It’s 31 days until a vote on the voice to parliament and the zone is flooded with misinformation, disinformation and outright lies. As millions of Australians begin to turn their attention to the referendum, much of what they are seeing and hearing has nothing to do with the question they will be asked on 14 October.
So let’s clear up a few things amid the noise of the current debate. It may be tempting to switch off – and for First Nations people, it can be essential at a time when they feel like Australia is publicly pondering their right to exist in their own country – but before you do, consider these basic principles.
Firstly, this is the question you are being asked to answer:
A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?
You will be asked to write Yes or No on the ballot paper.
Your vote is being sought to amend the constitution, to allow for the creation of an Indigenous advisory body to parliament.
That body, the voice, may give advice. The government will be under no obligation to act on that advice. The advice will not interfere with parliamentary processes or clog up the courts. The advice will be about matters directly affecting First Nations communities. The parliament – including Peter Dutton, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and all the opposition members now and into the future – will design the voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
What has happened already?
The Albanese government has put forward the referendum question: "A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?"
The PM also suggested three sentences be added to the constitution:
- There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
- The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
- The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
How would it work?
The voice would be able to make recommendations to the Australian parliament and government on matters relating to the social, spiritual and economic wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
The voice would be able to table formal advice in parliament and a parliamentary committee would consider that advice. But the voice co-design report said all elements would be non-justiciable, meaning there could not be a court challenge and no law could be invalidated based on this consultation.
How would it be structured?
The co-design report recommended the national voice have 24 members, encompassing two from each state, the Northern Territory, ACT and Torres Strait. A further five members would represent remote areas and an additional member would represent Torres Strait Islanders living on the mainland.
Members would serve four-year terms, with half the membership determined every two years.
That’s it. That’s what you’re being asked to say yes or no to.
It will allow Aboriginal and Islander people a formal means to make representations to all levels of government on matters that affect their lives, in the hope that such advice will lead to better laws and polices.
The voice will not overrule parliament. It cannot.
It will not give advice on link roads, defence spending or tax policy. It will not abolish Anzac Day.
It will not cause you to lose your back yard or take away your home. It will not force Australia to pay reparations. It is not a communist plot. It will not result in Aboriginal people getting free home loans or cars or university degrees.
The idea that no is a vote for the status quo is, like many other campaign tactics, a lie. The country will irrevocably change by deciding not to recognise First Nations in the constitution via a voice to parliament. A mild and modest request – some say too modest – would be steamrolled by campaigners with deep conservative Christian links, who by their own admission are deliberately stoking fear and confusion among voters for long-term political gain.
As Guardian Australia’s political editor, Katharine Murphy, wrote on Tuesday: “Rancorous, cancerous, polarisation – the kind of polarisation that corrodes a culture of shared facts and shared emotions – white ants the foundations of great democracies. Look at the United States. Then ask yourself – do you want to crash down that same cliff here?”
The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, said last month at the launch of the yes campaign in Adelaide that this vote will show us our national character.
“On October 14th, you are not being asked to vote for a political party or for a person. You’re being asked to vote for an idea. To say yes to an idea whose time has come,” Albanese said.
The yes side says a vote for a voice will prove we are a mature nation ready to progress to a better, more truthful relationship with First Nations people. The vote is the culmination of years of work by Indigenous people, a proposition for change.
The conservative no campaign says it is “divisive”. They don’t want to alter the founding document lest we “re-racialise” our nation – failing to acknowledge that race is already in the constitution (section 51 (xxvi) and section 25).
Each side has accused the other of peddling misinformation about the voice, but some conservative no campaigners have also been accused of “offensive”, “abhorrent” and “revolting” commentary about Indigenous people.
The yes campaign is acutely aware it is competing not just against racism, misinformation and negativity, but also apathy and disengagement. Switched-off voters might be more easily persuaded to vote no.
Albanese has also been fond of saying: “If not now, then when?”
The answer could be never. It may be sunk by politicians who have never provided a viable alternative plan, who have no ideas, no vision, no alternative except a vague referendum do-over not supported by their own party members.
The question for them really should be: “If not this, then what?” If we all agree that the gap is not closing as it should, then what is the alternative?
Regardless of the result on 14 October, we will have to face ourselves in the mirror. As the prime minister has said, our national character will be on full display. Read widely, ask questions, check your sources. Cast your vote based on information.
