Labor's Indigenous Voice To Parliament Will Permanently Divide Us

Originally Appeared In The Epoch Times Australia

Indigenous Australians are Australians

Voice. Treaty. Truth. These are the words used to describe the Australian Labor Party’s (ALP) main policy for Indigenous Australians. Now that the ALP has claimed power in Canberra after nine years in opposition, it is time to consider what these words mean genuinely.

The Labor party policy platform notes a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament is a “matter of priority.” It also promised to establish a “Makaratta Commission to work with the Voice to Parliament on a national process for Treaty and Truth-telling.”

What Australians have been told about the proposed Voice to Parliament and what a Voice will do are likely two different things.

The suggestion that the Voice would merely be confined to issues affecting Indigenous Australians would mean it won’t be confined at all. All policy issues that have a general application are indigenous policy decisions because Indigenous Australians are Australians.

In effect, establishing a Voice entity would create a parallel system of representative government based on race. As a result, the legal and democratic status of Australians will be affected and determined by their ethnic background, making it one of the most radical proposals for constitutional change in Australian political history.

The Makaratta Commission is even more obscure than the Voice, but its potential divisiveness should not be understated. A commission for truth-telling can quickly become a forum for historical revisionism and partisan point-scoring.

Truth commissions also enable the obsession with the past when our governments have so much work to do securing the wellbeing of Australians in the present.

As the new senator representing the Northern Territory, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, noted recently, “The Greens might want to look back with truth hearings, but there are things happening right now that are far more urgent like the safety of women and children in regional communities.”

Northern Territory political leader Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. (Supplied)
Northern Territory political leader Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. (Supplied)

It is undoubtedly true that many Indigenous Australians, particularly in remote communities, face a range of challenges from violence, unemployment, crime, and alcohol and drug abuse.

A multitude of centralised bureaucracies have been established to “manage” the problems, all with little success. The idea now to erect another bureaucracy to focus on the past and writing treaties will be no more successful than the rest.

Treaties might be of interest in academia but won’t be a cure to any of the real-world problems in Indigenous communities. Just consider how the existence of treaties in Canada and New Zealand have not generated better outcomes among their First Nations or Maori populations.

At its best, the issue of a treaty is just incoherent. Indigenous Australians are Australians, and the Australian government can’t sign a treaty with itself.

At its worst, the treaty is a divisive idea because it is predicated on the idea that Indigenous Australians are in some way legally separate from other Australians.

These are consequential proposals that deserve a genuine public debate on their potential benefits and dangers.

The challenge now is that a bipartisan campaign for constitutional change will potentially confront Australians.

The new opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has correctly in the past rejected a Constitutional Voice for being a “third chamber” of parliament.

But it is possible that Dutton, to shore up support from the Liberal’s depleted left faction, may now be back in the Voice.

Voice supporters scoff at the suggestion that their proposal would be a third chamber, but it is undeniable that the Voice would, in effect, exercise a veto over public debate. Furthermore, the risk of going against the official “voice” of indigenous Australians would be met by debilitating claims of racism.

Already the debate is being shaped around the idea that opposing the existence of the Voice is an inherently racist idea.

Labor Senator Malarndirri McCarthy called on Dutton to support the Voice to compensate for his failure to attend Kevin Rudd’s parliamentary apology to the stolen generation in 2008.

But allegations of racism aren’t going to cut it at a referendum on constitutional change. Australians are a discerning people when they are asked about changing the core institutions of democratic governance. That’s why Australians have almost always said no when Canberra asks the voters to give them more power.

It also explains why the nation overwhelmingly supported a constitutional change in the indigenous affairs referendum in 1967. The removal of references to race in the Constitution was consistent with a view that Australians’ formal and legal status should not be delineated along racial lines.

The movement for the Voice is not the continuation of 1967 but a repudiation of the claim for racial equality it represented.

Voice Referendum A Betrayal Of 1967 Legacy

“Holding a referendum on an Indigenous voice to parliament on the anniversary of the 1967 referendum is a backwards and retrograde step which will destroy the progress to racial equality started in 1967 and divide Australians by race forever,” said Morgan Begg, Director of the Legal Rights Program at the Institute of Public Affairs.

It was reported today that a meeting of Indigenous delegates in Yarrabah in Queensland, over the weekend, proposed that a referendum on the issue of a constitutionally-enshrined voice to parliament be held on either 27 May 2023, or 27 January 2024. The first option (2023) coincides with the 56th anniversary of the 1967 referendum.

“To complete the work of the 1967 referendum – and to honor that legacy – a referendum should be held to remove the remaining references to race in the constitution to make Australia one and free. Race has no place in Australia’s constitution,” said Mr Begg.

In 1967 Australia showed it was one of the least racist nations the world had ever seen. Over 90 per cent of voters said ‘yes’ to racial equality by removing divisive references to race in the Australian Constitution so that Indigenous Australians could be counted as equals.

