10 Myths about the Voice

Australians will soon vote on the most significant referendum since Federation, a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous “Voice”. Some arguments for the Voice are built on myths. Here’s ten.?

1.?????Aboriginal people asked for the Voice in the Uluru Statement

The Uluru Statement was adopted at a convention at a Yulara resort, 25 km from Uluru. I and others have spoken to A?angu elders angry it was named for their country because it’s not their culture. The convention was attended by 250 delegates, hand-picked from about a dozen community ‘Dialogues’ (at which attendance was capped at 100, only 60 reserved for First Nations groups, and was by invitation only to “ensure” consensus was reached). And, still, a minority of convention delegates rejected it and walked out. Hardly groundswell support.?

2.?????Aboriginal people aren’t in the constitution

Aboriginal people are in the constitution like every Australian. We have been since the 1967 Referendum, when Australians resoundingly voted for all Australians?to be treated equally,?removing express exclusions of Aboriginals in the constitution and dismantling state-based segregation regimes and?their “protection board” bureaucracies controlling Aboriginal lives.?The Voice will be about Indigenous Australians alone,?effectively reversing the 1967 Referendum to constitutionally enshrine a vast Indigenous bureaucracy to speak to everyone about everything.

3.?????Other countries have indigenous constitutional recognition and it’s fine

The US constitution gives Congress power to “regulate commerce with the Indian tribes”. Canada’s constitution recognises existing aboriginal and treaty rights. Nothing like the Voice.??New Zealand’s constitution comprises various precedents and principles, including the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In the 1970s, the Waitangi Tribunal was set up to investigate Māori grievances. In time, courts ruled the government must redress any grievances the Tribunal identifies as legitimate. It now routinely intervenes on all manner of subjects, including prioritising Covid vaccines for Māori over elderly non-Māori and recidivism targets that have seen violent convicted criminals escaping gaol. Albanese says look to New Zealand on how the Voice will work. I have and I don’t like what I see.?

4.?????The Voice will be only advisory, courts won’t give it power

The Voice will have a constitutional right to advise every Minister, public servant and agency on everything from submarines to tax to interest rates to climate policy to parking tickets. Consultation rights are coercive because decisions can be litigated on the grounds of the processes followed and/or information considered. Constitutional Expert Group member, Professor Greg Craven says Albanese’s Voice “absolutely guarantees judicial intervention”. NZ courts transformed the Waitangi Tribunal from merely advisory to dictating government decisions. I believe it’s only a matter of time before the Voice even runs roughshod over traditional owner autonomy over their own lands.??

5.?????Aboriginals don’t have a voice

Albanese’s Voice will be the fifth attempt at a national, representative Indigenous body in 50 years, on top of the many bodies advising government, past and present, most recently the Coalition of the Peaks. Nothing happens on Aboriginal lands without consulting and negotiating with traditional owners through native title and land rights legislation. We have more Aboriginal parliamentarians than ever, above parity.?I’m always tripping over blackfellas in Canberra talking to politicians, public servants and political staffers.?There’s no door that isn’t wide open to Aboriginal people who want to be heard.

6.?????The Voice will speak for Aboriginals

The Voice’s members won’t be elected. Direct elections were rejected in the Co-Design Report. Members will be determined collectively by community organisations. A small minority of Aboriginals join community organisations. The Voice won’t represent most Aboriginals or any first nation .?

7.?????The Voice would have prevented the problems in Alice Springs

Voice campaigner Shireen Morris recently claimed on a Panel discussion with me that the Voice could have stopped Albanese removing alcohol bans and cashless welfare in Alice Springs where Aboriginal parliamentarians failed to do so. Yet all Aboriginal parliamentarians who voted to remove these restrictions, including Linda Burney, Malarndirri McCarthy and Pat Dodson, also support the Voice. The removal was also supported by Pat Turner who heads the Coalition of the Peaks, the government’s principal Indigenous advisory body. People can make bad decisions whether members of parliament or of an unelected Voice.??

8.?????A No vote will damage Australia’s reputation

To the rest of the world, the Voice is a TV show. Foreign media barely covers Australia’s constitutional Voice. Google Trends searches show zero interest outside Australia. Wokerati at UN junkets may well scold Australia for voting No. So what? No other country has a constitutionally enshrined indigenous voice. Who are they to insist we do??

9.?????Opponents of the Voice are racist

I’m Aboriginal and have campaigned for Aboriginal rights all my life. I oppose the Voice. Am I racist? Jacinta Nampijinpa Price opposes the Voice. She’s Warlpiri, advocates for Aboriginal women and children suffering violence and abuse and once jointly presented at the National Press Club with Marcia Langton, a leading Yes campaigner. Does Langton usually share a stage with racists? Recently, Jacinta and I brought a 20-strong delegation of Aboriginal opponents of the Voice to Canberra (whom Albanese shunned and most media ignored). Are they all racist too? Of course not. It’s not racist to oppose special rights that will upend our democratic system.

10.??The Voice will close the gap

Economic participation is the only way to close the gap: kids going to school; adults working in real jobs; social stability in communities so people want to live, work and invest in them. The Voice won’t do this. It will?smother the neediest Aboriginals with more bureaucracy when they need less, tie up those community organisations who are doing good work in an impenetrable new bureaucracy and divert funding from real outcomes. It?will likely make?the gap wider.?

Nyunggai Warren Mundine AO DUniv (Hon. Causa) is the Director, Indigenous Forum at the Centre for Independent Studies and President of Recognise a Better Way.?

This article was first published in The Daily Telegraph on 17 April 2023 .