caption,
Australians are being asked to decide on the constitutional recognition of Indigenous peoples
8 hours ago
Australia recently opened early voting in the historic referendum on the passage of Indigenous Voice in Parliament, a project called Voice.
If passed, the reform would recognize Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the country’s constitution and establish a permanent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander body to advise the government.
There has not been a referendum in the country that would have resulted in approval of the proposal for almost 50 years.
Opinion polls show support for the proposal, but as the vote gets closer the “no” side is gaining ground.
Although most Australians are expected to vote on October 14, voting centers in some parts of the country were already open on Monday (February 10).
Voice to Parliament was recommended in a “historic” 2017 document entitled “Uluru Statement from the Heart”.
Written by more than 250 Indigenous leaders, the statement is considered the “ultimate call to action for reform on issues affecting Indigenous Australians”.
It also leads to a longer process of contract drafting and truthtelling.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese argues it would be a “simple” change to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians.
But Voice’s proposal became the subject of heated debate in Australia and the target of misinformation campaigns and racist abuse.
Supporters of the proposal say it will lead to better living conditions for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, whose life expectancy is lower and who have disproportionately poorer health and education outcomes compared to other Australians.
The proposal states that Voice will “advocate on issues relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people” to MPs and political authorities.
Announcing the plan to hold a referendum in March, Albanese said the vote would enshrine “recognition” that Australians “share this great island continent with the oldest contiguous culture in the world”.
Opponents of the project argue, among other things, that it is a largely symbolic gesture that will not bring about change and could undermine existing governance structures in Australia.
For the proposal to pass, a majority of Australians must vote yes, but there must also be majority support in at least four of Australia’s six states.
The composition, functions and powers of the body, whose opinion would be nonbinding, would then be drafted and debated by Parliament.
Recent polls have shown a steady decline in public support for Voice, but a poll on Tuesday showed support for Yes rising for the first time in months.
The last referendum in Australia was in 1999, when the country rejected its desire to become a republic.
Only eight of Australia’s 44 referendums resulted in approval the last in 1977 and none were held without crossparty support.
What do opponents say?
Some opponents of the bill argue that indigenous peoples are already adequately represented in parliament.
The House of Representatives currently has 11 Indigenous MPs, representing 4.8% of Parliament, a slightly higher percentage than Australia’s Indigenous population nationwide.
But Voice advocates dispute that MPs represent specific constituencies and not necessarily indigenous interests.
Other critics say it could act as a third chamber of parliament and potentially veto legislation, but the government has ruled out that possibility.
Even among indigenous peoples, support is not unanimous. Some say a treaty with indigenous peoples a negotiated, legally binding agreement should be a priority.
What will voice look like in practice?
This is not yet certain. If Australia votes yes, legislation to create voice will be developed and discussed.
One proposal suggests the advisory body could have 24 members made up of representatives from each state and territory, Torres Strait Islanders and remote Aboriginal communities.
Albanese sees Voice as “an unwavering source of guidance and accountability.”
Are there any other examples?
caption,
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wants Voice to be a legacy of his government
Voice supporters compare the proposal to First Nations parliaments in Norway, Sweden and Finland for the Sami people.
They are not parliaments in the traditional sense they are mostly advisory bodies that have no formal legislative function.
In Finland, for example, the government negotiates with the Sámi Parliament on specific issues such as land management and legislative or administrative changes that affect Sámi culture.
However, Finnish laws do not prevent government authorities from moving forward without negotiations.
Why is a referendum necessary?
Defenders say Voice needs to be enshrined in the Constitution, not just law. Such change cannot take place without a referendum.
They argue that this would give stability to the vote and insulate it from party politics.
Polls have previously shown around threequarters of Australians support a constitutional vote, although that percentage is falling in recent polls.
In this vote, Australia’s main opposition coalition is lobbying against the change.
The Greens support Voice. But its previous Indigenous affairs spokesperson, Lidia Thorpe, recently left the party because of her position initially supporting a treaty on the issue.
What happens next?
Although some votes have already been brought forward, Australians will go to the polls on October 14 and be asked to write “yes” or “no” on the referendum ballot papers.
If the result is approved, Parliament will begin discussing the structure of the body and the government will analyze the next steps set out in the Uluru statement.
It also calls for a Makarrata Commission a body to oversee the process of treatymaking and truthtelling about the history of Indigenous Australians.
It is also expected that the implementation of Voice will provide additional impetus to an Australian republic.
Albanese has already suggested a referendum on the issue is likely if he wins a second term in 2025.
His government refused to know what would happen if the proposal failed, such as trying to create a body without enshrining it in the constitution.