2023-05-02
Many criticisms of the proposed Voice have been raised, and it will not have bipartisan support. What are the underlying reasons for this?
By Chris Johansen, Green Issue Co-editor
At age nine, in 1954, I was a racist, with such beliefs as:
- The general superiority of the British race, in that through its colonies and self-governing dominions it ruled over much of the world (♪“Britannia rules the waves”♫), and had won WW 1 & 2.
- Following the concept of “terra nullius”, it was indeed OK to march into uncivilized lands and subjugate the indigenous population, and then “civilize” them by converting them to Christianity and getting them to wear proper clothes (i.e. second-hand European styles).
- As part of the subjugation process in WA the Battle of Pinjarra was as a glorious aspect of our history – even though it was later acknowledged as the Pinjarra Massacre (I was then unaware of other such massacres now acknowledged as having occurred across Australia).
- Full blood First Nations people were a dying race, because ancient uncivilized races naturally die out and they were particularly susceptible to various diseases (introduced by Europeans). The most humane thing to do is to put them in Christian missions to “save” them (spiritually) before they actually die.
- Those of mixed blood were to be assimilated (and thus saved) by fostering the children in white families such that they grow up at least culturally white, i.e. the stolen generation.
However, before being dragged before the Race Discrimination Commissioner I need to mount a defence of my young self.
My “please explain” is that from birth a child’s mind an open book of blank pages. Whatever information coming in is imprinted on those pages, verbatim. Initially at least, there are no terms of reference to evaluate, let alone edit, the incoming information. Up to age nine, I essentially absorbed the general beliefs of the Perth Anglo community of that time, considering it to be gospel (as I was told it was gospel).
From about age nine other pieces of apparently contradictory information began creeping into the pages of my mind. I became aware of MK Gandhi’s efforts in essentially demolishing the British Empire and ML King’s quest for dignity of coloured people in the USA. Later, around 1960, I learned about struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Then, during the 1960s, these overseas struggles gave impetus to a more assertive First Nations justice movement in Australia, manifesting in freedom rides, the tent embassy and the 1967 referendum which acknowledged First Nations people as citizens (of their own country!).
Subsequently, for more than a quarter of a century, I lived and worked in countries trying to get over the trauma of British, and other European, colonialism, with its inherent racism.
So, one would think that by now I would have completely overwritten the pages of my 9-year old mind. That is for others to judge, although it is disturbing that I still like my childhood treat of vegemite.
Therefore, I did not think that the Uluru Statement from the Heart, simply requesting constitutional recognition of indigenous peoples, truth, treaty and a voice to parliament, would raise the furore that it has. The currently proposed wording for a referendum to add a Voice to the constitution, to be put to the people later this year, is:
"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?"
The wording to be inserted in the constitution, if the referendum is passed, is:
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
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 the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth 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 matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
This proposal has considerably irked the federal Liberal and National parties (although there are a few dissenters) and the conservative commentariat. The main objections are:
- There is insufficient detail as to what the Voice would actually look like. Clarification: The referendum is only about the principle of constitutional recognition and adding a Voice. Details would be established and legislated after this principle is accepted. Options for the constitution of the Voice have been clearly presented in the 2021 report by Marcia Langton and Tom Calma.
- It will institute an apartheid system, giving special privileges and lobbying advantage to a particular race. Clarification: Australia’s indigenous peoples have been discriminated against for the last 235 years and recent attempts to Close the Gap are still falling short, mainly due to lack of communication between government and indigenous peoples. There are other lobby groups able to influence politicians for their own advantage, e.g. fossil fuel, mining, “defence”, so why not indigenous peoples also?
- Reluctance to change the constitution when a Voice could simply be legislated. Clarification: The constitution was written when indigenous people were not recognized as citizens, so it is about time we rectify that. Legislation can easily be undone by an incoming government.
- It is a costly Canberra-centric bureaucratic exercise. Clarification: The intention is that it will lead to more effective spending on indigenous welfare, by facilitating better dialogue between first nations people and government as to what is actually needed. It would put responsibility and accountability for indigenous welfare into indigenous hands. Previous government bodies set up to improve indigenous welfare have not worked very well due to paternalistic, top-down approaches.
- The proposed Voice would lead to a deluge of legal challenges and thus stagnation of any reform. Clarification: Australia’s Solicitor-general, the government's legal counsel, says not but rather the Voice proposal is sound and would enhance responsible government.
Although each of these objections seem reasonable to raise it is to be noted that they nearly all come from people clearly down at the right-hand end of the political spectrum. Political conservatism is a doctrine that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices. It is a preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal. There is thus an in-built reluctance to alter the status quo of bygone years, with its inherent disadvantage to, and discrimination against, first nations peoples.
Although usually not explicitly stated, the underlying motivation of conservative criticism of the Voice reminds me of my nine-year old mind. These critics seem to have limited skills in being able to edit the pages of their minds, that still bear the imprint of eras when racial discrimination was the societal norm.
However, there is not unanimity among first nations people about the Voice. Some politically conservative ones, like Warren Mundine and Jacinta Price, espouse the general views expressed by conservatives, as listed above. Others of more progressive bent argue that they don’t wish to sign up to a colonial document (the constitution), they have lost patience with government, the government would not listen to a Voice, senate seats should be allocated to first nations representatives instead or that Truth and Treaty should be addressed before Voice.
So what was looking like a fairly straight forward implementation of a long overdue step towards reconciliation is now looking precarious at best. Referendums in Australia invariably require bipartisan support to pass. It will require a massive, hasty education program if the referendum is to be held within this year, with hopes of it passing. That is why I would have thought Truth-telling, along the lines of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, would be a prerequisite to instituting a Voice. It is clear that many Australians, including most of their conservative-oriented spokespersons, have little understanding of what the Uluru Statement from the Heart was all about, and prefer to continue in out-of-sight, out-of-mind mode.
Header photo: Uluru (Helicopter view). Credit: Marc Feipel, Public Domain
[Opinions expressed are those of the author and not official policy of Greens WA]