Right: Former Victorian Liberal Premier Jeff Kennett adds his views to the Voice debate. With some exceptions, Yes and No supporters seem to line up according to their political persuasions.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of a No vote
1. An Indigenous Voice to Parliament is unnecessaryCritics of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament proposal argue that it is redundant. They claim that Indigenous Australians already have the right to vote in state and federal elections and that there are many administrative and consultative bodies and service providers who specifically address Indigenous issues.
Viewed purely in terms of democratic engagement at state and federal levels, all Indigenous Australians over the age of 18 can cast a vote and are able to make representations to their political representatives. It has also been noted that proportionately, Indigenous Australians are well represented in the federal Parliament. Writing in Constitutional Equality on November 22, 2022, Phillip Mobbs noted, 'The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) states that 3.8 percent of Australians identify themselves as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. The Federal parliament is made up of 227 members, of which 11 elected representatives identify themselves as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. This provides a 4.8 percent representation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens.' Mobbs' implication appears to be that in numerical terms, Indigenous Australians are somewhat over-represented in the national parliament. He concludes with the rhetorical question, 'Why would we change the constitution to create a perpetual power of additional representation for one race - when that race... has disproportionally representative power in our democracy already?'
The same statistics re Indigenous members of federal Parliament have been referred to by Peter Dutton, the leader of the federal Opposition, who has stated, 'That's a larger representation compared to the 3.2 percent of our population who identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islanders, and it's a wonderful thing.' Dutton has also noted, 'Furthermore, every parliamentarian, Indigenous or otherwise, represents their constituents-Indigenous or otherwise.' Critics of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament further claim there are many organisations and officeholders already working specifically to address Indigenous issues. In an opinion piece published on March 13, 2023, columnist Andrew Bolt argued that there are 'more than 30 land councils, 3000 Aboriginal corporations... and the Coalition of Peaks, representing around 70 big Aboriginal agencies.' Bolt claims that this large number of organisations should be sufficient to service the needs and address the issues of 'our 810,000 Aborigines'.
Similar claims have been circulating widely on social media, including the following Twitter post which states, 'We already have voices: 3,278 Aboriginal corporations, 243 Native title bodies, 48 Land councils, 35 Regional councils,122+ Aboriginal agencies, 3 Advisory bodies, 145 Health Organisations... and 12 culturally important Indigenous days.' Another list was offered by Vikki Campion in an opinion piece published in The Daily Telegraph on December 2, 2022. Campion notes the existence of 'the Parliamentary Indigenous Evaluation Committee, the secretaries sub-committee on Indigenous Affairs, the National Indigenous Australians Agency advisory board, the Prime Ministers Indigenous Advisory Committee, the 151 Land Trusts, 31 Local Aboriginal Land Councils, the more than 50 Aboriginal peak organisations providing advice to government, the more than $1 billion Department of Indigenous Affairs, or the taxpayer-funded Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner.' Though none of these lists are identical, they all serve to make the point that many bodies already exist to act for Indigenous Australians.Some critics of the Voice proposal have focused on the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) an Australian Public Service agency of the Australian Government. It is responsible for whole-of-government coordination of policy development, program design, and service delivery for Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islander people. It was created in July 2019, under then Prime Minister Scott Morrison. The Agency is responsible to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney and is an executive agency of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, replacing the Department's Indigenous Affairs Group.
Opponents of the Voice argue that the NIAA performs any function that might be taken on by the Voice. Herald Sun commentator Andrew Bolt has argued, 'The NIAA's...boss says it's doing a wonderful job: "The NIAA works in genuine partnership to enable the self-determination and aspirations of First Nations communities."So, who needs the Voice? The NIAA also assures us it's got the government's ear. It doesn't just report to Albanese's Indigenous Australians Minister, his assistant Indigenous Australians Minister and his special envoy for "reconciliation", but last year gave advice to 12 parliamentary committees. So, again, who needs Albanese's Voice?'
