The Voice Vote: Australia Wants Substance Not Symbolism

If you live outside Australia, you may not have known that a couple of days ago, there was a referendum on something called "The Voice". The proposal was to give the indigenous Aborigines special status in the Australian Constitution, not afforded to any other group. The lead-up to the referendum sowed division in Australian society. The rationale by the Labor, left-wing government was something to the effect that they needed special status because of the problems in aboriginal culture.

The Voice was soundly defeated in the referendum. Overall, there was a 20% margin for the No vote. It carried the day in every state except for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), which is not a state but an administrative zone centring primarily on Canberra. So the capital made of bureaucrats, totally out of touch with what goes on in remote areas of Australia, voted for a symbolic gesture rather than genuine change. Changing the Constitution will do nothing for the plight of the Aborigines. 

Now, I have no problem with extra money to assist the Aboriginal community in improving their lives. However, despite billions every year given to a particular government department called the National Indigenous Australians Agency, there has been virtually no improvement in the lives of Aboriginals. Their life expectancy is way below the rest of the population, and alcohol and drug use is rampant. In addition, sexual abuse of children and women is a big problem. So what was the government thinking that making a symbolic gesture would make a difference when all the money spent has not changed things. The situation in the Aboriginal communities is a sociological one. It takes more than government platitudes to solve.

It's interesting now that according to its latest census, the Australian government states that there are 820,000 people of Aboriginal and Torres Islander descent. Anyone who identifies as such is eligible for government assistance. 

Aboriginality: Who is and who isn't?

As this article states:

"With some 67 legislative definitions of Aboriginality and a 20 per cent jump in those who selected Indigenous in the census, what does it take to be considered Indigenous?

The number of Australians who have selected Indigenous status has leapt 20 per cent, according to the latest census figures.

With the assistance available to those who qualify, such as health, education and employment services, the question of how Aboriginality is verified is now hotly debated.

The government is no clearer on definition: one parliamentary study of legislation found over 700 articles containing about 67 definitions Aboriginality.

Some people question the motives of others who elect Indigenous status as a manipulation of the system, and say that explains the huge statistical uptrend."

So Aborigines are afforded special status in Australia even down to special Native Title Land Rights, which accounts for almost 50% of the land mass. According to the Native Titles Act:

"The Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) sets out specified processes that must be followed for any 'future act' on land or waters that would affect native title rights and interests. Applications for most resource authorities are considered future acts and are subject to these native title processes."

So, suppose there is land that falls under Native Title. In that case, there is already a special provision for the Aboriginal community to say Yay or Nay. So, what was the need for a special provision in the Constitution afforded to no one else?

The government's obsession with a referendum on The Voice cost the Australian taxpayers $450 million, as Evan Ekin-Smyth of the Australian Electoral Commission confirmed. 

The issue that has so fixated Australia for most of 2023 has been a nebulous referendum instead of focusing on pressing issues like the high cost of living, government debt, crime and the devastating effects of the COVID-19 vaccines. These affect all Australians, including the Aboriginal population. 

The proponents of the YES vote will no doubt scream racism because their referendum didn't pass. Please don't fall for it. The only racist thing which could have happened was separating us in the Consitution, which is what was attempted. However, the overwhelming NO vote gives us some hope that most Australians are fed up with symbolic and ineffectual policies.