What issues will dominate the Australian political agenda in 2023? The usual suspects – inflation, interest rates, house prices, unemployment, and immigration.
But there’s a new issue that may eclipse them all (and resonate in New Zealand), namely a proposed indigenous ‘Voice to Parliament’.
This Voice would be a constitutionally enshrined body that would enable Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders to provide non-binding advice to parliament and the federal government on policy matters affecting them. The Labor government has undertaken to hold a national referendum before the end of 2023 to ask Australians whether they support the creation of such a body.
Interestingly, Australia will face this choice at the same time New Zealand prepares for an election in which the appropriate role and scope of Māori ‘co-governance’ will be on the agenda.
For decades, Australia has been engaged in a process of ‘reconciliation’ aimed at improving relations between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians and at ‘closing the gap’ in life outcomes between the two. In terms of the latter at least, success has been elusive.
The recognition of indigenous Australians in the Australian Constitution has long been seen as an important step on the path to reconciliation. In 2015, the then government and opposition jointly appointed a council to investigate how this step might be achieved.
The result, after extensive consultation between indigenous groups across the country and a ‘First Nations National Constitutional Convention’, was the issue in 2017 of the ‘Uluru Statement from the Heart’. That statement made several proposals including an indigenous Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Constitution.
The Malcolm Turnbull-led Coalition government at the time rejected an indigenous Voice as too “radical” and said that it could not win acceptance in a referendum. However, the idea has been embraced by the Labor Party which, under the leadership of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, is committed to taking the proposal to a national referendum this year.
The government has released a draft of the referendum question to be put to voters – “Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?”
It has also produced an indicative draft of the type of wording that would be added to the Constitution if the referendum is successful. Parliament would be empowered “to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures” of an indigenous “body” that “may make representations” to parliament and the government “on matters relating to” indigenous Australians.
You don’t need to be a constitutional lawyer to recognise how vague this wording is. Who would be on this new body, how would they be chosen, what powers would they have, and what would constitute a matter “relating” to indigenous Australians?
Prominent indigenous academics have undertaken significant work on how the Voice might operate but it is unclear to what extent the government would follow their recommendations.
There are two primary reasons for employing broad drafting. First, the details of the proposed Voice have not yet been finalised. That would be a job for parliament if the referendum was successful. Furthermore, the intention would be that the nature and operation of the Voice might change over time as appropriate.
Secondly, the government wants to avoid complexity in the referendum, and to portray it as a simple choice either for or against advancing race relations in Australia.
This objective is understandable. Complexity was the undoing of the Australia’s unsuccessful referendum on becoming a republic back in 1999.
And referenda are notoriously difficult even without complexity. Since federation in 1901, Australians have voted in referenda on 44 proposed changes. Only eight have achieved the required ‘double majority’ – a national majority of voters in all states and territories plus a majority of voters in a majority of states.
The problem for the government is that opponents of the Voice argue that Australians cannot vote in favour of constitutional change without a much better understanding of what it would involve.
A draft referendum bill is expected in the next few months and that may provide more clarity.
What are the key arguments currently being canvassed for and against the Voice?
Advocates argue that Australia has a deplorable record on indigenous affairs and it’s time to listen to what indigenous Australians want, to give them a say in matters affecting them. The Law Council of Australia says that the Voice “would be a manifestation of the right to self-determination”, a fundamental principle under the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous People.
Many pro-Voice Australians aren’t concerned about the detailed arguments. For them, it’s all about the ‘vibe’; it’s ‘the right thing to do’. And that’s how the government is selling it.
Opponents of the Voice have two main arguments. First, that race-based constitutional distinctions are divisive and anti-democratic; that they undermine the fundamental principle of equality among citizens. Secondly, that the vague wording proposed for the Constitution would open the floodgates to endless litigation and unpredictable judicial activism by unelected judges.
What’s the public’s current thinking?
According to Roy Morgan and AFR/Freshwater polls carried out in December, about 50% of Australians support the Voice, 30% oppose it and 20% are undecided. However, it’s early days and those numbers could shift significantly before the referendum.
That will depend largely on the position taken by the other major political parties. History shows that it’s difficult for a referendum to succeed without bipartisan support.
So far, the only party to come out against the Voice is the Nationals Party, the minor member of the centre-right Coalition that forms the opposition in parliament. The crucial question is whether its much larger partner, the Liberal Party, will take a position and, if so, which one.