Fair Australia, a lobby group arguing for a No vote, has argued similarly. It states, 'The campaign for the divisive Voice opened last year with an ad that made a simple claim. That Indigenous Australians have been speaking for thousands of years but they had "no voice, no say on matters which affected them"...You have to wonder, then, what is the purpose of the National Indigenous Australians Agency?' The argument concludes with the rhetorical question, 'If an agency exists that has the funding, resources, and stated purpose of providing advice and giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a say in matters that affect them, why do you also need to change the Constitution?' 2. An Indigenous Voice to Parliament is racist, divisive and unequal
Opponents of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, guaranteed in the Australian Constitution, argue that making special provision for Indigenous Australians would create racial division and entrench inequality.
It is argued that giving a Constitutional guarantee to an advisory body representing Indigenous Australians would separate the nation around racial difference. It has been claimed that this is wrong in principle and is intrinsically divisive. In a speech given at Sydney University on May 22, 2023, the Opposition leader, Peter Dutton, stated, 'The great progress of the 20th century's civil rights movements was the push to eradicate difference - to judge each other on the content of our character, not the colour of our skin. The Voice, as proposed by the Prime Minister, promotes difference... The Voice will re-racialise our nation. At a time when we need to unite the country, this Prime Minister's proposal will permanently divide us by race.'
Herald Sun commentator, Rita Panahi, has endorsed Peter Dutton's argument. In an opinion piece published on May 31, 2023, Panahi argued, 'Embedding toxic identity politics and race obsessions into the constitution was always a terrible idea. It is racial by design and prioritises what should matter least; a person's ethnicity, something they have zero control over... How can a referendum seeking to enshrine racial privilege into the Constitution not be about race? How can a proposal that would fundamentally change the value of citizenship for one group of people based on nothing other than their ancestry not become a "racialised" discussion?' These views have also been echoed by many readers making online comments. On August 13, 2023, The Financial Review published a letter to the editor from Andrew Smith of Kenmore, Queensland. Smith stated, '[This Referendum proposal] threatens to drive a permanent schism through our nation-family by partitioning us into two camps, forever divided by race or ethnic background. The Constitution is the soul of our nation. How can we tell our soul that there are problems in our society so entrenched, so intractable, they require us to permanently divide the nation-family in order to solve them?... The problems, however intractable they appear today, ultimately shall be resolved, but a nation-family permanently and wilfully separated into two camps along racial/ethnic lines shall, I fear, haunt us forever.' Critics maintain that any proposal founded on racial differences is likely to divide people and create ill-will. Indigenous Liberal politician Kerrynne Liddle has noted, 'This referendum is currently the cause of conflict in our homes, in our workplaces, on our streets and between friends and colleagues and strangers. In Adelaide...we witnessed truly ugly scenes. Protestors hurling racist abuse, spitting, shouting, foul obscenities ... simply because people came to hear three Aboriginal speakers explain why we were voting NO to this Referendum Question - and why we publicly share why we say NO to voice...Yes. Even before a single vote has been cast this Referendum divides us and regardless of the referendum result the fallout will be enduring.'
Warren Mundine, Director of the Indigenous Forum at the Centre for Independent Studies and lobbyist for the No vote has also stated that the Referendum debate for the Voice proposal has divided Australia and, should the Referendum pass, will continue to do so. He has stated, 'It has already proven to be divisive and when enshrined in the constitution it will divide Aboriginal people and threaten our great democratic nation.' It has also been argued that in addition to racialising the Constitution, and prompting division, the Referendum proposal is fundamentally unequal or inegalitarian as it gives one group of Australians privileges it does not give others. Former Victorian premier, Jeff Kennett, has argued. 'The referendum seeks to give the ancestors, our current Indigenous and Torres Strait Islanders and their children, a special place of influence and representation with the federal government of the day over all other Australians. That I suggest is inappropriate, unfair, and discriminates against all other Australians. We should all be treated equally through and by our Constitution.'
