On a Voice to Parliament being ‘elitist’
Garry Gibbon writes: Thank you, Cam Wilson, for your thumbnail analysis on Australian political democracy. I certainly hope our First Nations people will be officially recognised in changes to our constitution.
However, in all the discussion regarding a Voice to Parliament, I’ve yet to hear a cogent reason why there should be a such a body created in this welcome era of dramatically increased Indigenous political representation at state and federal level. And this is occurring against the very same democratic framework that Wilson chooses to criticise. (I hasten to add he also makes some salient points.)
Senator Jacinta Price’s “gravy train” comments are obviously warning about installing yet another superfluous, taxpayer-funded, permanent advisory body whose mission statement many may well think will intersect with that of Indigenous politicians anyway. She may be wrong, but I’d like to see a stronger argument offered from Wilson than him claiming the grass roots wants it and charges of “elitism” (when she wasn’t quoted as even using the word) are tired.
Bill Armstrong writes: Thank you for an excellent article. It is important to recognise that this is not Anthony Albanese’s drive for a Voice for Indigenous Australians. It is, as you have so clearly outlined, the thoughtful and respectful request after a democratic process involving an extremely broad range of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Our prime minister and his government have taken this request seriously and are committed to asking the Australian people to do likewise.
It is important to understand that until we as a nation accept and respect the real history of this country and recognise the place and role of the First Nations peoples, efforts to close the gap will fail. Recognition and voice will empower First Nations peoples to close the gaps. The gap all Australians need to close is in our understanding of the past and the incredible culture that enabled this land to be nurtured for thousands of years.
As Albanese said at Gama: “It’s not a matter of some symbolism as some people would see it. What it is, is a matter of is empowerment. Giving people respect is a first step to overcoming some of the challenges that are there.”
Joanna Mendelssohn writes: One of the main hurdles in getting people to understand why the constitutional change is just a few short sentences is that the overwhelming majority of the population is unfamiliar with the document that is the Australian constitution. So as well as explaining that “may” does not mean “must”, we really need an education campaign so that people know how a few words define our entire system of government (bearing in mind that those words don’t include any mention of political parties, or indeed “prime minister”).
If people don’t know the nature of the document they’re being asked to amend, they can hardly be blamed for refusing to alter it.
Phillip Clancy writes: I accept that First Nations peoples have been very badly mistreated by previous generations of British colonists and their subsequent governments. However, I believe that all Australian citizens are Australians. There is no justification for First Nations peoples to claim they are different from other Australians. As such I cannot accept that there should be a change to our constitution to provide a minority group any rights or influence that exclude other minorities or the whole community.
The Voice to Parliament would set up an unequal system that favours one minority group over the rest of the community. As such I would vote no in a referendum.
On media negativity on the Voice
Carmel Brown writes: Thank goodness for Christopher Warren’s piece. I was feeling uneasy when several ABC journos seemed to be at pains to go on about detail because it seemed as if they were brewing an issue. I totally agree that commitment to conflict seems to underpin public media discussion. And what about the illogical commitment to balance whereby an opposing voice, irrespective of numbers or public credibility, “must” be aired?
Jeremy Clarke writes: I think this article says it all about the left viewpoint on this subject. If anyone has the temerity to disagree they are negative and no doubt a racist bigot. But how could that be when those of us on the left know the truth and what’s right for everyone? Apparently there are non-rednecks out there who believe we are one nation and whether you’re antecedents came here 45,000 years ago or you were naturalised recently no one should be treated differently.
A nasty warning from Warren for any journalist who strays from the accepted mantra.
If something in Crikey has got you fired up, let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
We could have free education and healthcare for the entire population but first you have to get some tax money from the billionaires and the multinationals that dont pay much, if anything. And it would be nice if the mining companies, includibg the OS owned ones paid some royalty money for our valuable resources. Unfortunately those folk own our government wish us luck.
I am a little disturbed that many people in this country do NOT know what they are voting for.
Was speaking to a friend in Canada this morning, and she was telling me that the indigenous ‘rights’ issue is way out of control over there. How many here are aware that it is costing the ‘other’ residents of Canada billions of dollars for the following: No indigenous person pays ANY taxation, regardless of income; ALL health care, education (including tertiary) and other government services are entirely FREE; and ‘reparation for so-called stolen land’ is costing billions MORE!
Now…that is not to say these things will occur here in Oz, but who would know? I would like a little more honesty from our First Nation folk, and could they please answer the question: How much is this going to cost ‘other’ Australians? Because it sounds suspiciously like someone will miss out, and that probably means those already poor and disadvantaged in the rest of the community.
All I see ahead is continuing High Court challenges if the indigenous here don’t get their own way. And they only comprise some 3% of the population. WE NEED MORE INFORMATION…NOW!!
Keep listening, the discussion has just started. I have been listening since the Uluru Statement was presented to the nation, and I haven’t heard any of the things that you fear. These things you fear don’t even sound consistent with the Statement itself.
I recommend that you read the statement and it’s FAQs as a starter, and then watch the Garma episode of Q+A. Here are the links:
https://ulurustatement.org/ (You’ll find the FAQs under the Education heading in the menu which is in the top right corner of the webpage)
https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/2022-07-31/13977922 (If you have the iView app, the episode is also on iView).
