Set to dominate the media these next six months is the topic of whether Indigenous people should be mentioned in the Australian Constitution, and if so, how.
The Australian Constitution currently covers decisions made by the Parliament (Senate, House of Representatives, Scope of Powers) in Chapter One and the Executive Government (Governor General, Cabinet) in Chapter Two. Indigenous people such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have no formal input into the decision-making process, partly because of the history of colonists not recognising Australia as being owned by anybody (terra nullius) in the eighteenth century.
What is being proposed and put out to referendum later this year is the introduction of an extra chapter to Australia’s Constitution that recognises the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people as the ‘First Peoples of Australia’. It establishes a body of indigenous people called the ‘Voice’ that has the opportunity to provide input to the Parliament and the Executive Government on matters that relate to them, and it gives the Parliament further powers to make laws about how the Voice operates including who it is made up of, how it works, etc.
At a high level, I can see why lots of people will jump on board in support of it. Politically, it is “the thing to do” and I can see a groundswell within Australia of people who will strongly ‘encourage’ anyone else who does not yet understand or feel comfortable to support the wording in its current form (and encourage in such a way that it comes across as bullying or coercion). But in my five short years on council, I’ve also seen well-meaning ideas voted through and then implemented in ways that are contrary to what was originally expected due to a poor choice of wording or loopholes. I suspect that it may well be the case with the Voice here that despite the best of intentions, there may be unintended outcomes that emerge in the coming decades as a result of some judge interpreting the words in our constitution in ways that were not originally intended. In particular, the scope of the Voice in making representations on “matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples” is quite vague and open to interpretation either way.
In addition to the constitution, there are some ‘design principles’ for the Voice. Principles that will guide how the Parliament will implement the Voice if it ends up being supported by a referendum. Some of these principles include broad composition, not having veto power, etc. But the design principles are still somewhat somewhat vague, and they do not form part of the constitution or part of what Australians will be asked to vote on at the referendum.
In the media, there are people who say that the proposed wording is too strong, and there are others who say that the wording is not strong enough. I can see where they’re all coming from.
I do believe that recognition of indigenous Australians, respecting their ways, restoring their bonds and lifting their quality of life is an important thing. Something needs to be done, and it’s probably a case of better to do something imperfectly than to do nothing at all. We also have a stable government and what I believe is the mandate to explore the idea. But I personally have no intention to get involved in the pro or anti-voice camps in the next six months. And I do hope that in the next six months, the Australian people and our political leaders are mature enough to explore the implications in a mature manner and remain open to change, rather than politicising the matter and shooting down anybody who does not see things in exactly the same way that they do. Somehow though, I get a feeling that this is not how it will play out, and I’m actually somewhat disappointed in how our federal leaders (both sides) have led the conversation so far on such a serious matter. I want to be proud of our political leaders, and I expect more from both Albo and Dutton in the contest of ideas than just tearing each other down.
🎤𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗩𝗼𝗶𝗰𝗲
Set to dominate the media these next six months is the topic of whether Indigenous people should be mentioned in the Australian Constitution, and if so, how.
The Australian Constitution currently covers decisions made by the Parliament (Senate, House of Representatives, Scope of Powers) in Chapter One and the Executive Government (Governor General, Cabinet) in Chapter Two. Indigenous people such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have no formal input into the decision-making process, partly because of the history of colonists not recognising Australia as being owned by anybody (terra nullius) in the eighteenth century.
What is being proposed and put out to referendum later this year is the introduction of an extra chapter to Australia’s Constitution that recognises the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people as the ‘First Peoples of Australia’. It establishes a body of indigenous people called the ‘Voice’ that has the opportunity to provide input to the Parliament and the Executive Government on matters that relate to them, and it gives the Parliament further powers to make laws about how the Voice operates including who it is made up of, how it works, etc.
At a high level, I can see why lots of people will jump on board in support of it. Politically, it is “the thing to do” and I can see a groundswell within Australia of people who will strongly ‘encourage’ anyone else who does not yet understand or feel comfortable to support the wording in its current form (and encourage in such a way that it comes across as bullying or coercion). But in my five short years on council, I’ve also seen well-meaning ideas voted through and then implemented in ways that are contrary to what was originally expected due to a poor choice of wording or loopholes. I suspect that it may well be the case with the Voice here that despite the best of intentions, there may be unintended outcomes that emerge in the coming decades as a result of some judge interpreting the words in our constitution in ways that were not originally intended. In particular, the scope of the Voice in making representations on “matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples” is quite vague and open to interpretation either way.
In addition to the constitution, there are some ‘design principles’ for the Voice. Principles that will guide how the Parliament will implement the Voice if it ends up being supported by a referendum. Some of these principles include broad composition, not having veto power, etc. But the design principles are still somewhat somewhat vague, and they do not form part of the constitution or part of what Australians will be asked to vote on at the referendum.
In the media, there are people who say that the proposed wording is too strong, and there are others who say that the wording is not strong enough. I can see where they’re all coming from.
I do believe that recognition of indigenous Australians, respecting their ways, restoring their bonds and lifting their quality of life is an important thing. Something needs to be done, and it’s probably a case of better to do something imperfectly than to do nothing at all. We also have a stable government and what I believe is the mandate to explore the idea. But I personally have no intention to get involved in the pro or anti-voice camps in the next six months. And I do hope that in the next six months, the Australian people and our political leaders are mature enough to explore the implications in a mature manner and remain open to change, rather than politicising the matter and shooting down anybody who does not see things in exactly the same way that they do. Somehow though, I get a feeling that this is not how it will play out, and I’m actually somewhat disappointed in how our federal leaders (both sides) have led the conversation so far on such a serious matter. I want to be proud of our political leaders, and I expect more from both Albo and Dutton in the contest of ideas than just tearing each other down.
