Published 9/10/2023, Edited 11/10/2023, 14/10/2023
The Voice to Parliament Referendum question as it stands, in its own right is a simple proposal:
1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
3. The parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
In essence, it is no different from the several existing advisory bodies and integrity institutions which provide advice, representations and reports to the government.
Most of the substance of this proposal is in point 3, which in my view is half of the source of the division in our country about this Referendum so far. It is very open ended, and the Prime Minister has decided to leave it open ended. It could be an opportunity for statecraft, however this is not the direction that the public debate took.
The other half of the division seems to be coming from its race-based element - that the representations made will only be useful and pertain to First Nations people (simultaneously as most No-case supporters in Parliament also make arguments to drastically limit its scope to exactly that), and finally that the members of Local and Regional Voices can only be of a First Nations heritage or in the case of a National Voice can only be selected by people of a First Nations heritage.
This latter point is in my view, should not be unchangeable as the selection process and criteria aren’t stipulated in the question, but it would still be against the vibe of our constitution and the spirit of our country to enable members selected into the Voice to be exclusively of an First Nations heritage down the line. However at the end of the day, since sovereignty was never ceded, the initial composition of the Voice should in my view be determined by them, but I ask the First Nations people of Australia to enable people of non-First Nations heritage to also be eligible for membership of all Regional, State and the National Voice (should the referendum succeed or should it be otherwise legislated). At the end of the day, in a few hundred years the people of Australia will be a lot more diverse than they are now.
So let's reflect for a moment, what does it mean to be Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander? Some have suggested genetic tests to establish Aboriginality, while others have laughed at the idea that there are too many people ‘declaring’ themselves to be Aboriginal with a tiny fraction of their DNA being attributed to it. The most famous example of this being relevant to national policy was during the era of Nazism via the Nuremberg Laws, which the whole world has fought against and allegedly won. We can see now that the institutionalised cruelty, genocide and population control is making a return in some places around the world, and did so as early as 1955 in the USSR and the USA. I've also recently discovered that the initial leadership of NATO was also partly composed of generals who served Nazi Germany. In my view, it is not right to try to establish the Voice on the basis of genetic tests. We should strive away from concepts like race and ethnicity as a basis for population, immigration policies or any other government policy or body. We should strive away from xenophobia, though we've all had bad experiences with all sorts people and that is often hard to un-see and unlearn.
Instead, any institutional privilege attributed to individuals should be attributed as it is today - on the basis of popular mandate via elections, capacity and effectiveness of serving the public (and any particular groups that make up ‘the public’), understanding of our political system as well as our national culture and spirit.
The case of William Buckley, in my view, demonstrates that Aboriginality (or one’s sense of belonging to any group) comes down to factors including but not limited to:
Understanding of the culture, traditions, customs of a group
Understanding of the language of a group
Understanding of the architecture of beliefs and values of a group, including any distinctions and dissents within that group
Consider the many European influencers traveling through China today, and the degree of surprise many Chinese people express when these influencers speak fluent Mandarin with the locals. There are countless examples like this where the foreigner has either successfully integrated into the local culture without losing their own, as well as examples of assimilation, where they had lost the language and culture they were born into and embraced another. There are also countless examples of people around the world speaking multiple languages, with a connection to multiple cultures to varying degrees. Our country should strive towards the integration of cultures, not their assimilation.
In the context of our time and place, there is a lot more detail to consider which has been almost entirely omitted from the national debate on the Voice to Parliament referendum (in the media and publications), including the implications of the outcome of the referendum on the international framework that Australia finds itself in, and what it means for Australia and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty in Australia.
Context and implications of the Voice to Parliament referendum:
Australia is a part of many international frameworks and institutions such as the United Nations, the Commonwealth of Nations, the Quad, and potentially AUKUS, as well as countless treaties and covenants.
Membership of these international institutions gives Australia certain benefits and often creates standards and obligations. Many, but not all, international bodies essentially stem from the Peace of Westphalia where after a sectarian Christian conflict European states decided that the limits of their sovereignty and borders as defined by the geographic extent of their armies, and that there should be no interference in the internal affairs of other states.
