Want to give First Nations real power in Canberra? Rex Patrick reckons a vote is preferable to a Voice

Will the Voice really achieve its objectives? Former senator Rex Patrick, who understands exactly how Canberra really works, says no. He will vote “Yes” but explains his concerns and argues that a vote is better than a voice.

Let me be upfront: I’ll be voting for the Voice to Parliament. But I won’t be voting yes because I think it will give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people any substantial influence on national policy. Rather I’ll be voting yes because it’s the only option on the table to give Indigenous Australians at least some recognition in our Constitution.

Let me be brutal: the Voice won’t give our indigenous citizens any real influence in Canberra. It will, without any real cost to our professional politicians, give a lot of people a nice feeling in their hearts that they’ve done something for First Australians.

Voice will be a ‘constitutional lobby group’

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice will be a constitutionally embedded advisory body. It will give advice to the Australian Parliament and Government on matters that affect the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The Voice will be empowered to express views and advise. It will be able to knock on the doors of Parliament and Government, but it won’t have any power within the two chambers of the Parliament or the corridors and meeting rooms of the Executive.  

In effect, it will be a Constitutional lobby group, formally recognised, legislated and funded, but a lobby group none-the-less.  

Sure, at the start the Voice’s deliberations will attract much media and public attention, and its contributions to national debate will be acknowledged with much formal respect. 

But over time its influence will inevitably diminish as it becomes just another part of the political landscape in Canberra. It will be treated like every lobby group that enters the offices of ministers, members and senators. They will be listened to (by some) and their perspective may well be regarded as valuable, but it will not be binding. 

Indeed, its ability to compete with the much greater influence and real economic and political power of others, to take the mining industry as just one example, will dissipate. In some cases, the Voice’s lobbying will simply be put to one side, and matters will progress as they would otherwise have.

And because its make-up and funding will be at the will of the Parliament of the day, a future government that tires of the Voice can just turn down the volume by stripping its funding and, if they control the Senate, perform a laryngectomy.

Case for Indigenous Senators

Rather than giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a voice, we should be giving them a vote. They should be getting a measure of real power.  

This could be achieved by having an Indigenous Senator in each state and territory. That is, we should give indigenous people permanent representation in Australia’s house of legislative review, and in all likelihood a balance of power role in any areas of contentious legislation.

The Senate currently consists of 76 senators; 12 senators for each of the six states and two senators each for the two territories. One of the 12 senators in each state and one extra senator in each territory could be an Indigenous Senator. 

That would create a situation where there were always 8 senators of 78 that were indigenous. That would create a situation where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have real voice and real influence.

Indigenous seats in the Senate would require constitutional amendment that, if adopted, would be a permanent measure.  This would be a solid foundation that would really shift the balance of power in Canberra politics.  

What would happen at election time

At election time, non-indigenous Australians would vote for a local representative in the House and either five or six senators, depending on the election cycle (eleven at a double dissolution election). In Canberra and the Northern Territory they would vote for a single senator (who would sit for three years).

Indigenous Australians would vote for a local member along with everybody else, and for one senator every second election (Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia in one election, New South Wales, Tasmanian and South Australia in the next). In Canberra and the Northern Territory, they would vote for a single Indigenous Senator (who would sit for 3 years).

Only indigenous Australians could register to vote in the Indigenous Senator’s election, and if they did they would not be entitled to vote in the other Senate election. No one would get a double vote.  

Indigenous Senators could not be voted in on a party ticket. Their allegiance would be strictly to the indigenous people in their state.

Delivering real power and influence

The House of Representative, where the Government normally has the numbers, would continue to control the Parliament’s legislative agenda.

In circumstances where non-controversial legislation, that is legislation where the two major parties agree, could be passed in the Senate without the need to consider the views of the Indigenous Senators. But the reality is that the government of the day, who would likely need Indigenous Senator’s votes on more controversial legislation, would likely pay regard to their views on non-controversial legislation just to build up and maintain a workable relationship.

This is how it worked when I was a Senator. Ministers’ doors were always open to me because they knew, on occasion, I might be a future crucial vote that could be the difference between whether their legislation passed the Senate or was voted down.  

In circumstances where controversial legislation was before the Senate, the government would have to work hard to get enough Indigenous Senator’s votes. That might include the ‘side deals’ that current cross benchers enjoy. Where an indigenous Senator could, in good conscience, vote either way, real money could get directed at the very real problems faced by all too many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.  

Can self-interest trump national interest?

Could this be done? It’s hardly unprecedented. Across the Tasman the unicameral Aotearoa – New Zealand’s Parliament – has 120 seats including seven Māori electorates. New Zealanders of Māori descent can choose between enrolling on a general electoral roll or the Māori roll.  

However, I doubt the idea will ever get legs in Canberra. Neither Government nor Opposition have any interest in giving real power to anyone who sits outside of party control. They’re not too interested in having to deal with a permanent cross bench style power base.

Hell would freeze over before anything like the above model would be adopted. Self-interest always trumps national interest when it comes to politics.  Politics has given us the Voice referendum, and politics as it’s presently constructed will continue without pause if the Voice is enacted.  

To really influence politics and outcomes for Indigenous communities, those Australians need the power that comes from seats in the Australian Parliament, not seats in glorified lobby-shop down the road.  That’s what’s necessary for Indigenous people to get real recognition, a real voice, real influence and real power.

I will turn up at the ballot box on referendum day and vote yes for a sub-standard solution. But it’s without enthusiasm that I will do so. There’s nothing else on the table at the moment. 

Others will join me in voting for the Voice, no doubt, feeling good about what they’re doing; and perhaps, in the event the referendum proposal passes, drink some champagne to celebrate.

But they should not kid themselves and imagine that the right thing has been done.

Govt hires Clayton Utz to fight Rex Patrick, keep gas solution secret