Save articles for later

Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.

I will be voting yes in the referendum on the Voice. Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians is long overdue and has been a bipartisan policy objective for many years. It’s time to get this done.

Six years ago, after long consultations, Indigenous Australians resolved that they wanted constitutional recognition to take the form of an entrenched Indigenous advisory council to be called the Voice. Since then, this particular amendment has been the singular focus of the constitutional recognition movement. If this is the form of recognition most Indigenous Australians want, the rest of us need a good reason to say no.

Then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull with Ngunnawal elders at an Indigenous function at Parliament House in February 2017.Credit: Andrew Meares

Back in 2017, when this idea was new and lacked detail, my government did not support it. We had two major concerns. First, we believed it had no chance of success in a referendum. The history of constitutional reform in Australia is a dismal one, and to date any proposal faced with concerted opposition has failed.

Our other major concern was that the Voice would create an institution in the Constitution, the qualification for which was something other than Australian citizenship. For me, as a republican prime minister, this was particularly important. I believe our head of state should be one of us: an Australian citizen, not whichever English aristocrat happens to be the king or queen of the United Kingdom.

I have wrestled long and hard with this issue of constitutional principle, and I have concluded that while the Voice amendment is not entirely consistent with my egalitarian, republican values, nonetheless we are better off supporting it.

The arguments for a Voice are obvious; of course governments and parliaments should consult with and be advised by Indigenous Australians on decisions that affect them. In my own government, I was inspired by Dr Chris Sara’s advice – do things with Indigenous Australians not to Indigenous Australians.

Our Indigenous policy committee of cabinet ensured that all ministers and departments paid attention to Indigenous advancement – not just Indigenous Affairs officials. Every meeting of that committee began with a presentation from and discussion with the co-chairs of the Indigenous Advisory Council, Chris Sara and Andrea Mason. They had regular and direct access to cabinet.

I expect the Voice would operate in a similar way but with one very important difference – it would have greater standing and authority because it was not a council of Indigenous Australians chosen by government but, rather, chosen by Indigenous Australians. Its credibility will depend on the quality of its advice, how many Indigenous Australians participate in that choice and whether Indigenous Australians overall feel the Voice truly represents them.

But while many council members were connected to their communities, there was no structural link that allowed members formally to hear the views of local and regional people, which is the major difference with the current Voice proposal.

The real issue is not whether there should be a Voice, but whether it should be entrenched in the Constitution. This will mean it cannot be abolished by parliament, as was the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.

But it won’t mean government or parliament must follow its advice. It will not have a right of veto, but it will have considerable influence in matters relating to Indigenous Australians. As Prime Minister Anthony Albanese observed recently, it would be a very brave government that ignored its advice on a matter relating to Indigenous affairs.

The scares and diversions whipped up over the Voice have been utterly predictable. Let me deal with a few of them:

Will the Voice give advice on the date of Australia Day? I am sure it will recommend the date be moved. So what? That’s hardly a novel suggestion.

Some have suggested it could offer advice on defence. Well, it might. But why would the views of Indigenous Australians on AUKUS carry more weight than anyone else’s, let alone on the Copyright Act or industrial relations?

The Voice will be most persuasive when it gives advice on matters directly relating to the welfare and advancement of Indigenous Australians. This is what the Indigenous people in local and regional communities will expect it to be dealing with, and this will make it an opportunity for better government, not a threat to it. The Voice is intended to be powerful. It seeks to address what the Uluru Statement from the Heart called the “trauma of powerlessness”. It should be very influential. But its influence will be greatest when it is speaking on matters central to the advancement of Indigenous Australians.

My government’s Indigenous Advisory Council was chosen by the government. The members had no democratic mandate from Indigenous Australians. They did not lack expertise, or goodwill or commitment to help their communities. But they did lack a clear democratic mandate from their own people.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart also called for treaty, but this is not what Australians are being asked to vote on at the referendum. The establishment of a Voice will not deliver a treaty. It may make it more achievable. Treaties are being negotiated at state and territory levels already. They take time, careful and respectful consultation and negotiation. But whatever the Voice may propose, the only people who can commit the Commonwealth of Australia to any treaty are the members of its parliament, elected by all Australians.

All sides of the Voice debate seek to draw lessons from the 1999 Republic referendum. So I will just share one. Do not allow perfect to be the enemy of the good.

The Voice delivers recognition and respect to Indigenous Australians in the manner they have sought. On October 14, together we can bend the arc of history a little further towards justice by voting YES.

Malcolm Turnbull was prime minister of Australia from 2015-2018.

Most Viewed in Politics

From our partners

Source: Read Full Article