On July 29, 2022, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese made history. Since the initial invasion of Australia in 1788, Indigenous Australians have suffered at the hands of white colonialism. From the colonizers’ classification of the land as “Terra Nullius,” or “nobody’s land,” to the persistent socioeconomic disparities between non-Indigenous and Indigenous Australians, the latter group has endured 200 years of “broken promises and betrayals, failures and false starts.” In a powerful attempt to rectify this systemic inequality, Albanese vehemently advocated for an Indigenous voice amendment to the Australian Constitution; he is urging the nation to enshrine a permanent Indigenous body within parliament.
For many Indigenous Australians and Albanese’s Labor Party supporters, this commitment was long overdue. However, for some right-leaning Australians, the announcement has disrupted their sense of national identity and comfort in a society that has always systemically favored people of European descent. It is this emerging tension between conservative Australians and this potential progressive civil shift that currently dominates Australian political discourse.
The announcement was made during the heart of the Garma festival, which is one of the most significant events for Indigenous peoples and takes place annually in sacred Arnhem Land. Arnhem Land is an amalgamation of rich traditional Indigenous culture on one of the last indigenous-owned territories. The Yolngu people of northeast Arnhem Land have resided there, undisturbed, for at least 50,000 years, which speaks to the powerful spiritual connections shared between community, land, and culture.
In addition to its role in honoring the cultural, ceremonial, and artistic traditions of the Yolngu people, the Garma celebration acts as a formal event for political discussion and often attracts a range of academic and civil leaders — from journalists to business and philanthropic leaders.
Notably, the festival often welcomes speeches from the prime minister of the time, most likely in the hopes that such a speech could unveil a range of commitments designed to resolve Indigenous concerns. These proposals could include legislation to address dwindling land ownership among the traditional custodians of the country, policies to redirect government funding into Indigenous health or education, or restrictions of public access to spiritually-significant Indigenous sites, such as Uluru in 2017. The Garma festival aims for a future that values an Indigenous presence in society and confronts the most pressing issues plaguing Indigenous communities. Albanese’s proposal presents an opportunity to do just that.
“Do you support an alteration to the constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?”
The somewhat reductive question suggested for the referendum is as simple as this, with a clear “yes” or “no” impacting the fate of Indigenous people.
It is no secret that Indigenous Australians are overrepresented in a vast majority of negative social categories: shorter life expectancy, higher rates of infant mortality, poorer physical and mental health, lower levels of education and employment, and higher rates of child removals and community and family violence. Even when certain battles are seemingly won for the Indigenous cause, the Australian government has never been known for timely action; in fact, it often feels as if Parliament forgets the promises it incessantly makes, particularly regarding Indigenous issues.
For instance, it took over 200 years for the government to apologize for the Stolen Generations, a period of time in which government policies authorized the removal of Aboriginal children from their families, forcibly placed them in white institutions or foster families, and barred them from any access to their culture. It was also only in 2008 that the government formally signed the “Close the Gap Statement of Intent,” which not only consciously documents the aforementioned striking social disparities but also theoretically commits to achieving concrete health equality for Indigenous peoples. The problem is that if one takes the time to actually read these obligatory evidence-based reports, it quickly becomes clear that almost nothing has changed since former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s pen touched the paper. This is a sign that an even more significant reform, such as core constitutional change, is a necessity.
However, conservative politicians who advocate for a resounding “no” to the Indigenous voice amendment either refuse to acknowledge this gap at all, or challenge the amendment’s ability to close it. Senator Jacinta Price represents the Northern Territory and, as an Indigenous woman, advocates for “real solutions” to bridge the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. She considers the amendment to be merely symbolic, lacking specificity on how real change will arise from this advisory body. Alongside many conservative politicians, Liberal South Australian Member of Parliament Tony Pasin echoed these sentiments, arguing that the proposal is difficult to support without the presence of clearly articulated details. Yet, this particular attack on the amendment’s ambiguity is quickly countered by Professor Marcia Langton, the Foundation Chair of Australian Indigenous Studies at the University of Melbourne. She points to her own co-design report for the national voice that has been available to the public since the end of 2021. Any and all detail can be found within this document, and it seems that initial complaints about the proposal’s ambiguity are merely indicative of ignorance.
Senator Price raises a deeper concern about the amendment’s symbolic nature and lack of specificity. While she recognises the extremely high rates of alcoholism and domestic violence in First Nations communities, a representative body in government does not necessarily appear to be a convincing solution to her, regardless of detailed clarifications provided in Langton’s logistical report.
To Price’s point of ambiguity, I argue that “real solutions” that target social inequality and issues for Indigenous Australians cannot arise, much less be implemented, without the input and support of those affected. Just as one would hope for medical experts to provide advice on health policy, the federal government should solicit ideas, opinions and stories about Indigenous issues from a diverse body of First Nations delegates. The significant difference in quality of life between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians can only be attributed to historical, systemic injustices. These deeply-entrenched problems mean that a systemic rectification is needed.
Other conservative concerns for the voice amendment are predicated upon the race-blind argument against further partisan division. Tony Abbott suggests that this voice amendment “entrenches race in the constitution” and only furthers existing division. This idea is reflected elsewhere in blatantly racist outbursts, such as those performed by Senator Pauline Hanson, who publicly denounced traditional “Acknowledgement to Country” addresses and vows to “never pay respect” to the “divisive” Indigenous flag.
Unlike Price, these politicians who refuse to see race assume that there is equality between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians. This faulty assumption undermines the validity of their argument. One blanket policy that addresses “all Australians” is not sufficient in truly helping Indigenous people, whose issues stem from generations of colonial abuse. An additional governmental body implemented by the amendment would level the playing field with respectful inclusion rather than dividing the country.
Of course, there are Indigenous ministers and members of parliament who currently represent Indigenous people, including Price herself, but because Australia has had such a long history of silencing First Nations peoples, they are far outnumbered in Parliament. Sufficient insight into the complex social issues facing Indigenous Australians can be better gained from a larger permanent body which incorporates all parts of Australia. A well-rounded approach to Indigenous issues can be achieved, and there is no reason that a constitutionalized voice cannot coexist with, or indeed foster, solutions to these problems.
Australia has spent far too much time as a divided nation, with Indigenous Australians suffering as a result. With an emphatic, bipartisan consensus from the Australian population, this division can finally begin to be fundamentally reckoned with. To achieve this, Liberal opposition must be critically responded to, so that this referendum can remain a top priority for all and, hopefully, produce a resounding “yes.”
Australia needs this voice, and it needs it now.
Image by Ondrej Machart licensed under the Unsplash License.