For the moment, Peter Dutton, the Liberal Party leader, is content to call for more details and to castigate the government for not providing them.
The danger is that the debate will degenerate into a polarised political slugfest. The initial signs are not good.
Liberal Senator and Aboriginal woman Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is a vociferous opponent of the Voice. She accused Labor Minister for Indigenous Australians and Aboriginal woman Linda Burney of “dripping in Gucci” as she visits remote indigenous communities telling them “what’s good for them”.
Aboriginal academic and activist Noel Pearson responded by saying that Price is trapped in a “tragic redneck celebrity vortex”.
Australia may be in for another dispiriting chapter in the increasingly toxic culture wars rather than an informed and respectful debate about the pros and cons of the referendum issues.
Ross Stitt is a freelance writer with a PhD in political science. He is a New Zealander based in Sydney. His articles are part of our 'Understanding Australia' series.
61 Comments
No good will come from treating people differently based on their race, with divergent rights and responsibilities. It’s called racism, and it is profoundly illiberal.
Noun
ethnostate (plural ethnostates)
- A political unit that is populated by and run in the interest of an ethnic group. quotations
I sort of agree. For almost 200 years Australia treated their indigenous people differently based on their race, with shockingly divergent rights and responsibilities. It was indeed institutional racism of the worst kind. It needs fixing. The Voice is a very mild, very tolerant remedy after generations of struggle.
That was tragically once true David, but institutionally, I doubt it has been for at least 20 years. Probably much longer.
But in the general Aussie population there will be an ever decreasing element that are still racist. In my observation here in NZ, recent attempts to atone for past wrongs actually increases ill-feeling towards other races. The loss of support for Labour over co governance tells that story.
Loss of support has nothing to do with ill-feelings to different races. It is the failure to explain what is being proposed and how it will work. Can any team have two equal bosses? When they disagree who wins?
Debate it openly. OK racists will try to use the debate to try to inflame matters but that will only prove their stupidity and will almost certainly prove the good will of the majority on both sides..
That was tragically once true David, but institutionally, I doubt it has been for at least 20 years. Probably much longer.
In the context of generations being held down, 20 years is really nothing. It is not like you can just stop persecuting, flick a switch, and the marginalised population can compete at the level of the dominant culture.
Anyone with some manner of introspection knows how difficult even personal change is; stopping smoking, losing weight, career progression, etc. Times that by everything, apply it to large portions of a sub-population, and ingrain it over decades or centuries and you should be able to identify just how deep the hole is.
If what you were saying were valid then there is no place for lawyers or therapists.
And it's less about 'fixing' racism as it is identifying theres a potion of society who are disadvantaged, why they were disadvantaged, and what can be done to alleviate that.
"we've stopped treating you like shit so everyone can just get over it" probably won't do it on its own. Although the fact we have a small but fairly vocal and angry minority who can't wrap their heads around this concept doesnt fill me with optimism.
In Britain and the USA there was strong disadvantage to being Jewish, Chinese or Hindu - it extended into my lifetime. Some forms of these disadvantages still exist but on all measures (economic, status, mental health, academic, incarceration) these groups are out performing the average. It didn't take long. So the problem is not in society at large but it is in specific features of the culture. It is impolite and invariably ignorant to lecture any culture about where it is going wrong but we can point to factors that have helped success in our dominant society: education, strong families, etc.
Being treated as a victim by birth does not help.
One's religion isn't really a "choice" in the strictest sense; certainly while one is young it's not a choice, but generally an element of culture or family. My mother (born 1950s) remembers receiving verbal abuse on the street for being Catholic (dressed for school).
I meant ethnicity. Jews were persecuted even if they converted. Hindu was my mistake; any generalisation about India always fails. Specifically I was thinking of Female Muslim Indians living in the USA - they are at the very top of the academic exam results. Contrast with Bengalis in Tower Hamlets when I lived there. 96% of the local schools were Bengali. They were from the Indian subcontinent; ex-British Indian Empire; muslim; half were female - but their school results were not exceptional.
Yeah.
I mean you can do that without targeting race though. And I think this is where the current approach loses the egalitarians.
To preface with a personal philosophical position: It doesn't really matter how person X came to be born into an underprivileged position, what matters is enabling that person to be a fully functioning member of society.