“Putting references to race back in the constitution under the guise of an Indigenous voice to parliament is a complete repudiation of the spirit of 1967.”

“Inserting an Indigenous-only body into the constitution would be illiberal, divisive, undemocratic, and violate the egalitarian principle of racial equality under the law.”

“The dignity of Indigenous Australians demands that they be treated the same as non-Indigenous Australians, which means being included and represented in shared institutions, such as the Commonwealth Parliament.”

“The government must not ask Australians to divide themselves by race. Even just asking the question will forever divide Australians on racial grounds.”

“All Australians are equal. The legal status of Australians should not be determined by skin colour or racial background,” said Mr Begg.

Download the polling document.

For media and comment: Daniel Wild, Director of Policy; Morgan Begg, Research Fellow, via Evan Mulholland, Director of Communications, on 0405 140 780, or at [email protected].

Australians Want Race Removed From The Constitution

Free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs has called on the Federal Government to remove the two remaining references to race from the Australian Constitution after a new poll revealed that Australians would support it.

A new poll conducted by Dynata and commissioned by the IPA found that more Australians agreed (45 per cent) than disagreed (16 per cent) with removing all references to race from the Australian Constitution.

“The only credible form of indigenous recognition is that which gives them dignity equal to all other Australians,” said IPA Research Fellow, Morgan Begg.

“Proponents of constitutional recognition  – in the form of either a symbolic preamble or the establishment of a voice to parliament — have been insistent that these ideas are simply about recognising the place and history of indigenous Australians and would be treated with restraint by the courts.”

“In light of the High Court’s decision this week such an assertion is no longer credible.”

“The Federal Government should rule out constitutional change that inserts references to race in the constitution.

“To recognise that all Australians are equal, references to race in the constitution must be removed.”

“There is no legal or moral case for retaining the race power.”

“The race power allows the Commonwealth government to treat Australians differently on the basis of their race. This is an outdated, retrograde, divisive, and illiberal provision which must be removed,” said Mr Begg.

Download the polling document.

For media and comment: Daniel Wild, Director of Policy; Morgan Begg, Research Fellow, via Evan Mulholland, Director of Communications, on 0405 140 780, or at [email protected].

Radical High Court Divides Australia By Race

“The decision of the High Court today to exclude a specific group from the scope of the constitutional aliens power is the most radical instance of judicial activism in Australian history,” said Morgan Begg, research fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.

Today the High Court handed down its decision in Love v Commonwealth of Australia; Thomas v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] HCA 3. A majority of the justices decided that non-citizens who were descended from Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders did not fall within the scope of the Commonwealth’s power to make laws with regards to “aliens”.

“The High Court has created a new class of citizenship based according to identity which offends the basic moral principle of racial equality,” said Mr Begg.

“This decision has led to the absurd position that a person can be a non-citizen but not subject to Australia’s migration laws.”

“This is a fundamental challenge to the idea of racial equality as well as the sovereignty of the parliament to decide who can be members of our shared political community,” said Mr Begg.

Today’s decision also has implications for the campaign to amend the Australian Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

“The High Court’s decision today should also put to rest the idea that constitutional recognition will not lead to unintended consequences,” said Mr Begg.

“The High Court has become infested with identity politics ideology which divides Australians by their race.”

“If the High Court is willing to create out of whole cloth a race-based exemption to migration laws, what would it do with an assertion of historical facts written into the constitution.”

“The High Court has failed to exercise its powers in a restrained and principled manner.”

“This should be seen as a wake-up call for the federal government to exercise more care in who is appointed to the High Court,” Mr Begg said.

For media and comment: Daniel Wild, Director of Policy; Morgan Begg, Research Fellow, via Evan Mulholland, Director of Communications, on 0405 140 780, or at [email protected].

A Violation Of Racial Equality

This article originally appeared in Sydney Morning Herald.

All Australians are equal. The legal status of Australians should not be decided according to their skin colour or race. Any proposal that seeks to establish a special “voice to Parliament” for some people and not others is radical, illiberal, and a violation of all principles of racial equality. Our nation’s founding document should not divide us.

Australia has just commemorated National Reconciliation Week, a period in which Australians are asked “to reflect on our shared histories and relationship with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and explore how each of us can contribute to achieving reconciliation”.

This year, the focus turned to advocacy for a referendum to “recognise” Indigenous Australians in the constitution by establishing multiple representative bodies at a national, state and local level to advise Parliament on issues relevant to Indigenous Australians.

The establishment of such bodies, or an Indigenous voice to Parliament, is one of the most radical proposals for constitutional change in Australian political history. It risks establishing a parallel system of representative government based on race.

The suggestion that the voice could be confined to issues affecting Indigenous Australians is fundamentally incoherent. All policy decisions that have a general application are Indigenous policy decisions because Indigenous Australians are Australians.