This clearly didn't last, and with the dawn of colonization and the subsequent separation of church and state in Europe, wars continued and colonial wars spread across the world. At different times states like the Russian Empire or USA saw themselves as “the policeman of Europe” or “world police”, using their hegemony for what they advanced as ‘good ends’, but often hiding their true agendas for geopolitical control or control of resources for their own elites. The separation of church and state didn’t last long either as religion continued to influence politics in Europe and the rest of the world through the ages, until it was replaced by a no less zealous form - Nationalism. This is the same era that the Australian Constitution was born in - the era that gave us the ‘Frontier Wars’, the ‘White Australia policy’, the ‘Stolen Generations’ all of which have contributed to intergenerational trauma and xenophobia that contribute to ‘the Gap’ and worse life outcomes for First Nations people. In my view, this era will one way or another come to an end, regardless of the outcome of the referendum.
Australia also (officially) has 3 levels of government. In reality however, the web of governance is so much more complicated and includes;
International covenants, agreements and bodies
The Australian Constitution, legislation as well as all precedents and conventions
The Monarch and their power of the Royal Prerogative
National Anti Corruption Commission
Australasian Council of Auditor’s - General
Australian National Audit Office
State Audit Offices and other integrity and oversight bodies
National Cabinet, National Executive
The Legislature and the Judiciary
State Executive, Legislature and Judiciary
Aboriginal Land Councils and Elders Councils
Local Government Associations and Local Councils
Government departments, authorities, agencies, corporations and public private partnerships
Local branches of political parties, their state representative bodies and their national counterparts
The Five Eyes intelligence system, and parallel to this there's also corporate metadata collection which likely utilises Artificial Intelligence to do god knows what with our metadata (which we should own) and curates our digital content with ‘the algorithm’
Just imagine how many people get paid to interpret all of this, and reconcile all the conflicts between all of the legislations, bodies and levels of government.
The international implications of the outcome in this referendum will signal to the world whether Australia believes that it can successfully use a referendum to create an advisory body that can advance the development of First Nations communities (whose sovereignty remains unceded), and it may affect whether other countries choose to be inspired to do something similar or not. The Voice could also provide representations on reforming our political system and is likely to enhance our international influence and standing, that is if it has real power to do so and can resist the forces of state capture (who curiously support the 'Yes' case - Black Rock, State Street and Vanguard) that have led to the neglect of First Nations regional, rural and remote communities for so long. If this advisory body is weak (which is how much of the Opposition wanted it to be), it is likely to be ineffective and its ability to make representations could be supressed not only by corporate state capture, but also by its influence within Parliament and political parties. It could also signal to some countries in the world that we're not ready as a society to recognise First Nations people in our Constitution. This is a sad thought, and while our constitution is concise and well written, it is indeed written by people very different to the people who make up Australia today and for a very different time. Many First Nations people I've listened to are angered at the idea of being included in Australia's constitution, and many others rightly feel deeply saddened at the fact that the debate has become so polarised when all they want is to be recognised and appreciated by Australia considering that a significant component of colonial Australia sought to Christianise or eradicate the oldest continuous culture on this planet, with the oldest set of distinct and interrelated living memories and mythologies. Other countries may look at a failed referendum and think that we are not as an advanced as a society as we seem from the outset, but they'd be very wrong. We have a very diverse continent and population with a highly urbanised county that contains many distinct cities, towns and tribes that generally coexist much more peacefully than the rest of the world does. Its one major reason why so many immigrants love Australia. Sadly this is less felt by many First Nations people than by much of the population of immigrant and settler heritage. While the recent pro-Palestine protests in Sydney were an exercise of people's basic democratic rights, it is painful to watch such hatred and xenophobia directed towards common Jewish people. Historical injustice is real, but the people chanting are clearly unaware that there are Jews who don't support Israel's current and historical treatment of the Palestinians, as well as anti-Zionist Jews. If anyone reading this knows someone who went to those protests or organised them, please share this with them. Protest for the causes that matter to you, but don't import dehumanisation into Australia.
