For me, two things are standing out in the pro-Voice campaign strategy.
The first is, I feel as though anyone who is resistant to the Voice, is painted as unsupportive of Aboriginal people.
The second: no attempt is being made to show why the so-called Voice is good for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.
After all, the Voice – an advisory body – will not be able to do anything practical for Aboriginal people. It just advises. Is there something better?
There are many better ideas that are being ignored because the Voice debate is so dominating.
'Second-grade citizens'
One reason for opposing the Voice model is that it effectively treats Aboriginal people as second-grade citizens – white people decide what is good for us while we advise them.
Putting a 'second-grade Aboriginal scheme' into the constitution is anti-Aboriginal sovereignty.
It legitimises the invasion of Aboriginal lands.
Sovereignty means Aboriginal people deciding, but the Voice bows to the right of others to decide for us, and putting an Aboriginal ‘right to advise’ in the constitution marginalises Aboriginal people.
The advisory Voice proposes that Aboriginal people will have less favourable access to political representation because of our race. That is racial discrimination. Like others, we should be at the decision-making table, not passing notes through a gap in the window.
The Voice proposal shores up the right of whites to govern, and Aboriginal people, a right to be governed.
No decision-making power
The claims by the pro-Voice lobby at times seem irrational – ‘we need a Voice’ (meaning an advisory body without any power) when there are Aboriginal people inside the Parliament already.
If we need a collective Voice, then at least give it decision-making power.
The proposed Voice cannot distribute resources, cannot give land, veto another Northern Territory intervention and cannot even save itself from being gotten rid of.
The Voice isn't permanent
The pro-Voice group claim that putting it in the constitution will prevent any future parliament from dumping the advisory body. That claim is factually and constitutionally wrong. Putting the Voice in the constitution does not override parliamentary sovereignty i.e., no parliament can bind another.
Take this example: The Interstate Commission was set up under constitutional section 101 which states: “There shall be an Inter-State Commission. . . "
The despite the constitutional provision. The same result can apply to the constitutionally entrenched voice.
It is not permanent.
As far as access to power is concerned, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are at least entitled to the same as white people, which is guaranteed representation in the federal (and state and territory) parliament each election.
By a simple amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act (no referendum is needed) six Aboriginal people, one from each state, could be elected by Indigenous people to the Senate, enabling six Indigenous voices out of 76 senators to vote on legislation rather than merely comment on the legislation.
A roll of electors like the one for ATSIC would have to be created. Those Indigenous representatives would wield a lot more authority on Indigenous policy than the 50 sitting outside parliament on an advisory body.
Let's talk about Treaty
Uluru supported a Treaty.
Judging by Tony McAvoy’s N.T. Treaty report in June 2022, a national Treaty would deliver land to Aboriginals without going through a native title process; autonomous law-making powers; hunting, fishing; greater rights over health, housing and education and land use, and adequate cash reparations.
A national body with responsibility for prioritising needs and expenditures would be created with autonomy at the local and regional levels.
But Albanese said last year that it would either be Treaty or Voice, but not both, during his term of office.
Using the Constitution for better options
If we are looking at the long-term empowerment of Aboriginal people, we do not need to change the constitution: we simply need to use it better.
Under section 121 of the constitution, for example, the federal parliament can, at any time, create a new or 7th state of Australia. Where Aboriginal landowners or native title holders consented, all Aboriginal lands could be combined to make a 7th state of Australia.
This would give Aboriginal people powers of a state government. States have responsibility for how they are governed, for law and order (including customary law), policing, for religion, education, health, housing, main roads, public transport, electricity generation and supply, agriculture, vacant lands, local government, state taxation, environment, and land use and planning.
Neither the federal nor state parliaments could validly pass laws that interfered with the Aboriginal state because the Constitution forbids it. The new state would not be exclusively Aboriginal, however, because everyone residing on the lands of the new state could participate, again because the Constitution says so. This option is worth looking at but is being shoved aside because of the advisory voice debate.
There are sensible reasons for opposing the voice. Depending on their reasoning, people should feel comfortable doing so.
Not all people opposing the voice are racists or anti-Aboriginal.
Just because others oppose the voice because they oppose anything Aboriginal, does not mean those among us who have good reasons for opposing the voice should feel guilty.
The quicker the second-rate and discriminatory voice proposal is abandoned the sooner we can get on with the real business.
Michael Mansell is an Aboriginal lawyer, author and a former member of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre. He is currently secretary of the Aboriginal Provisional Government and Chairman of the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania. He has worked with the Victorian Government to advance a treaty and attended the Uluru gathering in 2017.