Such a heinous crime – free healthcare, and free education (including tertiary) for indigenous people. I say bring it on for ALL. Bring back to Living in the Seventies!!! I dream of the day when a young indigenous girl at Fitzroy Crossing has the same opportunity based on education and healthcare and merit to aspire to becoming a High Court Judge as a young boy of a wealth family in North Shore Sydney.
Why are white people so scared.
You are wrong! Of course many services should be free, but TO ALL…not just 3% of the population, which the other 97% have to pay for. In case you didn’t know, we have small WHITE children dying of malnutrition and homelessness in this country because of poverty. And things will only get worse for this group if all the money goes to the 3%…there is a finite supply of the stuff! Get over yourself!!
This reminds me of the scare campaign about refugees getting all sorts of benefits. Yes, we need to look after ALL Australians who are suffering homelessness, etc. Unfortunately, all investigations have shown that out Indigenous people are grossly overrepresented in this. Perhaps the Government could rethink the tax cuts for the top money earners?
And the scare campaign about the Mabo case, where the cons tried to claim that everyone’s backyard wasn’t safe, and that 80% of the continent would be inaccessible to non-Kooris.
Never believe a con, no matter their skin colour or heritage.
If you think that there is only money available for those you prefer, then you need to get over yourself.
Perhaps you could check your friend’s comments; https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/4-facts-about-indigenous-people-and-taxes
Mixed bag. Some do but a lot don’t. Depends where they work.
Hi CML, I thought that in addition to Bronny’s link that explains how your Canadian friend is playing you (I’m terribly sorry about that – we should be able to trust people who call themselves “friend” and it is horrible to learn such a thing publicly) and the links I have provided, I just listened to Michelle Grattan interviewing Tom Calma and have included a link to it for you.
Tom and Marcia Langton were tasked by the Morrison government to undertake a Voice review and their report was given to the government at the end of last year. The Morrison government accepted their review but we haven’t yet heard the Albanese government’s position.
In this interview Tom explains the report’s recommendations. The report itself is freely available on the web.
Tom also says that he thinks a broad Voice model should be presented before we vote. He says that building the improved links between communities (regions), the three levels of government, business and NGOs couldn’t happen before the vote (ie. the intricate detail) but the broader details of the model could easily be provided and should be provided to voters.
If you read the executive summary of the report, you’ll see why no-one would want to actually build a complete Voice model so it was in place for consideration (and possible rejection – which would be a waste of taxes). But, they’ve done a lot of work so you can see the kinds of things that will be considered.
The interview is 38 minutes long and, if you haven’t heard Tom before, he’s a very intelligent person who is great at explaining new things and is rather quietly spoken. Overall, I reckon he’s excellent value and someone the media should talk to more often.
Here is the link to the interview – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-tom-calma-on-the-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-188164
Information was supplied in Bronny’s post – “https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/4-facts-about-indigenous-people-and-taxes”.
Is that the sound of crickets I hear in response ?
Perhaps you need to examine your own motives for believing what you obviously want to believe, in defiance of the facts.
What all these comments ignore is that for 65 years since we rejoiced in our generosity of recognising blackfellas as citizens we have been spectacularly unsuccessful sorting out authentic equity. Why? Because whitefella arrogance deafens us to what blackfellas say, want, need. All of these comments affirm a reluctance to listen to blackfellas, the very thing that has characterised even beneficent whitefella intention. Why The Voice is crucial is that it enforces an obligation to listen. How can that do Australian society any harm? Open your hearts. Get it done.
Your grasp of arithmetic seems equal to your logic. Never mind the facts, feel the Vibe and emote.
WTF does arithmetic have to do with it? Is that despite the obvious inequity, you are arrogantly content to rely on your ability to kick down?
1967 + 65 = 2032 which is ten years hence.
But hey, facts are finicky fings.
Touché.
You’re welcome.
So you miss the point and instead cherry pick an irrelevant mistake in addition.
No wonder your lot were thrashed at the last election; you’d rather pettifog than address the real question.
“Illogical commitment to balance”. I assume that’s why Sky After Dark on YouTube exists: on this basis it’s full of logical commitment.
To those concerned about discrimination, unequal treatment is a very difficult concept for you when considered explicitly. It has of course been very easy for many to go along with implicit inequality.
To those who consider only the present and are fearful for your wellbeing, fair enough. We must each consider our self interest as we know it and understand it.
I urge everybody to consider that your self-interest lies in a system of governance and knowledge that evolves to meet the challenges of our times.
The recent federal election highlights the belief of many that of a two party system centred increasingly on conflict for its own sake is no longer fit for purpose.
Integrity issues across all state governments show up a system that has become weighed down by a stagnant set of rules that promotes game playing by entrenched interests.
A a voice to parliament represents a a step toward justice, for one key group, those from whom the land was stolen and for whom the benefits of subsequent exploitation of natural resources have not been properly shared.
Fear is at the heart of declaring terra nullius and subsequent installation of British government models of government. Let it not hold us back any longer.
Taking this step paves the way for addressing the original lie, and rotten foundation, upon which our current institutions are based. It paves the way for a stronger future for all.
Those who are concerned for the wellbeing of us who arrived since colonisation worry not. There is great wealth that will be created in the centuries ahead from the coming together of aboriginal and other ways of being. A wealth based on sustainably meeting the essential human needs of belonging and the sustainable and just distribution of resources.