Tag: the constitution

A Plea from the Heart: The Referendum 2023

Tomorrow we’re being asked to vote in the Referendum. What a rare privilege we Australians have, being in a democracy where we all get to have a say in any changes to the Constitution (the rules for governing our nation).

What a shame that the original occupants of this land weren’t included like that back in 1901 when it was written. How different things would have been if they had. Mass stealing of children wouldn’t have happened, for one. Back then the aboriginal people weren’t seen as people so therefore, they weren’t relevant – which may be where the problems started.

Right now we’re being given the opportunity to correct the omission of First Nations people from the Constitution. We’re being offered a generous olive branch, a positive step forward. The body of representatives that is proposed to be included in the Parliament is the proposal put forward back in 2017 in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Eighty percent of all aboriginal people want this. They see it as a step forward, as progress, as a way to express their needs and make proposals as to how those needs might best be met.

It isn’t a threat to non-aboriginals. No one is going to take your house or your family’s farm.

The Voice to Parliament is an advisory body only. Which is why some people say it doesn’t go far enough. But the Voice to Parliament will be able to advise whichever government is in at the time, regardless of their politics. Isn’t that a grand thing? Doesn’t that feel right? And that advice will be proposed by First Nations people themselves, by the people who are talking to all the ‘grass roots’ communities and mobs over this wide land.

The Yes vote is a soft approach. People say it comes from the heart. It does. But even the head can discern that it’s a step towards getting better outcomes for the Aboriginal People. That’s if we don’t let the noise confuse us. The strong, negative language used by the No voters is designed to frighten and divide us. Don’t go there. If you feel afraid, go back to basics. What is the actual proposal? What are the actual words?

Please, if you still don’t know, do your due diligence today.

The following links are basic definitions: not Yes and not No hype.

Referendum 2023 – The Constitution (aec.gov.au)

The Australian Constitution (peo.gov.au)

Voice to Parliament – Reconciliation Australia

If you want to witness a two-sided discussion that’s fair and good, I recommend the latest ABC Q & A. Q+A Live From Adelaide – Q+A (abc.net.au)

I am voting Yes and I’m voting with my heart and my head. My decision comes from a place of love and hope, the very place that the Uluru Statement came from. If you haven’t read it or listened to it, I implore you to do so. It’s enlightening.

View The Statement – Uluru Statement from the Heart.

No means no progress.

Yes means acknowledgement, acceptance and inclusion. Yes means we’re listening. Yes means the Constitution will be complete. And I’m proud to be part of that.

Australia’s Referendum on the Voice to Parliament

Later this year, all Australians are being asked to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a simple question that will add a few lines to our Constitution.

The question on the ballot paper will be:

“A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

When I first heard this proposal I had a bunch of questions: What does that even mean? Why is it necessary? Is it important to me? Doesn’t ‘special treatment’ add fuel to the Us and Them issue?

I admit my own ignorance and lack of enthusiasm when it comes to much politically associated news. I had heard snippets from the ‘Yes’ camp and the ‘No’. It seemed to me that even the First Peoples of Australia weren’t sure about it. I didn’t pay too much attention. Until now.

Much of what I have heard has been negative. The ‘No’ camp seems far more vocal. The media, which thrives on drama and bad news, and is not above misleading the public, is relishing the negative. I have discovered that there are many layers to the ‘No’ and all of them seem to be political and power oriented.

But this is not a political issue!

This is a Constitution issue. That is, it is an issue of the Australian public.

So, firstly: What is the Constitution?

The Constitution is a founding document (one of the most important steps in the process of Federation) that began on 1 January 1901 that sets out how Australia is governed. It overrides any other laws and can’t be changed by the Parliament of the day. The Constitution can only be changed through a vote by the people.

Interestingly, although it was put together by the six colonies and voted on by the people, not all people could vote. Most women and Indigenous Australians were not allowed to.

So, what are the proposed few lines? You can find them here: The Voice http://www.voice.gov.au

Briefly, the added lines are that a body called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice can make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth (the High Court) on matters relating to themselves. The Parliament will have the power to make laws in relation to the body’s recommendations.

The body would be chosen by the Aboriginal and TSI communities and Elders.

Why have I become so interested in this and why has it become important? Because my instincts tell me that there is a scare campaign out there. I’m reminded of other minority groups seeking acceptance, and the fight of women for equality.

My gut says, of course there should be Aboriginal and TSI people representing themselves on matters that affect them, that if the Constitution was being written today, they would have a seat at the table and be contributing with their specific concerns in mind.

My conscience reminds me that I’m an educated white person born in this country, and therefore I have a privileged position. My own path has been easy. I don’t feel guilty about that, but I am aware that most, if not all, indigenous people have a much more difficult path. Their history, upbringing, health, isolation and education have all severely impacted their opportunities. In my position, I can barely imagine what their lives are like.

Many governments have tried to address these difficulties, and some have been reasonably successful. But each government prioritises differently, and programmes start and stop as parties come and go. There is instability and the programmes themselves are not necessarily designed by people who fully understand their suitability. Billions of dollars and many years have been wasted because Aboriginal and TSI people have not had input.

This is why the body, the Voice, needs to be made up of the Aboriginal and TSI people themselves. Their chosen representatives will understand their culture and the issues in their communities. It is why the body needs to be embedded within the Constitution.

The Voice is an advisory body, only. The intention is to direct government spending to achieve better outcomes. The Parliament will still have the power to take the advice or not.

The scare campaign reeks of politics; the ‘my policy is different from your policy’ and political party games undermine the simplicity and importance of the proposal.

Julian Leeser, an expert in Indigenous affairs who was the opposition’s Indigenous Australians spokesman until he resigned in order to campaign for the Yes vote, says:

‘The Voice will work on making remote communities safer, work to get children to school and keep them there, work to address the terrible infant mortality and renal failure in indigenous communities, and it will work to create local jobs and industry so we can break a culture of welfare dependency.

The Voice is not about two classes of Australians. It’s about eliminating the differences in economic and social outcomes that separate Indigenous Australians with other Australians.’

This sums up all the questions I had. I have also listened to discussions on whether the Voice goes far enough (in my opinion, it does) and whether treaties should come first (in my opinion, it would be a very long wait) but all that is too much to go into here.

I believe that giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders this recognition and chance to speak for themselves is fair and will ultimately make Australia even more democratic. I believe ‘Yes’ is the right choice.

Note: There are many good places to seek honest information. Be careful when reading from the media as there have been misrepresentations and lies.

https://voice.gov.au/

‘The Voice to Parliament: All the Detail You Need’ by Thomas Mayo and Kerry O’Brien. Recording of the interview at the Sydney Writers’ Festival https://omny.fm/shows/sydney-writers-festival/the-voice-to-parliament-all-the-detail-you-need

Tools to have conversations: https://yes23.com.au/