Voice to Parliament: the dirty tricks of the no-campaigners

Constitutional recognition through a Voice to Parliament would give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people agency to help inform decisions that impact their lives.

Yet there are those that are against this purely on principle, rather than on any facts or details of the proposed Voice. Why is this so?

First, let’s look at what the Voice would actually achieve.

Due to the lack of a formal framework for asking for their input, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people frequently find that policy is developed without them rather than with them.

Through a Voice and a streamlined policymaking process, constitutional recognition would allow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to advise the Federal Parliament on laws and policies that affect them.

This implies that rather than having politicians and bureaucrats decide what is best for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, their voices would be heard during the legislative process.

The delivery of genuine and useful advice to Parliament and the Government on how laws and policies can best improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people would be made possible by constitutional recognition through a Voice.

We will be able to reduce the gap that currently exists between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who know and understand the best approach to deliver genuine and practical change in their communities, have a say through a Voice. It is significant for this reason.

For constitutional recognition to be achieved, a referendum must first be conducted which would allow all Australians to decide on the change to the Constitution. This, itself, is clearly laid out in the Constitution.

This is where the dirty tricks start.

Peter Dutton and others have come out saying that the Voice can simply be legislated without a referendum. This is true, but it couldn’t be enshrined in the Constitution without the referendum. A later LNP government could simply repeal the legislation. If it is enshrined in the Constitution, it could not be repealed without another referendum.

Then we have the no-campaigners that are claiming there is no detail on the Voice, and that Australians should reject it before any detail is formulated. They don’t want any detail, and want to stir up division amongst the wider community before the Voice even gets off the ground.

There is a working group that is actually working on the details of the Voice before it is presented to Parliament for discussion in May. This is the proper process, as it allows all parliamentarians to discuss what the details are, based on the recommendations of the working group.

The working group, in turn, are using a report that already exists to formulate detail, so the no-campaigners using this argument of “no detail” are being dishonest and disingenuous.

And, of course, the no-campaigners have not released any detail on why we don’t need it.

We also have the no-campaigners who are stating that migrants should also be included in the Voice, again simply to create division. This is to instil fear among the right wing base that this is actually an objective of the Voice, when it has never been discussed by the existing report, the working group or the government.

It is a ridiculous notion that has no merit. One cannot equate the first inhabitants of the land, with their 60,000 year history, to new arrivals. It is insinuating that Indigenous Australians should be treated the same as if they have been granted citizenship, rather than have had it inferred upon them by birth.

And, of course, we have the racists who openly state that it is actually racist to give Indigenous people a Voice in the Constitution, because we are disadvantaging the rest of the population. This, again, is designed to stir up division amongst the far right supporters of the no-campaign, and has no basis in reality or fact.

The Voice would simply be an advisory group. They would not make laws, they would simply make suggestions for the legislators to act on.

Australians are smarter than this. Sure, there will be the racists that will grab on one of more of these “arguments” that the no-campaigners are putting forward, but the arguments are completely without foundation.

We will not know what the Voice will look like until after parliament discusses the working group’s recommendations in May, so we should reject all the nonsense against it until then.

Craig Hill is a Brisbane-based Social Justice Campaigner, Writer, Teacher and Business Consultant. He has campaigned for social justice in Australia, promoted human rights in China and worked with the homeless in Honolulu. He holds a Graduate Certificate in Education and a degree in Management.