Pretty soon, the Albanese government may commit to the referendum for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. And then again, the way things are going, it very well may not. But should it do so, and the die be cast, even with so many things unresolved (truth-telling, treaty, how genuinely grassroots the thing was in the first place), we will enter a new stage. At that point, the debate on the wisdom of the proposal stops, and a lot of us will have to turn instead to just defending the thing against attacks from the right. Or, if you really can’t bring yourself to do that, to just shut up about it.
So while there is still time, it may be good to raise a few final points, as much for the record of history as anything. And one thing to say is that even if the Voice succeeds in the referendum and is established, it may well prove to be a step backwards in the struggle for First Nations self-determination. Not merely ineffectual, not merely meh; it may actually make things worse.
The reason lies in the Voice’s unique design feature: that it is intended to be powerless. This has been a hell of a proposition for many of us to get our heads around, since a referendum is such a bloody awful thing to have to try and win, that to go into it to get something that, of itself, can do nothing, hardly seems worth the candle.
The argument from the Voice-ists (Vocalists?) has been that there needs to be an assembly before a treaty so as to conduct treaty negotiations. The trouble with that position is that it must cede “constituting” power to the settler state, in order to compose the assembly in question. The government is going to have to play some role in adjudicating the legitimacy of those elected/selected for the assembly.
That then resituates a treaty, since it becomes a product of this process, rather than something bringing negotiation into being. It could actually, arguably, be better to have a somewhat ad hoc First Nations leadership negotiate a minimal core treaty, to preserve some autonomy from settler-state processes. But that’s gone by the by, if the referendum goes ahead in any case.
The more modest of the Voice’s advocates have argued that, even if it cannot impose its will on Parliament, it will be heard with at least some respect (its enthusiasts claim far more for it than that). It can’t be worse than things are now. Even if there is no great advance, it can’t go backward.
But what if that’s not true? What if the Voice establishes a situation in which the very structure of the arrangement generates a negative situation that the assembly’s members, by the very nature of their commission, are unable to remedy? What if the matter of the relationship between the assembly and power becomes a question in itself?
This will surely, reasonably, occur once the very real limitations of the situation — power and powerlessness — start to play out. Whatever successes the Voice achieves early on, it will soon run into hard limits. Its demands can be unlimited; the government has a budget to manage, and, as both major parties have shown, will be unmoved by the suffering and inequality that different policies could remedy.
As this situation persists, the Voice will have no recourse for not being listened to. Faced with the inability to make an impact on the other, the inevitable pressure is towards contestation among one’s own group, to divide into factions — not least over what one should do about the dilemma of one’s powerlessness.
Every group that has suffered exile knows this feeling. As does every party in permanent opposition. And every member of an academic department. The problem is to be a group whose only mode of action is talk, set within the context of those who have real power. So any such group must eventually start to argue among themselves, and factionalise.
This is when an entity enters decadence. Multiple groups make calls for unity and fighting the common enemy; every faction uses the other faction’s momentary concession to collective action to take strategic advantage. The logic of the “prisoner’s dilemma” takes over.
Many of the Voice’s advocates say that First Nations peoples’ commitment to discussion will overcome this. But that tends to be what everyone thinks. The most frustrating thing in such a situation is that one can see what needs to be done — fully collective action — but it remains tantalisingly out of reach. It is the deep structure of powerlessness, the perpetual reinforcement of dependency, that one side is real, and the other is a talkshop.
Now all this may not happen. The sense of collective purpose may override, or real delegated powers of regulation may be transferred. But under the current proposed set-up, this other possibility remains a real one — and one that arises not from any character of First Nations politics, but from the general structure being offered.
I dunno, ’twere me, I’d grab whatever treaty could be got from the referendum process. But we’ll have to all shut up about this stuff, pretty soon.
