At a referendum later this year we’ll decide if a few sentences will be added to our Constitution so that First Nations peoples will be able to form a body – a Voice – that will advise the Australian Parliament of the day on ways that upcoming legislation affects them.
At this stage there are more questions than answers, and a bunch of us gathered at Well Thumbed Books in Cobargo on 12 April to ask some of those questions. The event was hosted by Heather O’Connor, Heather Stone, Marisa Giuffre and Ludo McFerran. In the interests of transparency, they told us they were all in favour of the Voice, but this was not a campaigning session, it was an information session.
I’m also in favour – right now I intend to vote ‘Yes’. But, like others there on the day, I have questions and I’m interested in alternative ideas.
One question that came up: of all the legislation debated by parliament every year, who will decide which pieces of legislation the Voice will be asked to advise on? Well, that’s a matter for future parliaments. Governments of different stripes will have different agendas – that’s democracy. And even when the Voice offers advice on a certain issue, it will be parliament’s choice whether or not to heed that advice.
And it will always be parliament, our elected representatives, that decide the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Voice. So what we are being asked to vote on is the broad principle: should First Nations people have a Voice that is enshrined in the Constitution? One that cannot be abolished as such advisory bodies have been in the past.
Parliament will not be compelled to take the advice of the Voice. But it must listen.
These conversations will be held at Well Thumbed Books on the first Tuesday of every month, and we’re all invited. Come along with your questions so that when the day comes we can be confident in our vote, whether it be Yes or No.
In the meantime, we must educate ourselves. Here’s a start: the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I challenge you to read this short, heartfelt document and not come away with a sense of the justness and simplicity of what our First Nations peoples are asking of us.
This piece was first published in The Triangle community newspaper in May 2023.
Well summarised, Jen. The Uluru Statement of the Heart is only about 400 words long, yet I wonder how many people have read it. At the Sydney Writers Festival I picked up a slim volume called The Voice to Parliament by Thomas Mayo and Kerry O’Brien. It is a quick read and puts things in historical context. Should be mandatory reading!
The Referendum Bible! I agree wholeheartedly. I’m so sick of hearing people say they don’t have enough information.
I am firmly in favour of a YES vote, based on the fundamental need to include First Nations people in our Constitution (such as it is). The largely disingenuous opposition says more about prejudice and mean-spirited politics than anything else.
With Joycean fervour: YES YES YES!
Yes, Ian. Interesting that just like Marriage Equality the negative side must resort to disinformation. All in their self-interest, nothing to do with the national interest. It’s only going to get louder.
I totally agree about educating ourselves about this, and I have read extensively and listened to both sides. My conclusion is that although there are still questions to be answered, there is a compelling argument for voting yes, which is what I will be doing. We may never get the opportunity again as a country to start the healing process that voting yes will put into action.
I agree, Tony. It’s by no means perfect but it’s a start and as it stands can do no harm. At the very worst it’s a signal that as a nation we’re willing to engage at last.