With the exception of the major opposition parties, Aussie institutions are lining up to back a ‘yes’ vote for an indigenous Voice to Parliament, a proposed advisory body that will be able to provide an indigenous perspective to the Parliament and executive government on policy matters impacting indigenous people.

The Voice is but one of three steps towards full reconciliation of non-indigenous and indigenous Australians, the others being Treaty and Truth Telling. The national Labor Government and particularly Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, are fully subscribed to the entire emotional and practical aspiration of the statement, which unambiguously states:

“We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined
in the Constitution.”

Overarching the Voice is Constitutional recognition of Australia’s indigenous people, specifically aborigine and Torres Strait islanders. This requires a ‘yes’ vote in a national referendum later this year by a majority of people in a majority of states. The track record for Constitutional change by referendum is pretty shabby to date, a 5 out of 44 hit rate, so this is a significant hurdle.

This does not set out to define or debate the merits of the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ perspectives, but questions the value of widespread institutional alignment with the ‘yes’ campaign.

In The Australian newspaper, commentator Paul Kelly, suggested that this institutional support, has resulted in an “unparalleled contest between an alliance of elites and a public that is wary and suspicious, increasingly resentful of the pressure to do the ‘polite’ thing’”. He suggests that the government is “patronising of the Australian people” suggesting that anyone of goodwill should vote ‘yes’. Presumably the corollary to this is the ‘no’ vote will be only from people of ill will.

I don’t agree with Kelly’s proposition, but his observations on the line-up of elites behind the ‘yes’ vote raise an interesting question and, in the context of global, anti-establishment political sentiment in recent years, will it prove detrimental or advantageous to the ‘yes’ campaign.

This in large part, this comes down to how Australians will react to ‘pressure’ from society’s more privileged and advantaged to vote ‘yes’. Leading protagonists in the ‘no’ campaign are betting heavily that Aussies will prefer the narrative that the Voice is an elitist agenda that ignores the opinion and interests of grass roots people, particularly remote indigenous communities.

This is the land of ‘tall poppy syndrome’, a deeply embedded cultural trait that wants to ensure that ‘tall poppies’, successful people who get a ‘little bit above themselves’, are cut down to size. An alignment of elites encourages even deeper suspicion that they’re working an angle of benefit to themselves rather than in the interests of the whole. It’s analogous to Paul Kelly’s reference to a ‘wary and suspicious’ public.

The thrust of the ‘no’ campaign is tapping into this believing that it is alive and well. It does so by demanding more detail on the institutional Voice and, in particular, how those who sit on it will be selected and appointed. Will they be drawn from the elite? Will the Voice be just another gravy train drawing those on board further away from the experience and aspirations of those they represent?

The source document for this idea and the ensuing debate is the single-page Uluru Statement from the Heart, endorsed by 250 indigenous delegates to the First Nations National Constitution Convention held at Uluru in 2017. Some ‘no’ advocates question whether even those 250 were representative of, and in a position to endorse a statement on behalf of around 500 aboriginal nations around Australia. Suspicion … subterfuge, manipulation by elites?

As we experienced in the unsuccessful 1999 referendum for an Australian republic, the demand for detail from opponents to the Voice is a proven formula for squashing public support for big changes. It invokes suspicion that the devil will be in the detail, that there’s some small print trickery, some technical loopholes by which the elites can rip us off. The prime minister who killed off the republic for at least a generation, John Howard, set the template into which the ‘no’ protagonists are cutting and pasting their content.

The reality is that the Constitution often does not contain much detail about implementation on many things, something of immense and on-going value to those plying their trade in constitutional law. Its intent is generally dealt with and implemented through legislation and regulation, as will the operating framework for the proposed Voice.

But here it becomes a matter of trust and therein lies the problem. This will be the lanyard on which the outcome of this year’s referendum hangs. By empowering the Parliament to deal with the implementation, you could infer that a ‘yes’ vote effectively empowers an elite - our parliamentarians and all those with access to them - to engineer a Voice that will be doomed from the outset.

This is a fatalistic perspective and reflects underlying suspicion of the truth and integrity of the Voice principles, which include a post-referendum process that “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, the Parliament and the broader public to settle the Voice design”. By empowering Parliament, we disempower ourselves and enable a conspiracy of elites.

But let’s get real. There is no effective, universal Voice for indigenous people and their communities at the moment. The inclusion of an indigenous Voice to Parliament will enshrine a right to be heard on legislative matters impacting indigenous communities, a practice that is presently discretionary but, notably, not guaranteed. The Voice would lock a conduit for dialogue in place - a right to speak and be heard that is immutable and independent of the political persuasion or inclinations of a future government.

Will the Voice itself resolve the plethora of issues faced by indigenous communities throughout the land - lamentable rate of incarceration and death in custody, woeful health and life expectancy relative to the rest of the population and constrained social circumstance and educational opportunities? No, it won’t.

But the reality is that almost everything proposed or implemented to date to tackle these issues has monumentally failed. If you don’t believe this based on what you see and hear from the ground, then at least believe the data.

The Voice is an advisory body to parliament, not another chamber as some would have us believe. It will have no legislative or regulatory power - that will remain with the parliament. Without a Voice and acquiescence to the ‘no’ argument, indigenous people will vacate a constitutional right and a red carpet avenue for access and influence. With no Voice, there will be plenty of others who will fill the vacuum. And they will most likely represent elites, possibly with interests diametrically opposed to the heritage, values and culture of indigenous communities.

At a minimum, the Voice could bring indigenous community issues to light and foster greater transparency and public debate, an opportunity to cast light into the shadows that have long remained dark. Light is life-giving and enabling - and that’s a good thing.

I hope that the alignment of elite business, sporting bodies, celebrities and charities is seen as evidence that to vote ‘yes’ is to be on the right side of history, a turning point in reconciling all Australians to the successes and failures of the past and the creation of unity and optimism for the future. To see it otherwise, to yield to the temptation of tearing down the tall poppies, would be to risk silencing a guaranteed voice and seat at the top table for our first nations people for generations to come.

I’ll be voting ‘yes’ to the Voice.

Photo: Naomi Brooks 2023