The Silenced Minority

Why the Referendum on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres 9 Strait Islander Voice) 2023 Was and Deserved to Be a Failure

In the coming days, editorials and commentators will try to address the question of why the Australian electorate rejected the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres 9 Strait Islander Voice) 2023 Act referendum. At the same time, people around the world are looking at and judging Australians as post-colonial racists. In that sense, the referendum did a serious disservice to the reputation of a great country of which I remain proud to be a citizen.

That said, the answer to the question as to why the referendum failed has little to do with the attitudes and prejudices of the Australian people. That the referendum opened the door to discussions of these socio-psychological qualities is true. It also opened the door to discussions about human rights and the rights and dignity of indigenous peoples not only in Australia but also in other largely colonized countries, great and small, such as New Zealand, the United States, and Taiwan.

However, in this case, those issues were merely the imposed multicolored panels of a cloak concealing inadequacies neither pertinent to the spirit of the Act nor to the results of the referendum. The referendum did not fail on account of some tacit disdain for reconciliation, which it supposedly represented, but rather on account of the syntax of the Act itself, essentially the choice of words and phrases that left the referendum appearing shallow and suspicious to the majority of Australians, who are particularly sensitive to being scammed.

On its face, the Act seems straight forward, but any considered reading of it reveals reversals of meaning that create imprecise and arguable implications. This woolliness enabled the proliferation of a range of equally questionable interpretive documents, each one seeking to persuade the people to vote either yes or no based on disinformation, that is, things the Act did not even address. Therefore, voting on the referendum was like choosing whether to buy a house based upon an ambiguous description of it, which made it easy to vote no.

The Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres 9 Strait Islander Voice) 2023 Act is under 100 words long, its stated impetus being “In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia.” But in fact, the Act is clearly in recognition of a deficit in the existing constitution, which does not directly stipulate that the indigenous people of Australia are part of the Commonwealth or should have representation in its Government.

Thus, the Act’s introductory statement should have read:

In recognition of a deficit in the existing constitution, which fails to stipulate that the indigenous Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, today recognized as the First Peoples of Australia, should be included as among the people of the Commonwealth that the constitution’s Proclamation of Commonwealth identifies:

Had the Act begun with these words, it still may not have passed, but it would have at least been true.

Following the opening statement, the Act explains itself, what its purpose is and what it will do. Point one orders “there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.” This point would have felt less disingenuous if it had identified “the body” in question as an advisory group or a Council of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Calling it a “Voice” is more kitsch than constitution, which diminishes the dignity of the Act and calls into question the maturity of the parliamentarians responsible for it. Had they been able to, they probably would have included saying it with a rising terminal intonation. Furthermore, nowhere else in the Constitution of Australia does the wording resort to metaphors or similes, such as calling the people a mob or how they represent themselves a cooee. The only voice the constitution has is its own unadorned legal-speak.

Thus, a truer, that is, less questionable phrasing for the first point would have been: Parliament shall establish a body called the Council of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, hereafter referred to as the Council. Of course, the Council might later have adopted, like every other governmental body, its own acronym, CATSIP. Nevertheless, simply calling it The Council in the Act would have elevated it to the level of eminence such a body certainly deserves.

Point two of the Act pompously gives the Council permission “to make representations [to the Government] on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.” Ironically, this narrow proffer renders the whole Act absurdly paradoxical. Not only is it antithetical to its purpose but also an insult to the spirit of reconciliation out of which it grew. The purpose of the Act was to establish an advice Council to the Government composed of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples as equal members of the Australian socio-political environment. In other words, the Council should have been able to make representations to the Government from the perspective of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples on matters relating to the advancement of the Commonwealth of Australia as a whole, not just on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, themselves, as outsiders. Restricting their representations to matters concerning only themselves effectively marginalizes the Council in the Government the same way Australia has always marginalized the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in society. In addition, this limitation on what matters implies that Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders only care about those things that directly concern them and not everyone else in Australia, matters such as the economy, foreign policy, technology, and equal rights for all people. When you invite people to join a noble government undertaking, which the Act is, you do it because you respect what they will bring to the whole nation and the advance Australians sing about. This Constitution Alteration Act would have done just the opposite, it would have altered nothing by putting a cheap patch on a proverbial old hole.

If point two was an absurd paradox, point three is reprehensible ridicule. It gave the Parliament total control over the Council, “including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.” In other words, the Act invited the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to have a Constitutionally certified “Voice” in the Australian government so that the latter, a democratically elected body, can autocratically stifle it by continuing to tell them legally who they are, what they can and cannot do, and how they are to (not) do it. So, what else is new?

I look forward to the day that the Australian people can vote on a substantive referendum, one that doesn’t read like an f-ing junk X (formerly known as Twitter) post.