Country Liberal Party Senator Jacinta Price, an Indigenous politician who has been a prominent spokesperson for the No campaign, has stressed the inequality that she believes is inherent in the Voice. She has stated, 'If successful, [the Referendum] would mean an extra say for just one group of Australians, based solely on their racial heritage, given the constitutional power to make representations - not simply advise, as the prime minister claims - to parliament and executive government.' The Fair Australia lobby group opposing the Voice has also stressed this alleged inequality. It states in its promotional material, 'The Voice establishes in the constitution a body that has the right to adviseParliament and, as Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney said, "... an unflinching source of advice and accountability. A body with the perspective and the power and the platform to tell the government and the parliament the truth about what is working and what is not." That's not something other Australians have or will have. It is by definition an extra right and an extra democratic power for one group of Australians over another.'
3. How the Voice would be implemented has not been properly explained
Many opponents of the Voice claim that the Referendum proposal has not been adequately explained and therefore the electorate does not have enough information to make an informed decision. Proponents of the No case, including the Opposition leader, Peter Dutton, claim Australians are being asked to vote on the biggest change to the country's constitution in its history without knowing what it will do, how it will work or how its members would be chosen.
Some critics of the referendum proposal have condemned the government for insufficient preparation before the referendum question was put to the electorate. This criticism has been made by Fr Frank Brannan, a Catholic priest and social commentator, who, though a supporter of the Voice, believes that the staging of the referendum has been mishandled. In an interview on Sky News, Fr Brennan quoted a former Liberal Attorney-General Bob Ellicott, who had suggested that for a referendum to succeed 'you can't have any legal ambiguity or complexity'. Fr Brannan argued that the current Labor government should have completed 'the legislative design first' and that the referendum should not have been brought forward while numerous questions about the proposal remain. He has accused the government of 'hubris' or excessive confidence and criticised its 'crash through or crash' strategy. He believes that while there is uncertainty in the electorate about the powers, composition and exact function of the Voice then the referendum will not be passed.
Other critics have similarly argued that an incomplete proposal has been presented to the electorate. They have argued that the government simply does not have answers to many of the questions being asked by the Opposition and that this is why a more detailed proposal has not been put. Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians, and Country Liberal Party Senator for the Northern Territory stated in an address to the National Press Club, 'No matter what the Government, the advocates and the activists say about what the Voice will or won't do... the fact is they don't know. They don't know who will be on the Voice. They don't know what it will choose to make representations on. They don't know how a high court will interpret the proposed new chapter.' Price further claimed, 'Assertions that the Voice will only care about health and education or anything else that has been claimed, are pure misleading conjecture. They don't know. The government have repeatedly promised equal representation, gender balance and youth representation, but these are not promises that the government can make. The reality is that they don't know what form the Voice may take in the future.' Price concluded this element of her talk by stating, 'To undertake such a significant amendment, the Prime Minister owes the Australian people a clear, concise, realistic demonstration of how his Voice will deliver the outcomes that all good Australians want for our marginalised. As yet, he is unable to do that.'
Those who claim that too little is known about the proposal argue that this uncertainty makes voting 'yes' too great a risk. They claim that if, as the Voice evolves, we discover that there are significant disadvantages associated with this supposed advisory body, it will be very difficult to alter it and impossible to remove it without holding another referendum. Among the risks that have been outlined are that the Voice will suffer from over-reach. That is, that it will involve itself in wide-ranging aspects of Australian government policy, not simply those issues directly affecting Indigenous Australians. Indigenous anti-Voice lobbyist, Warren Mundine, has stated, 'The Voice's remit will be "matters relating to Indigenous people" which includes matters relating to every Australian...Anyone who thinks the Voice is just some nice, well-mannered thing... they'll never have to think about again is mistaken. Every Australian will be impacted every day by what the Voice has to say. It's the Voice to Everyone on Everything.'
Others are concerned that rather than intruding into too many areas it will be too selective and ignore the priorities of those most in need of help. Indigenous Oodnadatta resident Valerie Walker was reported on ABC News expressing her concern regarding the unknowns about the Voice. She stated, 'We need somebody to actually sit down with us for a couple of days and explain what the Voice is. If it's just only for the town people - town Aboriginal people - it's not good for us, I don't think.' Similar doubts were expressed by another Indigenous Oodnadatta resident Anthony Smith, who stated, 'I'd support it, as long as I see what happens with smaller communities like this here - not only this place but other smaller communities that haven't been touched by funding.' In the absence of that reassurance, he remained uncertain. While a third Indigenous Oodnadatta resident Roseanne Woodforde seemed even more confused and uncommitted. She stated, 'I don't know what the Voice is. I see it on TV being advertised, I see a lot of communities all walking around with T-shirts saying 'yes', like what are you saying 'yes' to? We don't know anything about it. We need someone to tell us about it properly.'
