The case against The Voice Brief summary April 2023

 

1.  The case for THE VOICE rests on the oft-repeated assertion that aborigines do not have a say in matters which affect them. This is a blatant, bare-faced lie.   Aborigines have in fact much more say than people of any other ethnic group. They have access to all the avenues for expression available to all other Australians. They are citizens. They have the vote in State, Territory and Commonwealth parliaments. They can and do gain audience individually and in groups with State, Territory and Commonwealth members of parliament, senators and ministers for aboriginal people. No other ethnic group has a minister in every parliament. There are many aborigine controlled health and welfare organisations each with access to heads and officers of the relevant State or Commonwealth department. Together these organisations disburse multi-billions of dollars  of taxpayers money each year, giving them enormous power not available to people of any other ethnic group.  There are about 30 aboriginal land councils, 70 large aboriginal organisations and 2700 aboriginal corporations each representing a constituency with very considerable influence at every level of the administrative hierarchy, right up to and including the Prime Minister.

2. VOICE advocates have not offered a single word by way of argument, discussion, reason or plausible narrative to explain how they imagine THE VOICE might improve the health, welfare or quality of life of any aboriginal person anywhere.

3. VOICE advocates have not offered a single word to explain why Australians who identify as aborigines are supposed to require a separate multi-tier layer of representation in addition to that already available to them and other Australians. The fact that aborigines have historically endured discrimination, displacement and dispossession is a separate matter which in any event cannot be “fixed” by THE VOICE.

4. VOICE advocates have not presented any means by which an independent authority such as the Australian Electoral Commission could determine reliably who is and who is not an aborigine.

5. THE VOICE is divisive by intent. It seeks to enshrine in the Constitution, in perpetuity, a divisive administrative structure. Voice advocates have made it clear that they expect THE VOICE to be followed by “treaty”,  “truth”, “rightful place” and “aboriginal sovereignty which has never been ceded”. This will lead to aboriginal co-governance and/or a separate aboriginal nation or nations. All this is outlined in the Uluru statement from the heart which the Australian Prime Minister has clearly stated he intends to implement in full. This would be a disaster for democracy in Australia and for the people it is supposed to benefit. The people who  live in  separate indigenous “nations” within countries such as USA, Canada and Russia have a lower quality of life than the general population.

Andrew Smallman