If you clearly articulate the minimum standards that are acceptable in society for income, service access, education etc.... then focus on identifying and fixing these pockets of under-provision you'll solve these problems. You'll also reveal and spend resources on helping others outside of the targeted ethnic group who are also disadvantaged.
The problem is if you target the ethnic group itself, you'll either necessarily not fund people with the same level of disadvantage who simply don't belong to the target group, or you'll fund people within the group that have lower levels of disadvantage than some unfunded members outside the group, or both.
And that's not fair. It also gives the racists a legitimate grievance. It also almost certainly creates more racism and political polarization in disadvantaged groups outside of the target group, who see themselves being left behind as a direct function of their race. Which is the exact problem we're trying to eradicate.
History sucks. Almost all the humans who have ever walked this earth have experienced oppression, discrimination, political marginalisation and/or poverty.
All we can do is acknowledge the wrongs of the past, states can apologize (where appropriate) for past state actions, acknowledge and respect each others differences, and ensure a minimum standard of living for all, with equal moral, poltiical and legal status for all citizens.
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/no-maori-allowed
Is a pretty harrowing watch. IMO it's a huge ask to expect forgiveness.
"If what you were saying were valid then there is no place for lawyers "
- quite wrong . Lawyers usually deal with misdeeds of the living , as defined by the laws in place when the alleged misdeeds have occurred as opposed to moral judgement of things long in the past , based on today's values.
- "but fairly vocal and angry minority " - it is not a small minority - as draining of Labor support shows. Nor is it "angry" - that is just a word your likes use when you run out of rational arguments ; suggests that you are the angry one ..
There seem to be different kinds of marginalised societies. Jews and Chinese have lived in small isolated marginalised communities in many parts of the world - some ruled by Brits, some by French, some by Russians - but the very strong deliberate oppression has been removed and they have bounced back so that Jews and Chinese are successful compared to the 'dominant' population group in most modern countries. With the Romani you have a marginalised group that remains stuck at the bottom everywhere. It shouldn't be surprising to find different cultures having different aims, desires, objectives.
Traditional Māori society had much in common with the English - illiterate people with the biggest activity by far being farming and any spare time spent hunting, fishing and fighting. Nuclear families mainly living in villages near related families. Seems as if it was the British who altered; they adopted literacy from the Scots and became factory workers living in cities.
A Chinese reader may correct me but I believe the merchant class in China was dominated by certain ethnic groups. Certainly Gujrati dominated merchant activities before the British arrived and now they have begun to do the same in Britain itself.
Traditional Australian aboriginal societies were nothing like the English. There must have been dramatic variation from tribe to tribe but as the USA shows the indigenous tribes who adopted western ways were decimated by epidemics so the surviving tribes are the warlike and primitive such as the Apache - that is the least compatible.
20 years? - lol - Rio Tinto blew up and bulldozed a Sacred site in WA 2 years ago and there's a river diversion in NT that is going on now - Aboriginals are still getting stiffed, ignored and just pushed aside by institutions. I mean one Rio Tinto site is worth a hundred Aboriginal sites isn't it? Stuff a few rock drawings - we need minerals. Aboriginal values only get lip service and empty platitudes. The following statements sum up the reality of institutions in Australia.
"But the government has played down calls for a moratorium on any further work already granted under Section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act, saying this would bring a lot of non-mining private sector and government work to a halt."
"The new law ensures mining companies can still damage or destroy Aboriginal sacred sites. In any decision by the minister for Aboriginal affairs regarding potential damage to or destruction of heritage sites, non-Aboriginal “proponents” —namely mining companies and developers – can appeal if the result is not in their favour. Aboriginal groups, however, have no such right of appeal if the minister rules against them."
A racist policy implies intention and those non Māori who propose these policies have fuzzy warm feelings of kindness. However policies that treat races differently lead to problems. The certainty is that for any important matter there will be arguments otherwise it is not important. So for example an argument about siting a sewerage works may be bad enough, with considerable invective used by the nimby, that cannot be avoided but making it into a co-governance issue then risks that invective being intractable and racial.
errrr, you do realise there is already a binding (as close as we have to a) constitutional agreement in place that sets out the respective rights of Maori and pakeha? Australia was declared "Terra Nullis" by European settlors.
Brock will never admit to this but Australia is moving left rapidly - to the point where it is no longer the done thing to be seen celebrating Australia day. Catch a Qantas flight to Australia and you get a welcome to country. Most companies were visibly acknowledging the country they were on and paying thier respects.