Dangerously, the voice would in practice exercise a veto over any policy passed by the federal Parliament. While a formal veto would not be written into the powers of the voice body, the political risk would make it too costly for a government to go against the Indigenous voice. The accusation of racism, rather than the formal powers of the voice, is the veto.

In June 2017, the federal government’s Referendum Council delivered its Uluru Statement from the Heart, which called on the Australian people to follow the precedent set by a successful effort to change the constitution in 1967. In the statement it said “in 1967 we were counted. In 2017 we seek to be heard”.

Constitutional recognition advocates have always had a weak claim to be the spiritual successors of the 1967 referendum. In that year Australians voted by an overwhelming margin to “alter the Constitution so as to omit certain words relating to the People of the Aboriginal Race in any State and so that Aboriginals are to be counted in reckoning the Population”.

The symbolic importance of this vote should not be underestimated. While the practical effect was to centralise much of, and kick-start the massive growth of, the Indigenous affairs bureaucracy in Canberra, this was a positive step forward in removing references to race in our constitution.

Australian voters then began to understand that race had no place in the constitution.
It is true that many Indigenous Australians face a range of challenges from unemployment, high rates of incarceration, and drug and alcohol abuse. Addressing these challenges may well require local solutions. Many conservatives are in favour of broad-based political decentralisation and empowerment of local communities to solve local problems. But this doesn’t mean that the universality of the Australian constitution needs to be compromised. Nor does it mean that the concerns and needs of Indigenous Australians are fundamentally different to that of non-Indigenous Australians.

The basic needs of humans, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, are not culturally contingent. For example, all Australians need access to the dignity of work, effective policing to reduce crime and violence, home ownership and high-quality education to live flourishing lives. And the Australian Parliament, which represents all Australians regardless of race and is open to participation from all Australians, remains the best body to address these issues.

The idea of formal equality under the Crown is the cornerstone of the constitution and the principle underlying our freedoms and the rule of law. Challenging this idea is a challenge to national unity and Australia itself.

Regardless of how the country votes in a referendum for constitutional recognition or an Indigenous voice, Australia will lose. Merely asking Australians to divide themselves by race will divide Australia along racial lines forever. The dignity of Indigenous Australians demands that they be treated the same as non-Indigenous Australians, which means being included and represented in a common national body: the Australian Parliament.

This article originally appeared in Sydney Morning Herald.


This article originally appeared in the IPA Review.

Bill Shorten’s push for a treaty with Aboriginal Australians is as divisive as it is dangerous, writes Morgan Begg and Simon Breheny.

Debate over the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders has consumed Australia’s political class for almost a decade. Ever since former Prime Minister John Howard promised to recognise indigenous Australians in the constitution if the Coalition government won the 2007 election, every prime minister and opposition leader has committed to deal with the issue.

What would a treaty with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders look like? And is there any merit in the proposal?

But after years of debate, the door was opened to a far more radical solution on 13 June, 2016 when opposition leader Bill Shorten indicated that a future Labor government could support a ‘treaty’ with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This is not a new idea, but support for a treaty has fallen away in recent years, partly due to the attention placed on, and bipartisan support for, constitutional recognition.

Now Shorten’s intervention on this issue has given rise to a growing chorus of support for the concept of a treaty, and shifted focus away from constitutional recognition.

But what would a treaty with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders look like? And is there any merit in the proposal?

The basic idea of a treaty is simple: It is an agreement between two or more sovereign nations. The legal technicalities are outlined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, in which Article 2 states: ‘Treaty means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation…’

Howard delivered a typically succinct statement on the possibility of an indigenous treaty back in 2000 when he said: ‘A nation does not make a treaty with itself.’ Howard had previously expressed his reservations on the issue in 1998, stating: ‘I don’t like the idea of a treaty because it implies that we are two nations. We are not, we are one nation. We are all Australians before anything else, one indivisible nation.’ Howard’s thoughtful commentary highlighted the most significant issue facing those advocating a treaty – sovereignty.

A treaty is not a legally coherent concept when one of its parties is not a sovereign state. And what this reveals in the context of the proposed indigenous treaty is perhaps the most interesting aspect of this whole debate. The more fundamental question is not whether to have a treaty, or what the terms of such a treaty might be, but whether there is a claim to indigenous sovereignty and statehood. Recognition of sovereignty must necessarily precede a treaty.

This is a very significant point. And it is of course feasible to advance such a proposal, and to make arguments in favour of it. However, the claim to sovereignty is very rarely put forward in such explicit terms. What is more common in the debate around an indigenous treaty is for the discussion to skip over this necessary precondition altogether, or for the discussion to revolve around a legal document which appears to bear little resemblance to a properly-defined treaty.

A good example of this prevarication can be found in the definition of a treaty provided by Australians Together, a reconciliation organisation with the aim of ‘bringing Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians together’.

