Australia and the World Past and Present

In October 2023, Australians voted on an important referendum about a body known as ‘the Voice’.

Proponents of the Voice asserted that it was to be an advisory body, advising the parliament on issues relating to indigenous people.

It was proposed that the body would be written into the Constitution.

The issue was incredibly divisive. The referendum was also a tremendously consequential decision.

There were many questions related to the finer details of the body, but perhaps the most important issue was this – how will Australia develop into the future into the future – as one people or separately and based on race?

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price was an important voice during the debate. She was a vocal critic of the Voice. She is federal member of parliament from the Northern Territory. She was also the Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs. Her mother is indigenous and her father has European heritage.

Price gave an address to the National Press Club on 14 September 2023.

She argued that the Voice was ‘flawed’ and ‘built on lies’ and suggested that the Voice proposal was divisive and fractured Australia by race.

There were 11 indigenous federal members of parliament in 2023. They were democratically elected and had responsibility not only for indigenous constituents but also non-indigenous constituents.

In contrast to the national parliament the Voice would have had only indigenous representatives.

Price noted that there was nothing new about indigenous advisory bodies in Australia. The Australian and Torres Straight Islander Commission (ATSIC) was one. ATSIC had had input into government policies and distributed grants and loans for small businesses. It ran for 15 years until it was abolished in 2005.

Price also mentioned the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples. This organisation ran from 2010 to 2019. It was open to national organisations, organisations from the regions, states or territories and individuals. It ceased operations in 2019.

Furthermore, Australia has Aboriginal Land Councils right around the country. In New South Wales alone there are 121 Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs). These organisations have have strong connections with local and state governments.

The difference with the Voice was the intention to put it into the Constitution. This would have given it permanency. Critics asked what would happen if the Voice became dysfunctional. It would not have been possible to remove it without another referendum.

A complicating factor was that the powers of the Voice were not codified. This led to great confusion over what the Voice might or might not be responsible for. The idea put forward was that it would advise on matters relating to indigenous issues. But what is the difference between an indigenous issue and a non-indigenous issue? Indeed, health policy affects all Australians as does social security, as does energy policy as does national security. The Minister for Indigenous Australians tried to suggest that the Voice would advise on matters such as health and education. But actually, the Minister was unable to clearly demarcate clear policy areas because the powers hadn’t been codified.

Additionally, who would the Voice advise? The parliament or the executive? They are quite different things. What would happen if the federal government had passed legislation without input from the Voice? If such a law was challenged in the High Court, how would the Court interpret it? There wasn’t a clear answer to this and the reality is that no one can predict with certainty what a future High Court may decide.

Some proponents of the Voice conflated it with constitutional recognition for indigenous Australians. However, they are not one and the same. It is possible to provide for indigenous recognition in the Constitution without inserting the Voice too.

Constitutional recognition seems to have more support across the country than the Voice did.

Price questioned how setting up the Voice would lead to an improvement in the Closing the Gap statistics. This is a valid question but the answer wasn’t clear.

There was a fundamental contradiction in the Voice proposal. On the hand the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, (a Voice proponent) argued that this would be a game-changer for indigenous Australians. Indeed, if it changed very little then why do it? However, when polling showed that support for the ‘Yes’ case was diminishing he argued that it was in fact a ‘modest’ proposal. It can’t be both.

The MP from the Northern Territory believed that is was mistake for the government not to hold a Constitutional Convention on the issue in order to iron out all of the details.

She believes that we need to shift the paradigm of thinking from one centered around race to one centered around need. She deplores seeing Aboriginals as victims without agency.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is an impressive and articulate woman of mixed heritage. Perhaps her personal family experience has had a large influence on how she views indigenous/non-indigenous relations. In the Voice debate Nampijinpa Price rejected separate development and argued a case for moving forward as one people.