germany. No further questions, your honour.
5) Don’t you have anything of the same meaning in your constitution? And please don’t try to wiggle out with “it’s complicated” or sumsuch nonsense. We’ve been through it. That excuse is off the table. No such thing as Afro-Americans, Irish, Spics or Italo-Americans. Nothing complicated if you are all just Americans.
… FUUUUK! Just noticing you wrote about Ozziland, not ‘murica. But basically it’s the fuxxing same. You’re all Ozzies, no matter if your ancestors are there since the jurassic age or arrived on a sailboat 200 years ago.
Pheew. 😉
Just to put you in the picture, Orca, indigenous peoples in The Land of Oz were not recognised as human beings until 1972. The 1969 referendum stated more or less exactly what you are suggesting. Yet clearly all humans are not equal.
The proposed amendment to our constitution is shorter than your response to this post. It’s very simple and quite innocuous. Contrary to the misinformation being spread it does not provide indigenous people’s with any rights greater than the rest of us. It simply says that government is obliged to listen to input relating to their unique circumstances.
Well said, Richmond. Frankly I think the amendment is fairly innocuous too, which is why I’ll vote yes. It’ll be great if it makes a difference, harmless if it doesn’t, and at worst it’ll provide some recognition that yeah, Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders were here first. Like I said though, I have doubts.
Ok Orca. I don’t know where you’re from, but let’s say Germany, for argument’s sake. If Germany was invaded and conquered right now by, I dunno, Aussies, native Germans would probably feel annoyed for a bit, having us swaggering around making rules for them and insisting that they behave like proper Aussies. Which is basically what the British did to the Aussie indigenous. 250 years later, maybe not so much, but you have to take into account that unlike Germany, which has been the subject of invasion and immigration and people-flux for thousands of years, Australian indigenous people were isolated here for 60,000 years. So the culture shock was that much bigger, the discriminatory treatment by whites (as Richmond said) only ended officially in 1967, and a lot of indigenous people still feel like second class citizens. I’m all for shooting your mouth off when you don’t know what you’re talking about – I do it all the time – but it’s not quite as simple as ‘we’re all equal’.
Perhaps this helps …. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-03/voice-referendum-vote-on-92-words-stay-out-of-weeds/102800166
I will vote YES too!!!
I would probably end up voting “yes” on this, but with misgivings. It sounds mostly like a cosmetic change involving some valuable sinecures for a chosen few. That’s neither catastrophically bad nor outstandingly good. It can have some good results, and some bad ones. The good result is that there will be a premium on listening to indigenous voices. The bad result is that gradually, “indigenous voices” will be homogenized to fit The Voice, and the complexity of many issues will become the least common denominator of what can be expressed by The Voice. The two results may cancel each other out, leaving neither a net loss or a net gain. But to break even after such a long shouting match and inflation of expectations is a problem of its own.
Irfan, I am inclined to agree with you in that it appears to be primarily symbolic. If anything I would prefer that some degree of risk was connected to it from a settlers point of view – in that way we would be expressing not only acknowledgment but also trust.
Nonetheless I see it as a step forward, even if only a small one.
I’m inclined to agree too, Irfan. I think there is a degree of risk for us settlers. The Voice will be a very high profile advisory group and so disagreeing with its advice isn’t going to be as easy as disagreeing with the Advisory Committee on Oyster Management or whatever. The government of the day will have to justify itself when and if it doesn’t follow the Voices advice. I foresee controversy…but there you go. Leap of faith. And maybe things will improve markedly for indigenous people…that would be a happy outcome.
This is interesting and I think a step forward at addressing the injustice done to indigenous peoples. Good for you!
I just saw that the Voice was defeated. Sad!
Yes it is. We’re a cautious nation, not to say tight arsed. And when it comes down to it, only 3 percent indigenous, so easy for the white majority to vote with their gut instinct which is, if it ain’t broke for me, don’t fix it.
I wouldn’t say Australia is a cautious nation. If anything, it is dominated by ignorant and greedy landowners who advocate the elimination of the indigenous peoples.