By Paula Gerber
One of the questions people are asking about the Voice to Parliament is why the proposed amendment to the constitution is to create a voice for one group only? Why a Voice for Indigenous Australians, but not a voice for people with disabilities? Or for Muslims? Or for women? Or for LGBTQ+ people? This is a fair question. Let me try and answer it.
To put it simply, Indigenous Australians are the only minority group who are actually asking for a Voice to Parliament. Other groups have other asks. For example, a priority for the LGBTQ+ community is that they are counted in the next census (in 2026) so we have data about how may people living in Australia are intersex or identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or non-binary. Other priorities for this community include that all states and territories band unnecessary medical procedures on intersex children without their consent (as the ACT has just done), that all states and territories ban conversion practises that seek to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity (as Victoria, Queensland and the ACT have done) and to protect LGBTQ+ people from discrimination by religious schools and other faith-based organisations (as Tasmania and Victoria have done, and as Queensland has announced it will do). Similarly, the disability community is not asking for a Voice to Parliament. Rather, their priorities are to end the violence, abuse and neglect people with disabilities often experience, to improve the accessibility of public transport systems across Australia and to make the NDIS a system that is better, fairer and easier to navigate.
We make better policies and laws if we listen to what the people most affected by the policies and laws are saying they want. If other minorities were asking for a Voice to Parliament then we would be having a conversation about that. But they are not. And it is not appropriate to impose a solution one minority group wants on an entirely different minority group, under the misguided belief all people should be treated the same.
This is where the distinction between “equity” and “equality” is important. Equality is about treating everyone the same. The 2017 postal survey about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry was about achieving equality. It was about ensuring all couples have the same opportunity to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Equity, on the other hand, is about ensuring everyone is able to achieve the same outcomes, which may require that they are allocated different resources. For example, we want all children to receive an education, but this will not be achieved if we use the same teaching methods and curriculum for all children. Students who have visual or hearing impairments require different resources and strategies to learn. Similarly, students who are neurodiverse—including those on the autism spectrum or who have ADHD—may need different adjustments to reach their full educational potential, including reduced visual distractions, the elimination of unnecessary noise and different assessment regimes, such as extended time to complete an exam, an alternative exam venue where distractions are minimised and an allowance for breaks during exams. Thus, ensuring equity often means not treating everyone the same.
The referendum to amend the constitution to establish a Voice to Parliament is about achieving equity, not equality. Australia is the only British colonised nation that does not have a treaty with its First Peoples, and this has many ongoing consequences, including the legacy of peoples being disposed of their land, their children being removed, their culture and law not being recognised or respected and their youth being incarcerated at disproportionately high rates. Addressing these historic and contemporary wrongs requires a different approach to addressing the wrongs other minorities experience.
People who say establishing a Voice to parliament for Indigenous Australians is unfair because it isn’t inclusive of other minorities are confusing equity and equality. Other minorities are not asking for constitutional recognition or a Voice to parliament. The concerns they face are different and require different solutions. It doesn’t mean their concerns are any less valid or less deserving; it simply means their pathway to achieving equity is different.
Ye are a cleaver nation and we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We need to listen and address the concerns of all minority groups, and we need to recognise that respecting the rights of all peoples is not going to be achieved by adopting a one-size-fits-all approach. We need to support Indigenous Australians’ pursuit of equity by voting ‘yes’ in the referendum on constitutional recognition and establishing the Voice to parliament, and we need to also listen to the concerns of other minorities and remove the barriers that impede their enjoyment of human rights on an equal footing with other Australians. Everyone has a right to be treated equitably, which is not always going to be the same as treating everyone equally. We need to focus on ensuring everyone has a fair go, not that everyone has the same go. The Voice to Parliament will be a significant step towards ensuring Indigenous Australians get a fair go.
Professor Paula Gerber is a Professor in the Monash University Faculty of Law and an Academic Member of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law.
This article was originally published in The Canberra Times on 22 July 2023. You can read the original article here.
This post was originally published on Castan Centre for Human Rights Law .
