On October 14, 2023 Australians head to the polls to vote yes or no regarding the establishment of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to the Federal Parliament.
The purpose of this article is to break down what is being asked, along with what is being proposed to be delivered via the constitutional amendment should the referendum be successful.
The Question
The referendum question being asked of Australians is the following:
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?
Referendum question and constitutional amendment
Now let’s read the question very carefully. At first glance you might consider that a YES vote will cause the Australian constitution to be changed to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as being the first people who inhabited Australia. But if you look at the wording carefully, it is not asking that at all.
Let’s break it down.
A Proposed Law:
Referendum question and constitutional amendment
A law in Australia is legislation. The constitution of Australia, the founding document of the Commonwealth, is a legal document. In fact it is the foundational document for all other legislation. Changing this document in any way requires the consent of the people and this is what is being asked through this referendum. No real issue here.
to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia.
Referendum question and constitutional amendment
Who or what are the First Peoples of Australia? Although it may seem apparent to most Australians, it is the detail in this statement that needs to be considered.
Pay particular attention to the way this part is constructed. First Peoples is presented capitalised. In the English language this would make First Peoples a proper noun. A proper noun describes a person, place or thing. Therefore First Peoples could be anything. It could be an organisation, a location, or any kind of artifact.
First Peoples of Australia (proper noun) is not the same as first peoples of Australia (common noun). This wording contrast can be seen in the second paragraph of another government document where first peoples is all lower case. This second document unambiguously refers to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of Australia. First Peoples of Australia, being a proper noun, references something entirely different, but as yet we haven’t been told what.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are the first peoples of Australia, meaning they were here for thousands of years prior to colonisation.
Australia’s First Peoples
Why does the first part of the referendum question not state “to alter the Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the first peoples of Australia”? If the common noun variation is used it makes the question unambiguous.
by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
Referendum question and constitutional amendment
Notice that Voice has a capitalised V. This makes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice a proper noun, indicating that it is a person, place or thing. It doesn’t make it clear what this person, place or thing is. It doesn’t necessarily mean that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders will have a voice (lower case).
Also, rather disturbingly, there appears to be no genuine attempt at recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the first peoples of Australia.
Let’s put aside the fact that First Peoples is a proper noun and treat it as though it was first peoples (common noun). The establishment of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is conditional for that recognition to occur. It is not a genuine, good faith gesture to our indigenous peoples.
The Proposed Constitutional Change
The title of the proposed amendment is the following:
Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
Referendum question and constitutional amendment
As it is a title to the proposed new section, it is allowed in this case to have a capitalised first letter of each word, so there is no issue here.
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
Referendum question and constitutional amendment
This, once again, in this context is making the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice a proper noun, so a person, place or thing.
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
Referendum question and constitutional amendment
Here we see that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are being recognised as the First Peoples of Australia, but it is only recognising them via the proper noun variant as a person, place or thing. They are still not being recognised collectively as the first peoples of Australia.
What will happen if the referendum succeeds is that you will have a new thing called First Peoples of Australia which will be made to appear as if it refers to the first peoples of Australia, but the two are not the same thing. The former is only a delegate of the latter, meaning that First Peoples of Australia could be set up as an organisation, but the public made to think that it is the same as first peoples of Australia. This is designed to mislead on purpose.
i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
Referendum question and constitutional amendment
In government, there are many kinds of bodies 1. This can include parliamentary entities, including departments, committees, or even commercial entities. The definition is not provided as to the type of body that is proposed to be established, so it could be anything.
Because this only refers to a body, that body could start as one thing and morph into something completely different in future years.
ii. 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;
Referendum question and constitutional amendment
Here we see that the undefined Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and Executive Government. May means that it can, but it doesn’t have to. So there is no compulsion for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to do anything.
See also that it is only on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It doesn’t say that it makes representations on matters relating to the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. What this could have the effect of doing is the Voice body could have a committee made up of many non-indigenous people who are making decisions on behalf of indigenous peoples, but which are not in their interests. This could legally strip away rights indigenous peoples currently have.
iii. 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.
Referendum question and constitutional amendment
What this is saying is that the Parliament will be able to make laws relating to how the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice will operate. But it doesn’t explicitly state any requirements, limitations or objectives. This is like providing an open cheque book to the Government.
Conclusion
Seeing this article on a site dealing with government misconduct and corruption must surely raise suspicion that there is more to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice than the government are telling Australians.
The way the referendum and the proposed amendment to the Constitution is drafted is clever, sneaky, and it is very deceitful. Many Australians are not skilled enough in English to be able to discern the subtleties such as those pointed out here, and it is taking advantage of those people.
If you look carefully enough at what Governments do you can usually find the answers you are seeking in plain sight. Through analysis of the Government’s own words it is easy to see that they are trying to deceive Australians into thinking the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is a voice for indigenous peoples of Australia. It is hoped that this shows that it is anything but that, and the public can see through this deception being perpetrated upon them by their own Government.
References