Once again, it seems only white men know best for Aboriginal peoples

Those who argue against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament because they believe it will be racially divisive must be ignorant of the founding of this country. In 1788, the violent occupation of unceded Aboriginal lands began. But this story was hidden in Australian history, with a narrative of lawful settlement peddled instead.

The Australian constitution provided the means for racial division through the first act of the new parliament in the passing of the Immigration and Restriction Act of 1901. This act gave force to the White Australia policy, which, until it ended in practice in 1975, declared that Australia was for whites only. But when the High Court made its infamous Mabo decision in 1992, Australian law could no longer deny our existence as the first people of this country.

This was too much for many Australians. In 1997, former prime minister John Howard led a campaign arguing that the pendulum had swung too far in favour of Aborigines, that we were coming for your backyard. Just like the Howard government’s lie that asylum seekers were throwing their babies overboard, many Australians believed its rhetoric regarding Aboriginal peoples — and many still do.

In October 2023, the Australian people will vote on whether Aboriginal peoples will provide advice to Parliament via the constitution. “Advice” is the operative word here, as the Voice would have no power to implement anything. Thousands of non-Indigenous advisory bodies provide advice to government, yet none are as powerful and as large as the voice of Rupert Murdoch’s press. Sky News has dedicated a 24/7 channel to covering the referendum, with a section of coverage repeating misinformation and disinformation about the Voice. The impact of this kind of coverage on Indigenous peoples has been an increase in racism in everyday encounters.

However, unlike the power of the press, the Voice would provide information or recommendations that may not result in any action, because the recipient of the advice — Parliament — decides how it will respond. Aboriginal peoples are not asking for very much, and no Australians will lose or give up anything.

To our shame, Australia lags in its international obligations, with other countries already recognising Indigenous peoples in their respective constitutions, such as Canada and New Zealand, which have signed treaties. This is also not the first time in Australia’s history that Aboriginal peoples have called for a Voice. There have been several iterations over the years, such as the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples — but as history shows, these bodies were forced out of operation by governments. However, once enshrined in the constitution, the Voice can only be removed by the Australian people via a referendum.

It is very telling that those who advocate No to the Voice are usually old white men who grew up under the White Australia policy. The Yes campaigners are up against these white patriarchs who wield enormous influence through the press and Parliament — John Howard, Rupert Murdoch, Gary Johns and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton are a few names that come to mind. It’s history repeating itself: only white men know what is best for Aboriginal peoples. John Howard calls on No voters to “maintain the rage”, and he would know a thing or two about how to treat natives, having benefited from his family’s plantations in Papua New Guinea.

Recognising Aboriginal peoples in the Australian constitution is a pendulum that has swung too far for this very vocal group of small white men, even though Parliament retains the power to make laws with respect to the Voice’s composition, functions, powers and procedures. Some Aboriginal people have argued that this is a good reason to vote against it, and they are entitled to express their concerns. Some argue the Voice undermines Indigenous sovereignty by being in the constitution, but Aboriginal peoples were named in the constitution up until 1967 and we did not cede our sovereignty. We have never ceded our sovereignty; it does not originate in the Australian constitution.

Advocates of the No campaign argue the Voice undermines equality of citizenship. If this is the case, then all Australians should share equally in our poverty and the reduction in life chances that it brings. One cannot advocate for the need for equality and then not partake equally in sharing inequality.

The Productivity Commission clearly shows things need to change to improve the life chances of Aboriginal peoples. We are the most impoverished population of Australian citizens, we live less, are more unhealthy, more likely to be imprisoned, more likely to be removed from families, more likely to suicide, more likely to be less educated, more likely to live in poor housing or be homeless — more likely is a list that can go on.

There are many things the Voice will not do. It will not cede Aboriginal sovereignty, it will not undermine Parliament, and it will not take anything away from other Australians. But it will provide a forum for Aboriginal peoples to express their concerns about policies that impact our lives.

Irrespective of how Aboriginal peoples vote, our numbers are small, only 3% of the nation. So, non-Indigenous Australia, it is time to be on the right side of history by voting Yes. It’s a change only you can make happen. In the words of Paul Kelly: “If not us, who? If not now, when?”

---

Footnote added 8th Sept 2023: Following publication of the above opinion piece, Sky News contacted Crikey regarding the assertion “Sky News has dedicated a 24/7 channel to spread misinformation and disinformation about the Voice, and has been vigilant in its assault against the proposal” to say it “expressly rejects the claims made by Emeritus Professor Aileen Moreton-Robinson about The Voice Debate channel”.

Crikey has amended the original line to: “Sky News has dedicated a 24/7 channel to covering the referendum, with a section of coverage repeating misinformation and disinformation about the Voice. The impact of this kind of coverage on Indigenous peoples has been an increase in racism in everyday encounters.”

The Sky News statement in full below:

“Sky News Australia expressly rejects the claims made by Emeritus Professor Aileen Moreton-Robinson about The Voice Debate channel. The publication by Crikey does the very thing Ms Moreton-Robinson accuses Sky News Australia of – spreading misinformation – in this case surrounding Sky News Australia’s coverage of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament debate. Sky News Australia’s The Voice Debate channel is devoted to covering all sides of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament discussion with comprehensive, up-to-the-minute news updates and rolling coverage to ensure every perspective of the debate is heard in the lead up to the historic referendum. The channel does not share just one view, nor does all opinion programming on Sky News Australia support just one viewpoint. 

If the author or the readers of Crikey were to view the Sky News The Voice Debate channel, they would see press conferences, in-depth government and community announcements and townhall meetings from across the country.  They would also see original programming such as the documentary “The Voice: Australia Decides” hearing from all sides including key Indigenous leaders, traditional owners of the land, leaders of the Yes and No campaigns, and politicians including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. The creation of the dedicated channel is a demonstration of Sky News Australia’s commitment to bring Australians around-the-clock coverage during major news moments, as seen in previous years with the launches of the Sky News COVID-19 channel and the Sky News Election channel.”