Author Andrew
Smallman
Preamble: I am the sole author of this attempt to summarise and discuss the pros and cons of the debate. I have listened to and read arguments from both sides over a five year period and in the process reviewed hundreds of statements for and against the proposal.
My conclusion is that THE VOICE idea has no demonstrated merit. It is a travesty of representative democracy. It is high on emotion but absent of reason. If voted
into the Constitution it would cause immense damage to democratic government in
Australia. No case has been made that it would improve the quality of life
of any aboriginal person.
Arguments for THE VOICE
1. Aborigines currently have no say in laws,
policies and other matters which affect them. THE VOICE will give them that
say.
2. Aborigines must be recognised in the Constitution. THE
VOICE is the means chosen by aboriginal advocates to achieve that recognition.
3. THE VOICE will foster reconciliation
between aborigines and not-aborigines.
4. THE VOICE will deliver justice for
aborigines.
5. Support for THE VOICE is just good manners.
6. Saying yes to THE VOICE will give you a clean
heart, clean spirit and potentially clean hands.
7. Say yes to the VOICE and you will be liberated from
guilt, shame and embarrassment.
8. Including THE VOICE in the Constitution will impress
other countries.
9. THE VOICE will fix a history of aboriginal
exclusion.
10. THE VOICE comes as part of a package of initiatives
outlined in the ULURU Statement from the Heart which the Albanese government
has committed to implement. These are Voice, Treaty, Truth, Rightful
Place and Aboriginal Sovereignty which has never been ceded
and co-exists with sovereignty of the Crown.
Arguments against THE VOICE
Rebuttal of arguments for THE VOICE:
1. The claim that aborigines have no say in matters which
affect them is a great big bare-faced lie. Aborigines have more say in laws and
other matters affecting them than any other ethno-cultural group in Australia.
Aborigines have the vote in State, Territory and Commonwealth Parliaments. They
have a dedicated Minister in each State and the Commonwealth. They can and do
form lobby groups to press for anything they wish. They have enormous influence
in decisions of State and Commonwealth Governments through aboriginal
organisations which deliver aboriginal welfare programmes with multi-billion
dollar budgets of taxpayers money.
2. a. The Constitution has never “recognised” any particular
group of people. No case has been made to explain why the Constitution should
start “recognising” any ethnic group in 2023. Aboriginal activists complain
that aborigines are not mentioned in the Constitution. Neither is any other
ethnic group.
2.b. The notion that THE VOICE constitutes some kind of
recognition is to grossly distort any reasonable notion of the meaning of recognition.
3. Reconciliation is not some grand national project. It is
the sum total of all the everyday interactions between individuals and families
of all the ethnic groups which make up multicultural Australia. THE VOICE is
part of an ongoing separationist agenda which can only make reconciliation more
difficult than it would otherwise be.
4. Aborigines feel distressed about past mistreatment,
displacement and dispossession of their forbears. It is understandable that
they seek some kind of justice for this. But it is not possible to implement
our usual notions of justice when neither the perpetrators nor their victims
are available. We cannot impose responsibility for past misdeeds on the
descendants of the perpetrators even if we could identify who these might be.
This is frustrating but the best we can do is make sure we do not repeat past
mistakes. We function best as a nation when we work together to make Australia
a place which welcomes and supports all people of all ethnic groups.
5. The prime Minister’s assertion that support for THE VOICE
is just good manners might go down in history as the silliest reason for
changing the Constitution that has ever been proposed. It is really quite alarming that the Prime
Minister should offer such a flippant contribution to the very serious matters
under consideration.
6. This is senator Patrick Dodson’s contribution. The notion
that we are unclean until we wash away our sins by saying yes to THE VOICE is
astoundingly arrogant and disrespectful to those Australians who are not in
favour of THE VOICE proposal.
7. This one is also from Senator Dodson. He wants
Australians to believe that they will suffer from guilt, shame and
embarrassment if they do not say yes to THE VOICE. This is an expression of the
notion of original sin which permeates aboriginal activist sentiment. In effect
all not-aborigines are deemed to be born in sin until they repent by undertaking
whatever penance is required of them. This position has no justification in
ethics or jurisprudence. It is manipulative and mischievous.
8. Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has put the view that
other nations will think badly of us if we fail to say yes to THE VOICE. This is yet another attempt to make
unbelievers feel guilty if they say no. THE VOICE proposal is an entirely
domestic matter. It has nothing to do
with Australia’s strategic or trading relationship with other countries.
9. The notion that THE VOICE can “fix” historical exclusion
and disadvantage is fanciful. History is done. We can’t “fix” it. We can regret
harms done and bad policies implemented. We can work together to find a better
way forward which gives all Australians an opportunity to gain a good
education, find paid work and stable housing.
10. If we say yes to THE VOICE we say yes to the whole
package. The Uluru statement specifically states that aboriginal sovereignty is
not ceded but exists alongside sovereignty of the Crown. This is the real
agenda of THE VOICE campaign. Aboriginal activists want to establish either
co-governance as some kind of fourth arm of government (in addition to
legislature, administration and judiciary) or a separate aboriginal nation or
nations. This is not a secret agenda. It is right there in the Uluru statement.
Do most Australians or even most aborigines want this ?
Further arguments against:
11. VOICE proponents have not put forward any argument, case
study, discussion or plausible narrative to show that THE VOICE could improve
the health, welfare or quality of life of any aboriginal person anywhere.
12. VOICE proponents have not put forward any means by which
the Australian Electoral Commission could independently confirm whether any
person is or is not an aborigine.
13. VOICE proponents have not made any attempt to explain
why people who identify as aborigines are thought to require a specially
dedicated multi-tier bureaucracy to represent them when no other person of any
other ethnic group requires such a thing.
14. Some VOICE proponents insist that the interaction
between THE VOICE and the government of the day will not be justiciable and
that the form of words to be written into the Constitution will prevent
references to the High Court. This is wishful thinking just like the entire
VOICE project is wishful thinking. Other
VOICE proponents such as Professor Marcia Langton have stated on the public
record that they expect and welcome references to the High Court. They cannot have it both ways.
15. As proposed THE VOICE is a type of affirmative action programme. It seeks to give an extra boost to a group of disadvantaged people for the purpose of helping them overcome the disadvantage and gain equality with the mainstream as to health, welfare and quality of life.
One essential feature of affirmative action plans is that once their objective has been reached the plan is no longer required and should be withdrawn. If THE VOICE actually does what its proponents say it is supposed to do namely "close the gap" then Bravo! Job well done!....and....thank you very much we no longer need that particular affirmative action programme.
Whether THE VOICE does or does not achieve its stated objective there is absolutely no reason to enshrine it in the Constitution.
End