I don't have any legal qualifications so I am not certain of whether the sovereignty of First Nations people would be extinguished if the referendum passes. It probably shouldn't be extinguished as the Parliament through the Voice body, or directly could devolve power to local communities and enable their own self-determination though consensus decision making or another culturally appropriate process. If there is scope to devolve Executive and Parliamentary powers to First Nations communities for self determination, then their unceded sovereignty will be returned back to them in the form of practical control and funding for their self-determination . This is something they have been asking for for many years. Any while any 'Yes' vote ensures the unity of Australia, and may integrate their sovereignty into the constitution in exchange for practical control (should devolution be on the table), if there is no equivalence of status and power between all the members of the National Voice with that of the Governor General, their spiritual sovereignty would not be equivalent to the King and therefore not respected. The Prime Minister has said that the Voice would have no veto power (which is held by the Governor General in trust of the Crown through the Royal Prerogative). I am unsure if there is a solution to fix this lack of equivalence, but there should be one because earlier this year the Vatican repealed the 'Doctrine of Discovery', which was the foundation of the moral case for colonisation and the genocide that followed.
"It renounces the mindset of cultural or racial superiority which allowed for that objectification or subjection of people, and strongly condemns any attitudes or actions that threaten or damage the dignity of the human person."
If there are any alternative solutions, should the Voice Referendum succeed, the Parliament could still legislate them based on the wishes of First Nations people, if it doesn't, they would have accepted King Charles the III and the British Crown as their sovereign (whether they voted to or not). One such solution could be to legislate a veto power, however since this means it can be unlegislated it would still remain a tier below the power held by the Governor General in trust of the Monarchy (which is a constitutional veto), a substantial part of the Opposition is also unlikely to find this agreeable. Therefore it appears there are no possible worlds in which the current wording of the Voice to Parliament proposal will enable equivalence of spiritual sovereignty of the First Nations people of Australia and our Head of State under the constitution.
Retention of degrees of executive power over local matters by self-determined decision making through individual and collective declarations of alternate sovereigns could also potentially be sufficient, but any and all of these considerations should come from the wishes of each First Nations group, or a collective delegation that genuinely represents them all. Presumably the Governor General could still veto devolved executive power, and it could still be withdrawable by the Prime Minister, and therefore this form of devolution would still remain a tier below equivalence with the Crown.
On the other hand, a no vote in this referendum would keep First Nations sovereignty unintegrated in the constitution. This could be a sovereign risk for Australia due to separatism, and for First Nations people if they find themselves in disunity, and get bribed, coerced, threatened, bullied, deceived, manipulated or in any other way deprived of their free prior and informed consent when making decisions for themselves. The last thing I personally want is for great power competition and corporate state capture to be dividing Australia into separate countries. For this reason I see the Yes vote as a natural 'conservative' position, and therefore am very surprised at the stance of much of the Coalition - its a gift to the Blak Sovereign Movement. If in the face of a no vote, First Nations people maintain unshakable unity among between the Aboriginal Land Councils, the Elders Councils and across the country, their negotiating position for any potential treaties will be much stronger, but it is also still entirely up to them on what they will choose to do with that unity. Theoretically they could separate this country into hundreds of countries, or two, or hold out and pursue a stronger position in a referendum for an Australian Republic, Confederacy or advocate for another system of government altogether. In my view, any 'No' vote only advances the cause of the Blak Sovereign Movement, and any 'Yes' vote will reduce their sovereign power as it'd be expected that they use it through the Voice bodies with devolution withdrawable by the government and a veto of the Crown.
Ways to prevent the Voice from being race or ethnicity based
By giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, from different groups the ability to declare non-Aboriginal people as ‘Aboriginal’, should they demonstrate to the people making such determinations that they understand their culture, customs, values, beliefs, languages and traditions.
By making selection principles for members of the Voice body not based on Aboriginality, or by enabling non-Aboriginal people to be selected into it by other Voice bodies.
Ideas for what could be included in the Voice to Parliament legislation
To avoid the clogging of the High Court of Australia when any Voice body gives representations to the Executive or the Parliament, the Voice should have some power to carry out a process which enables it to survey First Nations people and the greater Australian public to develop representations to Parliament or Executive government with a strong mandate.