Calls for a treaty in Australia refer to a formal agreement between the government and Indigenous people that would have legal outcomes. A treaty in Australia could recognise Indigenous people’s history and prior occupation of this land, as well as the injustices many have endured. It could also offer a platform for addressing those injustices and help to establish a path forward based upon mutual goals, rather than ones imposed upon Indigenous people.

Other organisations and individuals promoting an indigenous treaty adhere to similar definitions.

The significance of a proposal in favour of sovereignty is one that requires very careful consideration. Sovereignty raises a very long series of questions. With whom is the Australian government negotiating? Does sovereignty mean the annexation of a proportion of the Australian landmass? If so, where? What qualifies a person for citizenship of the new sovereign entity? What will be the governance structure of the new sovereign entity? The lack of attention given to these questions is concerning given the issue’s complexity.

The description of treaty by Australians Together raises a second practical problem-content. The possible list of inclusions in a treaty is nearly limitless, and might include a separate indigenous parliament, additional rights to land, a significant expansion of social programs provided by government, new race-based anti-discrimination provisions or recognition of indigenous culture and language.

But none of these policies appear to require sovereignty, or ‘treaty’. With the possible exception of an indigenous parliament (depending on the structure and powers of such an entity), each policy prescription is a political claim within the normal parameters of public policy and, as such, ought to be debated and decided upon through the usual political process.

Putting that objection to one side, the practical effect of some of these policies would be a significant increase in the level of government involvement in the lives of indigenous Australians. Given the many problems associated with government policies directed at assisting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders over recent decades, it is unclear how an expansion of these programs would lift indigenous Australians out of poverty, or increase health or education outcomes.

Treaties in other countries are frequently cited as examples that Australia could follow. However, it can be seen that the relevance and success of these treaties in countries such as New Zealand and Canada are vastly overstated, and that the living standards of their indigenous populations still significantly lag behind the rest of the population, despite the existence of a treaty or treaties.
New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi, so often put forward as an example that Australia should follow, was formed under very distinct and particular circumstances.

Signed in 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi was signed by representatives of the British Crown and several MÄori chiefs of the northern island of New Zealand. It was intended as a practical means of ending conflict between MÄori tribes and settlers, but also conflict between different Maori groups, in what was known as the Musket Wars. As western weaponry began to be circulated among the natives by European traders, the battles between the tribes became devastating, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of MÄori’s between 1807 and 1845.

Many MÄori chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi in order to secure peace (imposed by the newly sovereign British Crown). As a peace treaty between native tribes and a not-yet sovereign colonial force, the Treaty of Waitangi is of little relevance to Australia today.

While the imposition of peace was certainly beneficial for the MÄori people, the Treaty of Waitangi has not delivered improved living standards, as sought by advocates of an Australian treaty. According to the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, ‘MÄori life expectancy is still 7.3 years less than non-MÄori; household income is 78 per cent of the national average; 45 per cent of MÄori leave upper secondary school with no qualifications and over 50 per cent of the prison population is MÄori’.

The situation is not much different in Canada. In the 18th century, British America entered into a series of peace and friendship treaties with Indigenous groups to secure the neutrality or the alliance of those groups in Britain’s ongoing conflict with the French. Later treaties between the Canadian government and indigenous groups entered into post-confederation to allow for settlement and gave the Dominion large tracts of land in return for certain promises, such as the provision of food aid and education. Ever increasing sums of money spent tackling Canadian Aboriginal disadvantage – whether tied to treaty obligations or not – have outpaced the growth of the Canadian welfare state in general, and as the Fraser Institute notes, has resulted in little improvement in Aboriginal living standards or advancement.

Rather than continuing to divide Australians according to race or skin colour or ancestry, Australian governments must adhere, in all policy areas, to the liberal democratic principle that all citizens are equal.

At the heart of the push for a treaty is a deeply negative perspective on Australia, and the place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders within it. As University of New South Wales law professor George Williams wrote in 2014: ‘A treaty … could recognise the history and prior occupation of Aboriginal peoples of this continent, as well as their long-standing grievances. It could also be a means of negotiating redress for those grievances’.

While no one can doubt that certain discriminatory policies of past governments have negatively impacted indigenous Australians, the solution to the contemporary problems faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders cannot be the perpetuation of the attitudes that have led us to the position in which we find ourselves today. Past injustices have been caused by a belief that indigenous Australians should be treated differently from other Australians. This is both unacceptable in moral terms, and catastrophic in practical outcomes.

Rather than continuing to divide Australians according to race or skin colour or ancestry, Australian governments must adhere, in all policy areas, to the liberal democratic principle that all citizens are equal.

A treaty fails the test of equality. It would be divisive, dangerous and a prolongation of the mistakes of the past.

This article originally appeared in the IPA Review.