The Voice to Parliament Handbook by Thomas Mayo & Kerry O’Brien. Cover Image: Hardie Grant Publishing/ Background: canva.com
The book begins with the text of The Uluru Statement from the Heart, followed by a two-page description of how it was created. Then, the two authors respond to the question: What does the Voice mean to me?
The Table of Contents lists seven chapters and includes the names of the authors of each chapter. Cathy Wilcox, a cartoonist for daily newspapers in both Melbourne and Sydney, provides a cartoon before each chapter. There are also a few poster-like summaries of aspects of the proposed Voice. Two Indigenous leaders, Professor Fiona Stanley AC and Professor Marcia Langton AO, not acknowledged on the book cover as authors, wrote Chapter 6. Then follow Endnotes, Further reading, Appendix 1, Referendum Working Group, Appendix 2, Referendum Engagement Group, and information about the four authors.
A passage in Thomas Mayo’s contribution seems to say quite a lot about how Indigenous Australians felt about the rest of this nation: “To reach the consensus position, we suspended our disbelief that this modern nation could agree to meaningful constitutional change. After many days of discussion and debate, a great majority of the delegates chose unity and hope”. Similarly, Kerry O’Brien stated a core truth at the heart of our country’s negative attitude to its First Peoples: “One key reason why Indigenous policy has failed so fundamentally at times is because it has been written and implemented from Canberra by non-Indigenous politicians and bureaucrats, without listening to the people they’re supposed to be helping”.
Then follows a rationale for seeking the Voice to Parliament, namely that: “The people most affected by the policies and laws passed by parliament would choose who will give advice on their behalf. Not the politicians. … It comes down to a question about fairness and acceptance.”
Kerry O’Brien outlines the history of the Indigenous push for participation in how they were governed by the Federal and State parliaments of Australia from federation of the states in 1901, marking the official founding of what is today called Australia. The Indigenous had no say in writing Australia’s Constitution and were written out of it. They did not receive full official recognition as citizens until the referendum of 1967, recognised as the most resounding ‘Yes’ vote in 122 years.
Racial discrimination continued despite some progress, but the struggle for a say in how governments help to address specifically Indigenous issues continued. There have been a variety of government forays into Indigenous affairs over subsequent years but they continued to live on the margins, enduring much social discrimination and having no guaranteed and effective way of being at the heart of government attempts to address their specific issues. They needed and sought an effective and enduring voice to Parliament. If it were simply legislated, any laws could be overturned or adversely modified by a subsequent government, and so, the request for a structured and enduring Voice to Parliament and Executive Government to be included in the National Constitution, which can only be modified via a national referendum. “With its continuity guaranteed in the Constitution, the Voice would be able to mature and evolve as an effective part of the ongoing drive to close the gap on the inequities built into Australian society over 235 years” (page 40).
White supremacy has been at the core of Australian society since colonisation began. Colonisers depicted local peoples as racially inferior. Post-colony Australian parliaments at the state and national levels waxed and waned as regards due recognition and support for Indigenous Peoples. The hope of the forthcoming referendum is that the Voice be embedded in the Constitution and so ensure continuity of access to the Federal Parliament and Executive Government. A successful referendum would protect the principle that Indigenous Peoples are recognised and consulted.
The book also offers evidence to the effect that having a Voice – a say in how government might design and implement programs to help face the issues and programmes that affect them – makes a huge difference towards improving daily life for First Nations people, from the time of birth onwards.
Thomas Mayo offers 11 suggestions about how we might help the ‘Yes’ campaign get over the line. The 7th suggestion struck me: Keep in mind that people are unlikely to change their views if you seek to ‘correct’ them, regardless of how much they like and respect you. Hear them out and use logic, commonsense and your own story to explain why you will vote ‘Yes’ and why they might vote ‘Yes’ too.
Columban Fr Peter Woodruff lives and works in Australia.
Related links
- Read more from the current Columban eBulletin.
R. Fitzgerald:
Jun 16, 2023 at 03:31 PM
Not everyone is convinced that the proposed amendment to the Constitution to give effect to 'The Voice' will live up to the expectations of the Uluru Statement. Several people, including Aboriginal people, have expressed doubts about the presumed benefits, not least to those living in remote communities. At present we have only sparse details of how 'the Voice' will operate in practice. In the absence of these details the risk of unintended detrimental consequences is of serious concern to many. Before deciding how to vote we need to make sure we are fully informed about what specifically we are voting for and why.
Trevor Armstrong:
Jul 06, 2023 at 02:17 PM
Why can't our PM be honest. The voice is step one, a treaty is step two and the core of the treaty will be sovereignty. There cannot be two sovereign authorities so is it Parliament or is it what??
Christopher Panizza:
Aug 26, 2023 at 02:31 PM
Treaty making primarily involves land. Land is controlled by the States. All states are currently involved in what may be described as "Treaty Making" though not necessarily by that name. One of the most comprehensive of such settlements is the South West Native Title Settlement in Western Australia under the Barnett Government. There is no separate sovereignty in the sense suggested by Mr Armstrong.