Practices and kinds of governance that should be ruled out from devolution and self-determination if the Voice referendum passes or is legislated could include totalitarianism, the practice of the Makarrata, physical punishment, retributive justice and violence (excluding sports like boxing), especially against women and children.
How do I intend to vote in the referendum?
After being initially hopeful that the Parliament would negotiate a pathway to a consensus position on the referendum for the sake of national unity, I became increasingly disappointed at the fact that much of the Coalition decided to take a literalist interpretation of their role as the ‘Opposition’, and have suggested very little during question time or in public announcements (the proposal to legislate the Voice first is a notable exception) just as the Greens have provided no constructive or cost-effective alternatives to AUKUS and Australia’s Defense policy - just have a look at the House and Senate question time this year. The primary effort of much of the Opposition has been focussed on identifying all the ways in which they could restrict the Voice to Parliament in what it can make representations about, even though I thought they were supporters of freedom of speech and I've been batting for this and for the existence of markets, compound interest and nuclear power inside and outside the Victorian and Australian Greens party platform for years - because I genuinely believe in the merits of all of these things.
This has certainly been depressing to watch as it has taken me some time to realise that I've probably already been somehow selected to be a member of the Voice to Parliament, before I published a solution to Gullawaruy Yunupingu's riddle in the 'Ideas for Voice to Parliament' document, though its likely there's some deeper plan considering that the 5 Eyes network has surveilled us for at least a decade, if not longer, and that the Voice to Parliament was jointly designed by the Liberal and Labor parties who curiously haven't allowed the Greens and the crossbench to sit on the Parliamentary Intelligence Committee dominated by them, so it makes me want to know who's been listening to me, how long for, what have they been using it for and are those listening collecting compromising material on me should I choose to publish a video or ask for an interview. I've also been buying good quality Chinese phones over the years, and while I don't use TikTok have considered that maybe the whole world is listening to me, or maybe its just the Australian government (that was my hope, though if it isn't independent, I would rather the whole world listen than just ASIO and CIA) and maybe they're being threatened or incentivised by corporations or other governments or institutions (like the World Economic Forum) because they consider my involvement in politics, or my ideas and publications valuable or dangerous (yes, I have shared them widely).
Believe it or not, I felt guilty for appropriating the culture of First Nations people by considering any focus on areas that do not relate to them. With the amount of questions on how the Voice could be limited in question time, the Parliament could've come up with several alternative designs for the Voice by now, or maybe they have them and are choosing not to share them. This process felt like a carrot-and-stick approach with drip-fed disclosure via the media, and it would have been much easier if I was approached by somebody early on rather than trying to figure it out and then being referred to as a 'trojan horse'. I know now from recently reading the Snowden Files that I've likely been under surveillance for a very long time, likely because of my Australian-Russian dual citizenship and campaigning for the Greens. Initially I was quite scared about our Government's and Parliament's motivations (I watch international media as well as various influencers and philosophers too) even to just go outside because I've been threatened and intimidated in public and at polling booths just for wearing a Greens shirt before, had a drone take off from in front of my house at 2am, and then I was scared that considering the international circumstances that people are expecting me to destroy Russia. Based on my current awareness, Russia is guilty of gruesome things, as is Australia, at a different scale, as are many governments, because war and violence is never the answer, but in both countries there is institutionalised violence and oppression. Both can be classified as engaging in occupations (at different stages) and need significant political, social and economic reforms, democratisation and de-plutocracisation, as does much of the world. I wish the United States government was more proactive with progressive disclosure on UAP's, Non-human intelligence and recovered craft with non-human biologics, so the whole planet can sleep better at night, but I'm open to the idea that you're protecting us because maybe we won't sleep better. I'm fascinated by the fact that there hasn't been a peep about this from our Prime Minister, or the Government, or the Parliament although one of the journalists leading the disclosure on this is Ross Coulthart - an Australian. The disclosure of Non-human intelligence and UAP's has thrown off my understanding of international politics, just imagine all the wild theories one would have in my position when thinking about this. Also, please free Julian Assange, his treatment is inhumane. Australia is supposed to be America's friend, not its subject.
