The Voice will not create apartheid in Australia, say experts

^{By Renee Davidson}

Baseless claims that the Indigenous Voice to Parliament would lead to apartheid in Australia have been posted online by opponents of the Voice in order to push the No vote ahead of the upcoming referendum. 

Commentators on Sky News Australia are among those spreading the false information that the Voice would create a race-based apartheid system in Australia.

Apartheid is a “crime against humanity” and refers to inhumane acts committed by one racial group for the purpose of establishing and maintaining systematic oppression over another racial group. 

The historical origins of apartheid are rooted in South Africa, where the white minority government (1948 - 1994) oppressed the rights of the majority non-white populations through a system of legalised racial segregation. 

Under apartheid South Africa, non-white populations were restricted by law from housing and employment opportunities and were required to live in separate neighbourhoods and attend different schools from the white population. 

Experts say claims linking the Indigenous Voice to apartheid are “ludicrous”. 

The Voice referendum proposes to amend the Australian Constitution to recognise Indigenous Australians as the First Peoples of Australia and to create an advisory body, called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, to provide advice to the government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

What claims are being made online about the Indigenous Voice and apartheid? 

Supporters of the No campaign are using social media posts, images, news segments, hashtags, pamphlets and bumper stickers to make the false claim that the Indigenous Voice would “create” apartheid in Australia.

Sky News Australia hosts Andrew Bolt and Cory Bernardi have broadcast claims respectively that the Voice will “start apartheid in Australia” and will create “an apartheid system of governance”. Their segments airing these views were shared on the news channel’s Facebook page and have been viewed collectively more than 45,000 times. 

Other social media users are spreading similar claims. For instance, one image shared on Instagram by an account with almost 10,000 followers, features Aboriginal artwork overlaid with text warning audiences that the the Voice will disregard the rights of Indigenous peoples, “creating genocide and apartheid in this country”.

Various other images on Facebook describe the Voice as apartheid in order to push the No vote. “I’M STILL VOTING NO - BECAUSE IT’S RACIST, IT’S DIVISIVE AND IT’S APARTHEID,” the text on one image reads. 

There are also dozens of posts about the Voice on Twitter and Facebook that feature the hashtag #VoteNoToApartheid. 

Meanwhile, a recent ABC investigation revealed that 20,000 unauthorised “Vote No” pamphlets had been distributed around the country by a supporter of the No campaign. The pamphlet contains disinformation about the proposed Voice underneath the headline “VOTE NO TO APARTHEID”. 

The Gold Coast man responsible for distributing the pamphlets also sells “Vote No” bumper stickers on his website, which carry the slogan “Vote NO to the Voice. Say NO to Apartheid in Australia”. A link to the man’s website has been shared widely on Telegram, attracting more than 8,000views. 

But the claim that the proposed Indigenous Voice would create apartheid in Australia is false, according to constitutional and international law experts. 

What do the experts say? 

The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1984), Article II, declares apartheid a “crime against humanity” and describes it as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them”.

Professor Ben Saul, the Challis Chair of International Law at the University of Sydney, rejected the claim that the Voice would create apartheid in Australia. 

“It is ludicrous to compare the Voice to apartheid,” Professor Saul told RMIT FactLab in an email. 

He said that, under international law, apartheid involves the commission of inhuman acts (such as murder, torture, personal injury, arbitrary imprisonment, extermination, persecution, forced labour, denial of fundamental human rights, or exclusion from participation in political, social, economic and cultural life), for the purpose of one racial group maintaining systematic oppression and domination over another racial group.

“The Voice does not in any way involve Indigenous Australians perpetrating any inhuman acts against other Australians, or establishing systematic oppression and domination over other Australians,” he said.

“Nor does it in any way involve non-Indigenous Australians perpetrating any inhuman acts against Indigenous Australians," he said.

Professor Gabrielle Appleby of the Law Faculty at the University New South Wales agreed that the Voice would not establish apartheid.

“The Voice is not about racial division, but about recognition of the unique claims and status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the Indigenous Peoples of this land that is now called Australia,” Professor Appleby told FactLab in an email. “It is not a discriminatory measure, but recognition of this important difference, and accords with international human rights law.”

She said the proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament is consistent with the internationally recognised rights of Indigenous Peoples, as articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and in particular the right of Indigenous Peoples to political participation in decisions that affect them. 

In an article published on May 18 in the Conversation, a website that publishes academic commentary, research and analysis from Australian universities and the CSIRO, Professor Dominic O'Sullivan from Charles Sturt University refuted claims that the Voice would establish apartheid in Australia. 

“The proposed Voice will ensure First Nations peoples have their views heard by parliament,” Professor O'Sullivan wrote. “It won’t have the power to stop people swimming at the same beaches or living, studying or shopping together. It won’t stop interracial marriages as the apartheid regime did. It doesn’t give anybody extra political rights.”

“Apartheid and the Voice are polar opposites. The Voice is a path towards democratic participation, while apartheid eliminated any opportunity for this,” he wrote.

In December last year, FactLab examined claims that the Voice to Parliament would confer “special rights” to one race of people and found them to be false. According to experts consulted by FactLab at the time, the proposed Voice to Parliament will not provide anyone with special rights, but rather provide an opportunity to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to make representations to parliament on matters that impact them.