Referendum on proposed Constitution alterations

Directions To Voter

Write “YES” or “NO” in the space provided opposite the question set out below.

A PROPOSED LAW:

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?

Rarely in global history has a settlersociety, forged from conflict and cultural erasure, been handed such a simple and painless potential first step towards justice. The chance to include a mechanism in the Constitution for a Voice to Parliament for First Nations peoples — as outlined in the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart — is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

As Australia gazes into the mirror of history, it sees itself in the positive achievements of its forebearers, but denies any culpability or undue benefit from acquiring its nationhood for free. John Howard reassured Australians that the crimes of rape and murder and dispossession and discrimination committed in its acquisition were done not by us but by “others”. However, this campaign

The referendum, explained

What is a referendum?

The Constitution provides the basis for the powers and functions of Australia’s three branches of government — the parliament, the executive, and the judiciary. Unlike the ordinary legislative process, the Constitution can only be changed through the process of a national referendum.

Simply, a referendum is a vote in which all eligible voters are asked to respond to a question. The question will relate to a proposed Constitutional amendment. For the proposed change to pass, there must be a double majority — meaning both a majority of all voters and a majority of states are required for a referendum to carry. The result then binds the Government to act based on what the voters decided.

Who can vote?

The vast majority of Australian citizens, aged over 18, can vote in this election. In fact, it is compulsory for them to do so.

However, the crucial misapprehension about the upcoming referendum is that it is a vote for all Australians. It is not. More than 32% of Indigenous people of official denial is nothing more than a moral dead end, something else weighs on this nation’s heart.

Negation and silence have merely magnified the harm. Howard couldn’t bear to utter a simple apology to the Stolen Generations and victims of forced child removals.

Peter Dutton walked out when Kevin Rudd delivered his apology.

The spirit of the Uluru Statement from the Heart provides an invitation to walk together on the path towards a reckoned-with Australia. Here, we might find an accountable and inclusive society which owns its history, so as to better imagine its future.

The Statement comprises three parts — Voice, Treaty and Truth. Self-evidently, the idea of Voice is are aged under 18, rendering them ineligible to vote. Fifteen per cent of First Nations people over 18 are not registered voters. Those who are serving a custodial sentence of three years or more are also denied the right to vote in the upcoming referendum. Given that First Nations people are so uniquely disenfranchised by a carceral system which exists to perpetrate settler-colonial violence, it is bizarre to consider that this is used to preclude them from participating in a referendum predicated on the ideals of participation in democracy. concerned with the establishment of a constitutionally recognised Indigenous Voice to Parliament. The principles of Treaty and Truth, as the word makarrata suggests, are about coming together after a struggle. This is the simple invitation extended to all Australians within the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

The fact that so much of the Indigenous population is rendered ineligible to vote on what will surely be the defining moment for Indigenous rights in the twentyfirst century should be a call for us to do more to increase First Nations peoples’ access to the democratic process. We cannot assume the Voice alone will deliver this.

What is being asked in this referendum?

The Voice which Australians will be asked to vote on later this year poses a simple but monumental choice: whether or not the First People of this country should have input and play a role in shaping policies and laws being made about them.

However, Australia’s timid sentimentality and coloniallyminded constitutional machinery hinders any progress. While there is goodwill in both the political and public arenas, many questions remain about the basic logic of the Voice. Why is it needed? Why must it be in the Constitution? Will it close the gap? Does it create a constitutionally enshrined race distinction where previously there was none? Aren’t the eleven First

The proposed alteration to the Constitution has been drafted as:

Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

1: There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

2: 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;

3: 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.

The referendum is expected to occur at the end of this year, sometime between September and December, with a result to be announced before the new year.

YESNations representatives sitting in Parliament already the Voice of “their people”? And, of course, there are deeper and more complex questions of sovereignty, of selfdetermination, and of healing the scars that we carry as a nation.

As students, the editors of Honi support a “Yes” vote. However, we do not wish to reduce the scope of the Voice debate to simply a decision to vote “Yes” or “No”. While a “Yes” vote is an outcome which we support, it is our intention to interrogate Labor’s proposal and counter the unimaginative discourses taking place in the broader media landscape. The Voice is a first step in the change which is needed, but the form it takes — and what follows it — will be critical in paving the path forward.

How will the Voice be structured?

The model set out by the CalmaLangton report provides for two members from each state, both territories, and the Torres Strait. A further five members are expected to represent remote areas due to their unique needs — one member each from the Northern Territory, Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales. An additional member would represent the significant population of Torres Strait Islander peoples living on mainland Australia.

Members of the Voice would serve four-year terms, with half the membership determined every two years. There would be a limit of two consecutive terms for each member. Two co-chairs would be selected by the membership of the Voice every two years. The national Voice would also feature two permanent advisory groups — one for youth and one for disabilities — and an ethics council to advise on the Voice’s values and governance.

That this model will be implemented is not certain, given Parliament’s discretion in determining the makeup of the Voice. But it provides a good guide for what the Voice will finally look like.