All this hand-wringing negativity is infuriating. Firstly, The Voice is what blackfellas asked for. Secondly, adopting it will be the 1st time in Australian colonial history whitefellas actually listened and delivered what blackfellas want; establish a body to which whitefellas at least have to listen, something we have not done for 245 years. Thirdly, I do not buy the proposition that a constitutionally enshrined body can be totally ignored by parliament and that government will not suffer negative political consequences for that wilful ignorance.
You must mean “some blackfellas” as there is certainly no consensus, even within the industry, to what it means to whom, why and how it will be of benefit.
Are you saying some blackfellas do not want to be heard or participate in change?
Read the single sentence again, as slowly as necessary to understand.
Jacinta Price doesn’t want it. Warren Mundine doesn’t want it. Lydia Thorpe doesn’t seem too excited about it.
They’re blackfellas.
and solid reasons to vote yes.. Porsche …….
Well, there’s opposition to it from some. Pretty strange to talk about the importance of a ‘Voice’ and then not listen to First Nations people who disagree with it.
To yr 2nd and 3rd points: governments of both parties, by disregarding the Voice assembly, would lose some votes and gain others. Labor would get points in outer suburban marginals for telling the Voice assembly to live in real world, competing agendas, no money tree etc. Wld be very tempting political game to play
see it is all about votes – not about the outsiders – that is non urban – country people -oops the real First Nations.
That is why one should vote no
What if the voice moves quickly to kick off truth telling and to make progress on treaty? If it is treated with respect and does real work this could create bonds within the group, and create a virtuous cycle of progress.
There are other bodies that have a voice but no teeth. They can still have impact. Parliamentary committees, officers that report to parliament like the Auditor General, even think tanks and research organisations that sit outside the parliamentary process.
I hope that the voice finds commonality of purpose and is given access to resources to support informed advice to parliament. And that it doesn’t let the perfect be the enemy if the good – a shrill voice will quickly be sidelined.
If
Shutting up at least provides an opportunity to listen.
To what, though? More tedious, circular, self-ghettoising, Knowledge Class cliches about Teh Catastrophic Ills of Colonisationzzzz, from assimilated First Nations cosplay grifters on $150K/year Whitey sit-down money?
Yippee. Can’t wait.
To the Voice, of course. Point of the exercise.
Which ‘Voice’?
There are many, as pointed out above.
Dare one suggest a cacophony of special interests?
Well, if that’s so…then it’s definitely a waste of time.
OTOH if the point of ‘The Voice’ is that it is the unified means of expression for real autonomy
our power – which in some cases can include meaning ‘over’ Whitey and not simply ‘as an adjunct to’ Whitey…and if that power can also mean Indy policy decisions are made that cost Whitey in truly strategic, structural financial ways…
…and if said power comes with concomitant responsibility and accountability on the part of First Nation Australian leaders to fricking LEAD their own people and achieve some material results…(unlike pretty much every go at Indy policy of the last half century…)
..then great. I am a huge supporter and I wish That Voice well.
Nothing so far in the debate suggests however that the latter obtains. I guess we’ll see.
This is the discussion we should be having instead of pretending that the Voice will be a panacea for addressing First Nations’ disadvantage. These are deeper questions than just the details of the referendum question or the subsequent legislation under the new power, as important as those details may be.
When people like Lidia Thorpe express anything other than full-throated support for the government’s plans, or dare to ask why Truth and Treaty can’t also be advanced, or note the appalling list of unfulfilled recommendations from the various inquiries the response is vicious.
With Jacinta “Warlpiri people disown me” Price chipping away on one side and Lydia Thorpe from the other, prospects for division and infighting seem pretty good.
The racists will rejoice, the liberal-progressives will feel let down and resentful, the political class will try not to show their relief and the myth of Aboriginal inferiority will be strengthened.
Or maybe things will go swimmingly.
First step should be recognising that Aboriginal law (not land, not culture, definitely not lore!) was never given up and go from there, however uncomfortable that might be, particularly to otherwise supportive liberal-progressives. How we do that and what it would mean is pretty tricky, but it starts from a position of legal equality, not of powerless recognition by the very entity you’re trying to negotiate with.