The Voice Is so Divisive That Even Those on the Same Side Aren’t on One Page

Banners reasing ‘Vote No to Referendum’ and ‘We deserve more than a voice’ are seen at the Aboriginal tent Embassy in Canberra, Australia, on Feb. 15, 2023. AAP Image/Lukas Coch

Commentary

A voice that speaks out of both sides of its mouth is not to be trusted. And so it is with The Voice proposal on which we will need to cast a vote later this year.

Having been promised that this is a move to unite us, we see The Voice dividing our community.

It is unlike the Liberal initiated referendum of 1967, which was designed to take race out of the Constitution, attracting over 90 percent support of Australians. This proposal will, if carried, scrape through with the barest of margins leaving us divided.

Most telling is the powerfully persuasive opposition emanating from within the Indigenous community, which was thankfully absent in the 1967 referendum.

As Australia’s first Aboriginal senator, Neville Bonner (Liberal, Queensland) argued, it was equality as fellow Australians which was sought and obtained, not special treatment unavailable to fellow citizens.

A strong unifying, and very Australian virtue overwhelmingly endorsed.

When Australian Aboriginal senators as diverse in their outlooks as Senator Jacinta Price (Country Liberal, Northern Territory) and Senator Lidia Thorpe (formerly Greens, now independent, Victoria) are urging their fellow Australians to reject The Voice along with the former national president of the Australian Labor Party, Warren Mundine AO, and Anthony Dillon, we know this comprehensively upends the shallow promise of delivering unity.

Shadow Minister for Child Protection and the Prevention of Family Violence Kerrynne Liddle (L) and Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (R) look on as Australian Opposition Leader Peter Dutton speaks to media during a press conference in Adelaide, Australia, on April 18, 2023. AAP Image/Michael Errey

Although support for the ill-conceived Voice is, thankfully, rapidly diminishing as people understand its implications, it is still foreseeable that well-meaning woke city folk might foist The Voice on an Aboriginal community that is opposed to it.

In anyone’s language, that must surely be a perverse and exceptionally debilitating outcome.

On top of that, the strongly divergent views from within the Indigenous community about The Voice is proof positive, if needed, that there is no such thing as The Voice.

Like all Australians, however, classified by some form of identity or other, there will be divergent views. This is healthy.

But it resoundingly puts the lie to the proposition that such a thing as The Voice exists.

To assert otherwise is both patronising and indicative of an unhealthy and unhelpful need to pigeonhole people of a particular grouping.

Canberra would do well to consider getting itself a set of ears rather than The Voice.

Even Voice Proponents Are Contradicting Each Other

On another front, we are promised that The Voice is a minor change. Yet the same leaders promising us inconsequential change are trying to promote The Voice as a fundamental game changer on the way we do business in Australia.

Both can’t be correct.

Big crowds are seen outside South Australia’s parliament in Adelaide, Australia, on March 26, 2023. AAP Image/Matt Turner

In the absence of an honest assessment as to its impact, we are well advised to reject The Voice.

The Voice is more than just recognising our Indigenous Australians in the Constitution. The Voice threatens to impose a layer of extra bureaucracy with uncertain wording providing a gold mine for constitutional lawyers.

In 1967, the meaning and consequences of taking race out of the Constitution were clear and concise. Today’s proposal unbelievably seeks to return race to the Constitution, with every lawyer advancing their own unique interpretation of its impact.

Even our solicitor-general for the Commonwealth recommended a change to the wording, which the so-called working group did not accept. So now the same solicitor-general provides advice that everything is ok.

If so, why the initial request for changed wording?

In the absence of a full and coherent explanation, which is yet to be forthcoming, Australians would be well advised to reject this mish-mash of inconsistencies.

While on inconsistencies, it is to be noted that some proponents of The Voice are adamant that it will have the right to be consulted by the executive arm of government as well as the parliament.

Yet others seeking to shore up the ever-declining support for The Voice assert the exact opposite.

Being on the same side seeking our support, they show how fraught, unclear, and messy this proposal will be in practice.

They can’t both be right. This means that however the High Court might finally interpret the change, a considerable proportion of the YES campaign will be bitterly disappointed.

Moreover, many Australians will have voted YES on a false premise. Hardly unifying and potentially the breeding ground for resentment—the exact opposite of what is being promised.

With the YES case continuing to implode by the day, those still unsure of their attitude may care to contemplate why there is a need to enshrine The Voice in our Constitution, let alone how it will improve the well-being of a single Indigenous Australian other than those who might get a job in The Voice bureaucracy.

Let’s not undo the great advance of the 1967 referendum by yet again dividing us on the basis of race.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.