Indigenous activist Susanne Levy stands near a sign that opposes the referendum as Australians casted their votes last week. The prospect of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament has bitterly divided Australia's Indigenous minority as well as the wider community. (AP Photo/Rod McGuirk)
Indigenous activist Susanne Levy stands near a sign that opposes the referendum as Australians casted their votes last week. The prospect of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament has bitterly divided Australia's Indigenous minority as well as the wider community. (AP Photo/Rod McGuirk)
OPINION:
Last weekend there were two elections I was acutely interested in. The first was our general election, whichwent as many expected.
The second took place in Australia, where I have been for the past week. There, the dominating domestic issue has been “The Voice” referendum, held onthe same day as our election. The first part of the proposal was to change Australia’s constitution to “recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing a body called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice”.
It was, as expected, voted down.
For those unsure of the background, many of Australia’s Indigenous peoples - made up of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islands people - look with envy at New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi. This week an Aboriginal academic told me it gives Māori the constitutional recognition as original inhabitants they lack in Australia. The original Australian constitution makes no mention of its First Nations peoples, except to say that, when reckoning the number of people in a state to determine how many parliamentary seats each state got, Aboriginal Natives were not to be counted. In other words, not counted as citizens.
When the Federal Parliament was formed in 1901, they debated over who could vote because every state had different rules. New South Wales allowed some Aboriginal men to vote and women could vote in South Australia and Western Australia. One interesting discussion was on whether Māori should be allowed to vote. They discussed it because at that point it still hadn’t been decided whether the colony of New Zealand would join and become part of the Commonwealth of Australia. New Zealand politicians had stated that if they joined, then the Māori population would be counted and would also be able to vote.
The Australian debate, recorded in the Hansard, was sometimes cruel. The Minister for Home Affairs, responsible for the proposed legislation, argued all native people in New Zealand and Australia should be able to vote because it would be unfair to take away a voting right that they already had. A Tasmanian politician seemed comfortable for Māori to vote but not Aboriginals. His justification was that, “an Aboriginal is not as intelligent as a Māori. There is no scientific evidence that he is a human being at all”. Absolute nonsense!
In the end, the 1902 legislation allowed for Māori living in the Commonwealth of Australia to vote, but not Aboriginals. It wasn’t until 1967 that all Aboriginals could vote but their position as the original inhabitants was still not recognised in the constitution. This is what the “The Voice” referendum sought to rectify. It would have acknowledged their place in Australia and given them a direct channel to government to “make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islands peoples”.
Today, Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islands peoples are a minority making up 3.8 per cent of the Australian population at just under 1 million people. They have had little influence on how government services are provided. When politicians claim they spend money on Aboriginal services, it often means the money paid to white Australians to deliver services whether or not they are useful or appropriate.
Anaru Eketone. Photo / Supplied
I watched some of the debates and noticed that it has been a boon for the right wing - which preaches equality all the while accepting gross inequality - who say it is divisive, ignoring the fact there has always been two Australias, and who advocate for democracy, but seem to favour the type of democracy where two wolves and one sheep get to vote on what to have for dinner.
The lead-up to the vote was depressing as it looked sure to fail, as it eventually did. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese tried to put a positive spin on it, but it was seen by many as yet another rejection of Indigenous people. A refusal to let them have more influence over their own affairs.
What I have learnt from this is that these types of referendums create the division they are supposed to resolve and give energy to the far-right to whip up votes. In New Zealand, I fully expect the ACT Party to be watching carefully and push for a referendum on the Treaty of Waitangi with all their might as there are votes out there to be gained by creating greater ill-will.
As for Australia, the debate has been hurtful for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island peoples and justified their cynicism towards the values espoused by white Australia. While this is seen as a major setback as they seek to have greater control over those things that impact their lives, if there is any group of people that has shown it has perseverance beyond measure, it is them.
Anaru Eketone is an Associate Professor in social and community work at the University of Otago and a columnist for the Otago Daily Times. This column has been republished with permission.
