The Voice
Surely the views can come together
The referendum question
On Thursday Cabinet agreed on the proposed referendum question, published on the Attorney-General's website. Note the specific reference to the power of Parliament that has been added. It may be an unnecessary reference, but it should calm some nerves.
Referendum question“A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
Do you approve this proposed alteration?”
Constitutional amendmentChapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
These have to be approved by Parliament, where they could still be subject to amendment, but for referendums the Constitution has special provisions in S 128 to break deadlocks, should that be necessary.
Bret Walker – and others – clarify the air
It seems that a sloppily-worded headline in one of the Murdoch media’s papers gave the impression that leading constitutional lawyer Bret Walker branded arguments against the Voice as “racist”.
Walker, who up to now has not commented publicly on the Voice, has responded on this misrepresentation, and on four other issues circulating in public discussions on the Voice.
First is about the tendency among lawyers to think about the most far-out consequence of any legislative or constitutional change, no matter how unlikely those outcomes are and no matter how minor they may be. He described lawyers’ capacity to construct doomsday scenarios as a “professional weakness” of lawyers.
Second, he discusses how we have the misfortune of a constitution in which the scientifically meaningless but politically influential term “race” was used. Those seeking to see proper recognition of indigenous Australians have had to work around this wording.
Third, there is nothing in the Voice proposal that gives indigenous Australians a privileged position. It is a voice without any executive power: it isn’t some privileged “fourth arm of government”. Walker is quoted in the Financial Review:
I think, unpacked, that notion is one of the most depressingly unkind, anti-social views of this whole thing – “don’t let’s have a Voice because it might give blackfellas some moral force”. Really? Really? Is that we think? …
Have you ever heard these people complain about the mining council being able to get an audience with ministers? No.
The same reasoning is in a Conversation contribution from Asmi Wood of ANU: A Voice to Parliament will not give ‘special treatment’ to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Here’s why.
Fourth, Walker sees no reason why the Voice should be excluded from making representations to executive government.
Walker’s reasoning about the Voice and executive government is supported in a more detailed Conversationarticle by Scott Stephenson of the University of Melbourne: No, the Voice isn’t a “radical” change to our Constitution.
Walker’s carefully-argued reasoning is reported in an article in the Financial Review by Michael Pelly: Top silk Bret Walker attacks “doomsday” take on Voice. (The AFR may give you one chance to read its article, but if you get past its paywall on first reading you won’t get a second chance.) He covers the same ground in an 8-minute interview on the ABC Breakfast program: Bret Walker SC says Indigenous Voice should advise executive government.
Echoes of referendums past – the spoilers
There are two recently-published articles about past referendums – one the most successful and the other the least successful in our history of constitutional change.
John Piccini of the Australian Catholic University writes in The Conversation that the 1967 referendum was the most successful in Australia’s history, but what it can tell us about 2023 is complicated. Its success was helped by the absence of an organized “no” campaign, but Piccini notes that the West Australian newspaper’s negative campaign probably explains why that state recorded the weakest “yes” vote.
One difference from now is that there was no indigenous opposition in 1967. That added the passage of the referendum, but because the referendum’s success led many to believe that the question of indigenous rights was settled, there arose among indigenous leaders a fear that constitutional changes could displace concern about the need for more concrete action. A more radical movement arose. In another Conversation article Kelly Menzel of Southern Cross University describes why there are now some indigenous Australians opposed to the Voice: For a lot of First Nations peoples, debates around the Voice to Parliament are not about a simple “yes” or “no”.
Writing in Crikey, Dennis Atkins considers the precedent of the 1988 referendum, when the Hawke government put to the people a number of minor constitutional amendments that would enshrine some basic rights into the constitution. Support was high until Liberal Party strongman Peter Reith entered the fray with a campaign of fake news, lies, and outlandish predictions about the consequences of a “yes” vote. Dutton’s campaign has some similarities with that campaign: it’s not about any ideological opposition: in fact Dutton is reported to be reasonably supportive of the Voice in private meetings. Rather, as with Reith’s campaign, it’s about a spiteful desire to see a Labor government’s political initiative fail.
Atkins believes that the Liberal Party could do far better electorally if it got behind the referendum. That could dispel the impression that the party is a negative and reactionary movement of the far right, setting it up to have a fighting chance in the 2025 election.
He could have mentioned that after its referendum failure in 1988 Labor went on to win two more federal elections.
Closing the gap – patchy performance
The Productivity Commission has provided another regular update to its Closing the Gap Dashboard, with new data in a number of areas.
Health-related indicators – use of health services and birthweight – in 2021-22 continue to move in the wrong direction in most jurisdictions, particularly the Northern Territory. Maybe Covid-19 has been a factor in making services less accessible.
Education indicators – Year 12 completion, university enrolment, VET enrolment – are holding up, but the gap is generally widening.
The proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians aged 25 to 64 who are employed continues to rise, but the gap is wide: 56 percent compared with 78 percent for all other Australians.
Contrary to some impressions (probably based on pockets of severe disadvantage), housing standards are improving and the gap is closing.
There is no progress in reducing suicide rates. The only gloss that can be put on these dismal figures is that there is no discernible gap between the suicide rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and other Australians. A closed gap does not indicate that all is well.