4. The Voice is likely to provoke legal challenges and delay the formulation of laws and policies
Among those who oppose an Indigenous Voice to Parliament are critics who fear the possibility of lengthy High Court challenges over the function and scope of the new consultative body, and delays to government decision-making processes because of the extensive consultation that the Voice will require.
There are significant concerns regarding the High Court's role in determining the operation of the Voice. One of these concerns is that once the Parliament has defined the exact composition and functioning of the Voice, its members could challenge Parliament's decisions before the High Court. Those who have this fear are concerned that the powers of the Voice could become an ongoing source of contention. As explained by the Rule of Law Education Centre, 'Once in the Constitution, if Parliament makes laws to limit the scope and reach of the Voice, the legislation would be subject to High Court interpretation.'
Concern has been expressed that the Voice might use the High Court to extend the areas within which it could make representations to Government and Parliament. Ian Callinan, a former Justice of the High Court of Australia, has noted, 'The reach of the proposed Voice will ultimately be for the High Court to decide. The High Court has repeatedly given the broadest possible operation to the words used in the proposed amendment "... representations... on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples". Those words are likely to be interpreted as extending to almost everything.' The former Justice has warned of the Voice members using the High Court to extend its areas of potential influence dramatically and inappropriately. He has noted, 'Proponents of the Voice have advocated already for a say in the location of and access to ports and training by foreign troops on Australian soil.' It has also been argued that depending on exactly how the reach and function of the Voice is interpreted by the High Court the Executive and the Parliament could find themselves compulsorily having to receive representations from and negotiate with the Voice on a very wide range of issues. Janet Albrechtsen writing for The Australian in a comment published on April 8, 2023, argued, 'The power of the voice to delay executive action by use of its rights to be heard and to litigate will mean every executive body of government must negotiate with the voice on everything it plans to do, in advance, if it is caught in the wide net of any "matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples". This creates co-sovereignty between our organs of government on the one hand, and the voice on the other.'
There have been numerous criticisms raised regarding the possibility that the Voice would impede and delay the formulation of laws and the operation of government. Under the referendum proposal, the Voice would be able to make representations to both the Parliament and the Executive. Professor Megan Davis, a key member of the referendum working groups and co-chair of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, has stated that advising both parliament and executive is critical. Under the model that Davis has proposed, the Voice would not simply be submitting advice in the form of a written submission to both these branches of government. Davis envisages an active form of consultation. She has stated, '[The Voice] must be able to speak to both. It must be at the table working with government as policies and proposed laws are being developed ... Speaking only to one or the other is not enough.' The former high court justice Ian Callinan has raised concerns that such provisions could slow down or interrupt the executive if it went against voice suggestions. The human rights lawyer Frank Brennan has flagged similar issues, claiming in an interview with the Conversation that the provision would create a responsibility for public servants to give notice to the voice before making decisions.
Critics are concerned that if the term 'executive government' is interpreted broadly, then the width and breadth of the federal government and its agencies would be obliged to consult the Voice, slowing down or interrupting the process of government. Professor Greg Craven, part of the constitutional expert group that advised the government about the wording, was quoted as saying it could lead to the Voice being able to comment on everything from 'submarines to parking tickets'. 5. An Indigenous Voice to Parliament does not have the support of all Indigenous people
Opponents of the Voice argue that not all Indigenous people support the Voice. It is claimed that this lack of full support deprives the Voice of some of its moral authority. It is also claimed that the reasons some Indigenous people oppose the Voice need consideration. For many Indigenous opponents of the Voice there are concerns that it is a misdirection which will not do anything to improve their lives. Others argue that it is not sufficiently radical and that a more significant change in Indigenous people's lives could be achieved through establishing a treaty with the Australian government.
