‘Reasons you can just vote Yes and get on with your lives’
Joe Hildebrand says most people aren’t particularly fussed about the Voice so these are the reasons Aussies should vote Yes and get on with their lives.
And so the great day is upon us. Following the worst kept secret in global history, the date ofthe Voice referendumhas been announced as October 14.
Most people – as I know too well – aren’t particularly fussed. So here are all the reasons why you can just vote Yes and get on with your lives …
Why are we even doing this? Surely the Voice isn’t the most important issue right now?
Correct – not for the overwhelming majority of Australians. There are plenty of people struggling to make ends meet or worried about losing their house who are right to think this is a second order issue at best.
But for the three per cent or soIndigenous Australians– especially those in remote and regional communities – this is probably the single most important issue in their lives simply for the potential of the change it could bring.
These are people often living in third world conditions, with diseases unheard of elsewhere in the western world, with appalling education and employment outcomes and levels of violence and deprivation few of us in the suburbs could survive, let alone tolerate.
So why don’t we just fix those problems instead of wasting all this time and money on changing the constitution?
We have been trying to fix these problems for decades and frankly it hasn’t worked. As the No campaign rightly points out, billions of dollars have been spent and countless resources deployed andthe gap is still a chasm.
One reason for this is that it has been a top-down approach implemented by governments and bureaucrats unfamiliar with the acute problems of people on the ground, and so there is waste and duplication in some areas yet unmet need in others. Another is that Indigenous communities are often sceptical and suspicious of government intervention.
Having a representativeIndigenous advisory bodywould provide a direct line to government to the areas of need it is unaware of as well as reassure communities that, if the government decided to act on that advice, the source of such actions would be the communities themselves, not Canberra.
But doesn’t government already have a host of Indigenous advisers?
Hells yeah! You might call it the “Canberra Voice”. This is about making sure remote and regional Aboriginal people have a greater say, not the usual talking heads.
The proposal came out of an unprecedented years-long process of gathering information and feedback from some 1200 local community leaders, culminating in the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart which asked for constitutional recognition that could deliver practical outcomes.
Ah the Uluru Statement! Is it one page or 26 pages or what?
I’m glad you asked! It is one page, plain and simple, but there is a host of background material that fed into it.
That doesn’t mean all these submissions are the Uluru Statement. That would be like saying a 1000-word essay is equivalent to every single book in its bibliography.
What about ‘truth’ and ‘treaty’ and all the other stuff?
That is quite literally not on the cards. All this referendum is about is the three lines proposed by the amendment, which says that the Voice “may make representations” to parliament and government on Indigenous matters and that the parliament will have absolute authority over the Voice, “including its composition, functions, powers and procedures”.
It is extremely clear and confined and it’s all we’re voting on.
But the High Court could change that!
The High Court is only able to interpret the constitution and the amendment is crystal clear. The overwhelming majority of legal opinion, including the most recent High Court chief justice, says it is safe.
But isn’t this just a Trojan Horse to do other stuff like reparations – which sounds crazy?
It does sound crazy, and it is. No government would bankrupt itself on a historical ideological altar when the Voice offers a pragmatic bureaucracy-busting way of improving lives in the here and now.
So if it’s that good where’s the detail? Why not just legislate it instead of putting it in the constitution?
This is the best question of all.
The beauty of the Australian constitution, which has made us the most peaceful and stable democracy on earth for more than a century, is that it is practical and flexible.
It essentially takes the best of both the Westminster and US systems of government and says: Here’s how to put together a parliament – now it’s over to you.
There is not even a mention of the Prime Minister in our constitution. It is a generously sparing document that has at its heart the ever-evolving will of the Australian people.
Legislating a specific model for the Voice and then enshrining it would be the opposite of that. It would set in stone a model that might work well for a while but then be impossible to jettison if it failed.
And if it was only legislated and not enshrined then it could be eliminated entirely, leaving Indigenous people back at square one.The Voice proposal provides a fittingly elegant solution to both problems with no downside risk. It can be chopped and changed, dissolved and reconstituted, for any reason and at any time as our elected representatives see fit — the people that you elect.
Nothing it says is binding, nor does it even have to be consulted or listened to. It is merely a vessel for the most disconnected and disadvantaged people to connect to their government on matters most affecting them.
And so it means nothing to most of us but it means everything to some of us. And it would be a sorry and senseless shame if those of us for whom it didn’t matter crushed the dreams of those for whom it could mean the world.
https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/reasons-you-can-just-vote-yes-and-get-on-with-your-lives/news-story/8a6c51eff216461404389264cd4d16a9
