Voice to Parliament undermines Australia's Social Inclusivity

When Professor Megan Davis and the other architects of the Uluru Statement conceptualised ‘from the Heart’ – their intent was a move for greater Indigenous recognition.

There’s nobility in wanting Indigenous Australians to have a say in reformulating the country’s constitution, and so too is there for all Australians.

As First Nations people they should, but Australia is more than just one cultural group - and the Voice to Parliament is an initiative that is to the exclusion of every other cultural group in Australia.

And that’s what makes it a highly contentious and divisive initiative.

When Professor Davis and her team first presented the concept to Parliament in 2017 and delivered it to former Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, someone or somewhere throughout the process of its analysis, should have sensed and awakening – in their hands was a document that would divide Australia.

Obviously, they didn’t.

It appears the highly paid bureaucrats and political advisors then, and now, in Prime Minister Albanese’s government, failed to understand the unintended consequences of its intent and what they were dealing with.

They will claim they did know, but it’s obvious they are either naïve, oblivious to it or view the political capital to be gained as more important.

Blind acceptance without thought of how it would be sold to Australians was possibly never examined in any context and if it was, then they must have considered something different.

And you could almost bet Scott Morrison is glad he isn’t having to deal with a political time bomb and the fall out that comes with it.

That awaits the Prime Minister and left for him to deal with.

What is obvious, is the exploitation of Indigenous Australia and the votes that will be won.

‘Exploitation’ may not be an acceptable word, but that’s what it is.

Until October 14 comes and goes, and Australians have had their say, the referendum’s success remains an, each way bet.

Australia is more diverse than one group, and it’s that lack of understanding of what Australia is and how it has been built that should have everyone thinking about and scrutinising the more closely.

While the Voice to Parliament appears to address marginalised indigenous Australians, it fails to promote genuine cultural and social inclusivity across the country.

And therein lies the problem. The government's subsequent attempts to incorporate this proposal have faced considerable opposition, sparking a national debate on whether such a system would only serve a special interest group rather than fostering broader inclusivity.

The Voice to Parliament, by design, focuses solely on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

These communities undoubtedly face systemic issues that require urgent attention however, the initiative neglects other marginalised groups like immigrants, the homeless and poverty stricken.

The Voice to Parliament's exclusive focus poses a difficult question - by addressing the needs of one specific group, does Australia risk neglecting others?

Genuine social and cultural inclusivity can’t be achieved if other marginalised communities are left without a voice in policy decisions that affects them.

Australia is one of the most multicultural countries in the world, with a third of population born overseas,

As a group, Indigenous Australians have a unique status, however, the complexity of modern Australia can’t be ignored, and yet it is and has been.

Creating a constitutional voice only for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, will fragment Australia’s socially.

There are a growing number of Australians who view the Voice to Parliament as reverse discrimination – dividing Australia, not uniting it.

And the PM it appears, is allowing Australia to be hijacked by ill-intent and misguided good which will lead to disastrous outcomes for the country.

Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell a donkey dressed as a thoroughbred.

What needs to be considered but doesn’t appear to have been - will the Voice to Parliament adequately represent the various communities or become dominated by larger or more politically active groups?

The potential for inequality and domination within the initiative itself heralds as a major problem.

Indigenous Australian’s must have a voice policy making like all Australians must have, but there are alternative mechanisms that are more effective and inclusive.

New Zealand's system of integrating Maori electorates into the parliamentary system, allows indigenous issues to form part of the broader national discourse.

The model ensures Maori perspectives are considered without eclipsing other minority voices.

The Voice to Parliament exposes a larger issue facing Australia - the creation of a genuine inclusive country.

It fails to address the complex nature of the challenge.

What is required is a more holistic approach to social policy—incorporating the perspectives of all communities— that would serve Australia better and create unity not divide the country.

The Voice to Parliament has become a saga of major distraction for the country, and the PM has spent more time selling the initiative than govern the country.

What it has done is offer a lesson in the dangers of single-issue focus.

The unintended consequences are significant, and a divided nation is one of them.

The Voice to Parliament’s scope is narrow, and the risk of dividing an already diverse nation highlight its overwhelming issues.

Way too much money and resources have been spent in ways that can be viewed as an act of a desperate Prime Minister who knows if the vote fails, his neck is on the block and his political career is almost over.

The PM knows somewhere in the shadows lurks the axe of the Party’s executioner, and Albo senses the cold steel of the blade awaiting him.