The following article presents a perspective on the Australian Voice Referendum in October 2023.
It is not a deep dive analysis against each point raised throughout the debate – instead focused on some key areas of consideration.
I've heard wise arguments from both sides of the Voice debate, from people whose values I share.
There are 2 main arguments from the “NO” perspective that I understand:
There are uncertain details about how it will be implemented.
It is a divisive policy, because it calls out special consideration for a certain cohort of people, based on the race they are born.
In response to uncertain details, I feel the risk here is extremely low, because the Voice is clearly defined as an advisory body, something that is fundamental to a free, democratic society.
In my experience with advisory bodies, the main risk to control is around slowing down or confusing roles and responsibilities - something which I don't think will be the case in this scenario, as their scope is clear (advising on issues that effect people indigenous to the land).
In response to a divisive policy, extra support for Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders in Australia appears largely agreed, the argument seems more based around the opinion that this type of support is better contained in policy and legislation, rather than at a Constitutional level.
I am a firm supporter of "YES" for a Voice in Australia, for the following reasons:
1. This appears to be a strongly Scientific based solution, where there has been strong engagement, over a long period of time, through organised and recognised channels. On the surface, there have been divisive communications on both sides around this debate that have played out in a similar fashion to other recent public interest debates - however, in this example, from a scientific and empirical method perspective, there seems strong alignment between most knowledge areas of our large and small scientific organisations, which is different from other more divisive and isolating policies and approaches.
2. This approach has been born out of the Uluru Statement from the "Heart". Much messaging around benefits of a native voice, focus on concepts like "Soul", "Truth", and "Spirit". Furthermore, something I've understood about native culture, is that it generally places higher value on context, where the "Story" is more important than specific points of view - something that is quite different from the way much Western education, communication, and decision making approaches problems - particularly at large, powerful, outcome focused Organisations. While I think all perspectives have their place, I think that we as a culture are crying out for more Heart, Soul, Truth, Spirit and inspiring Stories in our lives - it's in these things that we can find the most interesting and connecting insights. I, personally, very much welcome the perspective that our indigenous people can bring to the table, on important matters, that are fundamental to all our lives.
3. I resonate strongly with the concept that this debate is about the value of a connection to land, where the more generations that have been born to that land, the stronger your connection can be. I think about the Communities I've been a part of, that have had proud histories for 100+ years, and how deeply connecting and rewarding it is to feel like I've been a part of that history - that I've added value to that history - that I've represented the values and purpose of those places in positive ways. I can only imagine the depth to which someone might feel connected to a concept that has been in their blood, and on their land, for 60,000 years - both from an intellectual and spiritual perspective. I think it is a very small ask that a Voice is heard about something so ancient, now and forever.
4. From a race perspective, the Australian Constitution was established by the British Constitutional Monarchy model, and our cultural and legal developments have been heavily influenced by the American Constitutional Federal Republic model. These systems of government have many wonderful benefits and our very fortunate global position in Australia must respect the values and privileges we enjoy as a result of our alignment with them. However, both these systems have been responsible for great tragedies and atrocities around the world. They are, by their nature, geared towards growing the strength of their own regional power - at the cost of native powers. This provides advantages to certain races over others. An agreement that native people deserve a Voice in our system of Government, to me, is about saying regardless of how strong you are, or how many weapons you have - people of the land deserve a say in how their place is run.
What does this vote mean?
If the Australian people vote "no" for the Voice, I think it means:
Australians want more details about things which effect our Constitution.
There is more support for policies in our Constitution which are geared towards benefits for all Australians.
There is a deep lack of trust in the Government, Organisations, and Scientific institutions in Australia.
Our communities are still deeply divided on best approaches for us to move forward.
Fear is currently a more powerful emotion than reconciliation.
If the Australian people vote "yes" for the Voice, I think it means:
We have respect for our entire history of Australia, not just the history of British rule.
We are introducing more Heart, Soul, and Truth into our lives - including richer, more connected, and more connecting stories.
We are ready to increase our efforts in evolving the world to be a better place for all people.
We can celebrate integrating more closely with each other as human beings.
What would you lobby for, if you had a Voice for your people?
Comments