Many Indigenous people argue that the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the Constitutional Voice that it calls for does not represent their views. Kelly Menzel, an Indigenous academic and Associate Dean of Education at the Gnibi College, Southern Cross University, is one of those who argue that the Uluru Statement from the Heart is not fully indicative of what Indigenous people want. In an opinion piece published in The Conversation on April 23, 2023, Menzel states, 'Although the Uluru Statement is beautifully crafted, it's only one Statement. It is impossible for it to represent the more than 250 First Nation groups in Australia...Presenting feelings towards the Voice to Parliament as an oversimplified, binary debate of "yes vs no" means Indigenous voices coming from somewhere in between continue to be silenced.'
Concern over the neglect of the views of Indigenous people who oppose or are uncertain about the Voice have also been expressed by Indigenous Liberal politician Kerrynne Liddle. Liddle has stated, 'Since entering parliament 14 months ago my reservations increased in line with the contact from Aboriginal people who don't know what this is, who don't believe this is the answer and who tell me they too will say no at this Referendum.' Liddle has specifically referred to Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands senior Aboriginal lore men and custodians of Uluru who have objected to the Statement from the Heart process and do not support its recommendation for a Voice. Through a professional interpreter these senior men said that they did not want to be associated with a push for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament as they did not see their hopes and dreams delivered by the Voice. One of the reasons some Indigenous people do not support the Voice is that they do not believe that it will be effective for their communities. This concern has been expressed by Circular Head Aboriginal Corporation's (CHAC) chairperson Selina Maguire-Colgrave, who has stated, 'My concern is that our voice won't be heard since we're such a small community, and our community's own individual needs won't be listened to the loudest voice is the one that gets heard. Our most vulnerable ... people that need the most help are from these remote, smaller communities with the smaller numbers. We want to ensure that the quieter voices all across Australia are heard, not just the loud people.' She is also concerned that some of the co-operative local arrangements that her community currently relies on will disappear because of the Voice. Ms Maguire-Colgrave said CHAC had strong relationships with local MPs and senators, and feared instead of turning to them, they would be redirected to Voice members. She explains, 'My concerns are that any Aboriginal issue we have we will be told to go straight to the advisory panel, the Voice, and not to go through our normal channels.'
Other Indigenous people are concerned not that the Voice will overwhelm existing arrangements, but that it will not be powerful enough. Their apprehension is that it may simply be ignored. Indigenous rights activist Gary Foley has warned the Indigenous Voice to Parliament will face the same fate as its predecessors and be ignored by governments. Professor Foley has stated, 'History shows governments will not take notice of it [an advisory body] if the advice it gives is not palatable to whichever government is in power at the time. Just because it is embedded in the constitution - big deal. It doesn't mean a thing.'
There are other Indigenous perspectives on why it is unreasonable to expect that an Indigenous advisory committee embedded in the Constitution will solve Indigenous disadvantage. Indigenous academic Kelly Menzel has stated, 'Indigenous People, our culture and our communities are not to blame for the inequities we live with. And expecting an Indigenous "Voice" to be a fix-all for inequities brought about by the colonial project is unrealistic and problematic... We cannot rely on one strategy to "solve" the racial divide in Australia. This is something that requires much work to be done from those with privilege and power.' Another reason for some Indigenous people rejecting the Voice as a means of empowering Indigenous Australians is that they believe it is too small a step and that what is required is a treaty. Those who argue for treaty claim that Australian governments need to be made to recognise that they have no legal authority over Indigenous people and that their claimed sovereignty over Australian territory is illegitimate. Independent Senator Lidia Thorpe opposes the Voice on these grounds as she believes it is a compromise proposal which gives a spurious legitimacy to the unjust position of Indigenous people. Senator Thorpe has stated, 'I'm there [in Parliament] to infiltrate really, and to question the practices of colonial governance. To remind them that we have not ceded sovereignty and to remind them that they don't have consent to destroy the country and they don't have consent to make decisions for our people.' Senator Thorpe had earlier argued, 'We have an opportunity to have a treaty ... that could put 10 independent Blak seats in the parliament today. We want real power, and we won't settle for anything less.'