{"id":335443,"date":"2023-10-03T14:15:11","date_gmt":"2023-10-03T04:15:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/southburnett.com.au\/news2\/?p=335443"},"modified":"2023-11-14T10:13:56","modified_gmt":"2023-11-14T00:13:56","slug":"the-voice-why-not","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/southburnett.com.au\/news2\/2023\/10\/03\/the-voice-why-not\/","title":{"rendered":"The Voice? Why Not?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
A “Yes” campaign poster that I photographed recently during a function in Cherbourg … I believe I have a responsibility as a citizen who has benefited from living in Australia to listen to Indigenous voices<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

October 3, 2023<\/strong><\/p>\n

by Anne Miller\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Early voting opens in Queensland today on what I believe is the most important decision Australians have been asked to make in almost half a century … giving a Voice to Indigenous Australians.<\/p>\n

What you will be voting on:<\/p>\n

A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?<\/em><\/p>\n

The debate over the past couple of months has been rancorous, divisive, angry and filled with social media-driven misconceptions or conspiracies.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
The “pygmy” myth has been debunked for years but keeps reappearing as a reason to suggest modern Indigenous people are “invaders”<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

(Yes, Indigenous people have been in Australia longer than 10,000 years<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0and no, Facebook “experts”, (see right<\/em>), pygmies weren’t here before them<\/a><\/strong>!)<\/p>\n

Sadly, the public debate has also been driven by simple, old-fashioned racism or by equally cold-blooded economic self-interest.<\/p>\n

So what is “the Voice”?<\/p>\n

If you answered “an advisory committee”, you’re correct.<\/p>\n

It would have no power in its own right.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
The “Voice” is not a third chamber or a separate government, it cannot pass or veto legislation, or impose taxes<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

It cannot pass legislation, it cannot change legislation, it cannot dismiss the Parliament, it cannot make non-Indigenous Australians pay “reparations”, it won’t “take” your land, or any of the other ludicrous assertions that have been shared on South Burnett town pages (see right<\/em>).<\/p>\n

So why the push to have this basically toothless advisory committee – which will have moral authority, but little else – included in the Australian Constitution?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The answer is politics.<\/p>\n

Every other Indigenous advisory committee that has been set up over the past century has at some point either been dismissed or emasculated, usually because of a change in government.<\/p>\n

ATSIC, for example, was a democratically elected body but it is only remembered negatively in the non-Indigenous community because of the political rhetoric that gained traction ahead of its dismantling.<\/p>\n

In fact, ATSIC\u00a0and the “mistakes of the past” have been cited by National Party Leader David Littleproud during the current debate as a reason why a Voice should not be established.<\/p>\n

Those of us who can remember back that far will recall cases of corruption and mismanagement in some ATSIC programs that were highlighted by the media and conservative MPs at the time.<\/p>\n

But we don’t dismantle a police force when we uncover corruption, do we? We remove and punish the perpetrators and then we initiate reforms.<\/strong><\/p>\n

That wasn’t the case with ATSIC (1990-2005), it was simply axed despite the fact many of its programs were kicking goals, especially in housing and employment.<\/p>\n

Some of the organisations that Indigenous communities take for granted today – including legal, health and media groups – can trace their roots back to ATSIC programs (for more information about ATSIC, read this Senate Committee report<\/a><\/strong>).<\/strong><\/p>\n

The difference between the Voice and ATSIC is stark.<\/strong><\/p>\n

ATSIC could allocate funding and run programs, even if only in a restricted way … the Voice would not.\u00a0 It would simply provide advice.<\/p>\n

But the Voice would have one advantage. It would be stable. It could float above politics. It would not risk being axed on a whim by a change in the political colour of the Federal Government.<\/p>\n

However, it would not be “permanent”, as some critics have claimed.\u00a0If for some unforeseen reason problems became apparent, another referendum could be held …<\/p>\n

There is a case for a “No” vote. But we believe it really only applies to Indigenous voters. <\/strong><\/p>\n

If you are Indigenous, you could possibly argue another toothless advisory committee with no real power is just a sop to colonial conscience and will achieve little beyond making some white people feel better.<\/p>\n

If you are Indigenous, you could also argue that as sovereignty was never ceded, you don’t want anything to do with the colonising government’s imposed legal structures and Constitution.<\/p>\n

Or like prominent “No” campaigner Warren Mundine has stated (former chair of another axed advisory committee, the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council, 2013-19), you could believe that a “No” vote could make a Treaty more likely<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

While we understand these positions, we don’t believe they are pragmatic, especially considering the demographic make-up of modern Australia.<\/p>\n

Critics of the Voice have made much about these publicised divisions in Indigenous commentary. But why should we expect any group of people – Indigenous or not – to all think or act the same way?<\/p>\n

There is no doubt that Indigenous Australians have been failed by governments in multiple ways since 1788.<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is also no doubt the disadvantages seen in many First Nations towns and families today can be linked to multi-generational dysfunction nurtured by shifting government policies over the decades, ranging from paternalism and neglect to naked racism.<\/p>\n

We have seen grassroots programs that have sprung up within communities achieve some success, only to wither because of funding failures or policy changes.<\/p>\n

The fact that many Indigenous Australians have achieved so much in the face of these hardships is a testament to their individual strength, resilience, resistance and persistence.<\/p>\n

Will a Voice create an Australia divided by race? The fact is, Australia is already divided … just check out the “Closing The Gap” statistics<\/a><\/strong> (only four of the 18 targets are on track).<\/p>\n

I believe the Voice could point to better ways to achieve a “levelling up”.<\/p>\n

We MUST do better.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Voice is a small start.<\/p>\n

That’s why I will be voting “Yes”.<\/p>\n

(And if you don’t know what it’s all about … find out! See some links below)<\/strong><\/p>\n

External links:<\/strong><\/p>\n