Why Australians vote against the Voice

On Oct. 14, the Australian people voted against a proposal to recognize Aboriginal people in their constitution that would have resulted in the creation of an indigenous advocacy committee called an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice (“the Voice”).

The indigenous inhabitants in Australia are made up of Aboriginal mainlanders and culturally different Torres Strait Islanders, collectively accounting for only 3.8% of Australia’s population in 2021.

The failed Voice proposal called for its establishment in the constitution to “make representations” to Parliament and the government “on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.”

The Australian people struck down this unpopular idea with their loud and clear voice. Every state and mainland territory apart from the Australian Capital Territory voted against this ill-fated proposal.

Taking into account the fact that many Australians voted “Yes” out of political party loyalty rather than the agreement to the proposal itself, the approval rate is much lower than the statistics suggested.

Initiated in 2017, the Voice was rejected by the government of the time which made it clear that a Voice would be seen as a “third chamber” of parliament, an unwelcome addition to the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The Australian government should make efforts to improve the livelihood of its indigenous people, and even those who voted “No”on the Voice proposal are not disagreeing with such endeavors. In addition, there are already existing advisory bodies helping the government on indigenous matters.

However, it would be a totally different issue if a divisive and racially oriented proposal such as the Voice were incorporated into the country’s constitution. It would literally and legally divide Australia by race.

Enshrining any group of people based on ethnic identities or any other criteria in a country’s constitution would be a spit in the face of democracy itself, depriving people of equal rights that are regarded as given in modern society.

The establishment of the Voice would add a controversial and racist color to the Australian constitution and its political system.

It is no surprise that the referendum ended with overwhelming opposition. In fact, the “No” campaign on this proposal was also supported by some indigenous leaders who argued that the Voice was not the right approach.

Why did the government start this referendum process in the first place? Just another cheeky political maneuver trying to score with voters. With an agenda of their own, liberal politicians took advantage of the good hearts and kindness of ordinary people for their political gain.

The Voice proposal has created months of controversy and division among Australian people, at a time when conscionable politicians are badly needed to unite people together. Campaigns on both sides have created unwanted bitterness and resentment among Australians towards each other.

There are politicians who focus on and enjoy their own performances in the political limelight, without taking into consideration the collective good of their voters and their people. They prioritize political goals and victories over the actual results and consequences of their proposals and policies.

They seek to go to extremes in their political approaches in order to make a louder statement for attention and votes, rather than taking a comprehensive view of matters and trying to resolve differences through political compromise and balance.

We see them so clearly every day on the global political stage, in the Voice referendum in Australia, in the House speakership fight in the U.S., in the war in Ukraine and in the Hamas-Israel conflict.

(The author is an independent financial investor.)