‘Please vote Yes’ is the invitation Australians must answer
“Our people deserve to be recognised in the Constitution,” she said. “We deserve to have a Voice. So please vote yes. I love you all.”
This was one articulation of what this referendum means to the majority of Indigenous Australians – over 80 per cent according to polls – asking to be recognised in the Constitution through an advisory Voice in their affairs. This is the invitation Australians must answer.
Last week, the Kimberley Land Council’s “Referendum Roadshow” held community conversations at Kununurra, Hall’s Creek, Fitzroy Crossing and Derby. They were an energising reminder of both the urgent practical issues facing Indigenous communities, and the fundamental generosity of Australians.
A Yes vote would deliver two key benefits to Australia, practical and emotional.
The practical benefit comes through empowering Indigenous communities to take greater responsibility in their affairs. The constitutional change will guarantee Indigenous peoples a fairer say in laws and policies made about them, so they can develop solutions to their challenges in partnership with governments. This will improve policies and practical outcomes, to help close the gap.
The Voice’s broad scope facilitates discretion and flexibility. It is smart constitutional drafting, cognisant of practical realities.
The constitutional amendment has been guided by practicality. The Voice’s broad discretion to advise on matters relating to Indigenous peoples is sensible for practical reasons.
As Australian constitutional law specialist Professor Anne Twomey has explained, the broad scope keeps the question of what matters the Voice can advise on out of the courts. This was a deliberate choice by experts, who understood that a narrow constitutional scope requires courts to determine what is within the Voice’s remit. A broad constitutional remit makes this a political judgment. That is smart constitutional drafting.
A major practical benefit of the Voice will be its ability to alert the government to adverse or unintended impacts of laws and policies indirectly affecting Indigenous communities. Environmental laws, for example, might not directly target Indigenous people. But Indigenous communities may sensibly want to tell government about their impact on economic development on Indigenous land. The broad scope facilitates discretion and flexibility. Again, it is smart constitutional drafting, cognisant of practical realities.
Practicality will guide the Voice’s work. Representatives will be chosen by Indigenous communities, therefore its advice will be informed by local priorities. Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney this week confirmed that the Voice will prioritise health, education, jobs and housing.
Discussions in the Kimberley reiterated this practical focus. Urgent problems included unhealthy and overpriced food in local shops, contributing to poverty and health crises; youth disengagement and crime; poor educational outcomes; and inadequate housing. Their concerns underscored the absurdity of suggestions that the Voice will be advising on submarines, paper clips and parking tickets.
Generosity and forgiveness
But the discussions were not just practical. They were also emotional. There was warmth and optimism in the contributions of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
Participants discussed the need to right past wrongs, to create a fairer Australia and a better future for their children and grandchildren. Many carried historical wounds, yet they still believed in justice. They expressed love for their fellow Australians and hope for the future. They talked about the need for healing. They urged each other to choose friendship over fear, and unity over division.
The generosity Indigenous Australians have expressed through the Uluru Statement is extraordinary, considering the history.
Indigenous peoples lived on this continent for more than 60,000 years, yet they were excluded from the constitutional conventions that founded the nation. The Constitution of 1901 contained clauses explicitly excluding them. It created a top-down power relationship, putting Indigenous communities in a position of powerlessness.
The Constitution presided over extensive discrimination against Indigenous people. There were laws denying them the vote in some jurisdictions, right up until the 1960s. There were policies withholding Indigenous wages, controlling where they could live and who they could marry, banning their languages from being spoken, and denying their property rights.
The 1967 referendum did not fix this. It gave the federal parliament power to make laws about Indigenous people, but did not guarantee Indigenous communities a fair say in laws and policies made about them. The top-down dynamic continued. Today, governments still make policies in far-off Canberra that misinterpret Indigenous needs and deliver scant practical outcomes. The gap on some indicators is getting wider.
The extraordinary thing is that, despite the history of exclusion and injustice, Indigenous Australians are saying to Australians: “We want in. We want to be recognised in the Australian Constitution. We want to be part of Australia. And all we ask for is an advisory Voice in laws and policies made about us.”
The emotional pay-off of a Yes vote will be just as important as the practical benefit. A Yes vote will be a national commitment to friendship and unity, to dialogue, listening and mutual respect.
I won’t forget those words: “Please vote yes. I love you all.”