I can see an upper house in my lifetime with a composition that reflects and respects the unique rights Maori have under Te Tiriti.
Is this not the point kiwikidnz is trying to make though Te Kooti? The judiciary ushered in this concept of partnership and then reinterpreted what that actually meant for 50 years. We're now at a point where the treaty in practice can hardly be said to be consistent with article 3, since the principles of partnership are being interpreted in such a way that iwi members have greater political rights than anyone else with these unelected political positions popping up.
Creating a system where people have different rights based on their birth is definitely the type of thing that should go to a referendum...
I think co-governance and partnership are legal constructs/misinterpretations by the Courts. They should never have written 'principles' - just stick with the words of the Treaty, it's a pretty simple document to my mind.
In my understanding, the chiefs/signatories agreed the Crown would assume kawanatanga/governance and Māori (iwi and hapū) would retain rangatiratanga/chieftainship/rule over the lands and peoples.
To my knowledge, there was never any mention of Māori ceding or handing over rangatiratanga/rule to the Queen. They understood the Queen to be rangatira of England and saw themselves retaining that position of authority - rangatiratanga - over this land.
So, in 1840 terms, the chiefs would be in charge (the decision-makers, i.e., they would rule) and the British officers (the Queen's representatives in NZ) would write up laws and enforce them accordingly (i.e., they would govern).
That that isn't how it all worked out is not surprising. Within less than a generation, the British outnumbered Māori and the exercise of rangatiratanga was seen as a threat to governance.
The USA has a senate. An upper house that gives 2 seats per state whether Rhode island or Texas. Would our upper house be by iwi? From Google:
"" How many tribes are there in Māori? Where to experience Māori culture. There are over 100 iwi (tribes) in Aotearoa. Each with their own stories to tell. ""
Lots of democratic 'houses' are a farce these days - just look at the US House of Representatives!
Time we started thinking of our indigenous ancestors not simply as a different race to the settlers to come, but rather as the nobility of a very successful society/social organisation that lasted many, many centuries on this often unforgiving island before they welcomed the new immigrants.
No, not at all a joke - you need to read historical accounts of very early contact, for example this artist/explorer;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Earle
Said in 1832;
"They are kind and hospitable to strangers, and are excessively fond of their children. On a journey, it is more usual to see the father carrying his infant than the mother; and all the little offices of a nurse are performed by him with the tenderest care and good humour."
As the Wiki entry explains, he came under the patronage of a the Māori chief, Te Whareumu during his time here. You've got to remember that there was no need for new immigrants to 'conquer' the indigenous people in NZ - that's why a treaty was signed. It wasn't until it was obvious that the treaty was not honoured that the tensions broke out in warfare.
http://www.enzb.auckland.ac.nz/document.php?action=null&wid=295
Yes, I hope we get to an upper house in my lifetime as well. The British House of Lords is an excellent and appropriate example to my mind, as its membership is hereditary and peerage-based. Very aligned to ours being a whakapapa and peerage-based equivalent.
Then, the Māori seats in our House of Representatives would no longer be needed.
I've worked in health and education here. In both places, to be sitting in a meeting room with managers talking about various kpis and the whys of the differences in the ethnicity breakdown was something to see. I couldn't decide if it was arrogance or ignorance. Never was somebody included that could give some actual real life perspective from either maori or pasifika.
So regards a maori health authority being set up, I'm for it. Because whatever has been going on to date is not working.
Three waters on the other hand is a bit of a mess.
Having said that, the example I used to give here in Taranaki regards the maori ward being set up, is that where I live in coastal taranaki, we used to be lumped in with Inglewood for the SW ward. Because of this, our vote at local election time for the 2 available seats were outnumbered approximately 2-1 in favour of Inglewood voters. So to ever get a candidate living and with hands on knowledge of the issues we faced versus over in Inglewood was pretty much impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi_claims_and_settlements
By July 2008, there were 23 settlements of various sizes.[32] In November 2008, Chris Finlayson, a Wellington-based lawyer with experience in Treaty claims with Ngāi Tahu, was appointed Minister for Treaty Negotiations following the National Party victory in the 2008 election. Between 2008 and 2017, Finlayson was credited with helping to resolve 60 Treaty settlements.[33]
Do you vote on the basis of which party has settled most treaty claims?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.