Regardless of these circumstances, there are so many problems but having paid a lot of attention to politicians, academics and media personalities talk about it all and 'The Voice to Parliament', it feels like there are many great people among them all trying to fix them, but at times I feel like I'm a hostage in my own country, like I'm being aimed to destroy my motherland while Russians, Ukrainians and now Israelis and Palestinians are killing each other, and it must de-escalate and reverse course! It's all very depressing, but this is why my solution to the late Yunupingu's riddle was the word “Мир” (world/peace), all these fomented conflicts need to end immediately and the world needs to pivot to environmental and social justice, fairness, mutually assured prosperity and cooperation as well as participatory grassroots democracy.
The emergence of Artificial Intelligence last year, the constant global surveillance, the disclosure of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, Non-human intelligence and non-human biologics from recovered craft has made me read about more conspiracy theories this year than I ever have in my whole life, and it feels almost impossible to understand the world. There are so many scary correlations that seem too strong to be coincidences online and offline, and the world is a lot less predictable than it used to be and a lot closer to global collapse than its ever been, and it keeps going in the wrong direction. It must radically and rapidly change in so many ways, and not become some totalitarian world government. People in public tell me some terrible and strange things, one person said they're a time-traveller, another expressed that governments are trying to supress psychics, and there are fake videos all over the internet which distort people's perceptions of everything. At this point, I won't be surprised if the Simpsons episode about some candidates in the upcoming American elections being aliens is true.
I enrolled to vote, almost reluctantly, but I certainly feel like I deserve some form of protection at this point, even if it isn't constitutional. I agree with Lidia Thorpe's view - that the referendum should have been Truth-Treaty-Republic, but I respect the Prime Minister's courage to hold this referendum at all, he is a very brave man and regardless of the outcome of the referendum, his bravery should be rewarded. I'll decide my vote on the day to depending on what I see in the media between now and then, though as you can see I'm clearly biased but that's the truth.
As far as a constitutionally powerless advisory body goes, its the best compromise the Prime Minister probably could have come up with at the time, but clearly much of Australia sees it as not enough or as too much, and feels threatened by it. That's why the referendum is really only the beginning because the government could already seek the representations and advice from First Nations people directly should it want to, via existing advisory bodies, via the 5 Eyes intelligence system, via Artificial Intelligence, direct or remote visitation. The benefit of a national Voice to Parliament is that it could make representations that benefit us all, and help shape the future direction of government and Australian democracy in a coordinated manner separate to the government and connected with local First Nations communities, but if its so easily overridden and seen as subservient to the Governor General, the Prime Minister and the Parliament, it may be better not to have it at all.
I ask the people of Australia to investigate the evidence, be informed, and vote with your conscience, and not because a politician told you vote a particular way. I also ask the people of Australia for your forgiveness, especially those who have voted already or were hoping to know the truth earlier. I thank the people of Australia from all backgrounds for your perseverance, and ask for your forgiveness if I have disappointed you. If this referendum fails, I want you to know that it is my fault because I think some people expected me to publish more and earlier, but it should (and will) make no difference to the advancement of First Nations people's rights if the referendum fails. I recognise the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First People of this land, that your sovereignty was never ceded, and support the struggle for your rights to this day. I am grateful to you for the opportunities I've had to learn about your cultures and for sharing in your wealth, Russia for laying solid foundations for my development as a human being, and I want to thank Australia for welcoming me as a citizen and providing me with the educational, travel and life opportunities that I have enjoyed as well as for showing me kindness and building my character.
Uluru Statement from the Heart:
https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement/view-the-statement/
Kalmar - Langton Report on the indigenous Voice co-design process:
https://voice.gov.au/resources/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report
Inquiry into the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Former_Committees/Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_Voice_Referendum/VoiceReferendum
Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 2018: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Former_Committees/Constitutional_Recognition_2018
Fact sheet: Referendum question and constitutional amendment
https://voice.gov.au/resources/fact-sheet-referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment
Yes 23 (Official Yes Campaign):
https://www.yes23.com.au/vote_yes
Fair Australia (Conservative No):
https://www.fairaustralia.com.au/
Advance Australia (Conservative No):
https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/story
Blak Sovereign Movement (Constitutional Progressive No):
https://blaksovereignmovement.com/