Stephen Ransom writes: Nothing that any government has tried has ever worked as advertised (“The Indigenous Voice to Parliament is born out of white appeasement, not Black ambition”). If, as a society, we accept failure and stop trying then we would still be in the Dark Ages.
Of course, claiming failure up-front for the referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament does provide an ego boost for the ones encouraging the failure. However, to be practical, the evidence suggests that (coming from the same source) this referendum (probably) won’t succeed (initially) either. I imagine there will be numerous articles on the infighting from special interest groups — thus “proving” the dysfunctionality of the design. But the difference here is twofold.
One: the advice that does come from the Voice will be public, so while the recipient entity has the power to ignore it (it’s only advice), they will be under pressure to explain the rejection. So the mere existence of the Voice forces a de facto open negotiation.
Two: this is a little trickier. As a systems analyst, what jumped out at me is that the structure of the Voice is set by Parliament (the same group that has always failed) and the Voice can provide input to Parliament. Put those two together and you have a mechanism for the Voice to change itself to eventually become something that does work. So iterative change and maybe, just maybe, after three or four iterations the Voice will evolve into something that actually does work.
Neil Halliday writes: In Benjamin Abbatangelo’s article the framing is wrong. The activist Voice is built on “Black sovereignty” (indeed ambitious, but which doesn’t exist, according to the High Court), while the non-activist Voice is based on hope (not “appeasement”) rather than ambition. The gap can only be closed with a job guarantee — which is why Noel Pearson supported a job guarantee some time back. I’m not sure if that is still the case now that he too is threatening to “withdraw from public life if the referendum fails”.
Maxine Barry writes: Abbatangelo makes points that are patently, evidently and tragically true. Nevertheless, as a descendant of convicts on my father’s side, I cannot but vote Yes.
My convict ancestors ended up with a land grant and became farmers on stolen Lutruwita land, a benefit unimaginable to British lower-class people. So here I sit, a beneficiary of colonisation. As a Yes voter and because I owe, I consider I have a duty to support the Uluru statement in every way I can. This is a new thing, which I hope can move the dial just a bit further in the direction of justice.
Does Abbatangelo have a notion for an alternative?
Dr Deb Campbell writes: The Voice is a way forward and, contrary to Abbatangelo’s article, is not something conceived as a lefty plot by bleeding heart whitefellas. It was conceived by and requested by many Indigenous people, working to their own measured agenda. Surely it’s worth a shot?
As someone who has had some direct involvement in the existing process of Indigenous policy development — albeit years ago now — it was easy to see that one-size-fits-all “solutions” coming out of Canberra were not achieving much, if anything. A different way of approaching policy development is required, especially the application of those policies, in specific and particular ways and places.
This referendum is not an ALP plot. It is an invitation from Indigenous people to us — to all Australians — and surely it is time we listened. Yes, there is more to do — much more. But this is a start. It’s time.
Colin Smith writes: The Voice was first proposed at Uluru as a means to the end of Makarrata — “a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history”. The Uluru Statement from the Heart invites immigrant Australians to “walk with us … for a better future”. Has there ever been a more noble offer, more nobly expressed?
Richard Flanagan, writing in the current The Monthly, asks a sobering question: “When our brothers and sisters invite us to be one, to share their vast wealth of 60,000 years, why would we spit on the invitation and trample it in the dirt?” And why would some of our First Nations brothers and sisters themselves spit on it — in the manner of Lidia Thorpe and Abbatangelo? Can they not see that we either take this first step towards walking together, or set ourselves on a path of escalating conflict?
Ann Daly writes: I understand all the points made by Abbatangelo, but why must the perfect be the enemy of better? Decisions coming from predominantly white politicians are not improving Aboriginal outcomes. We need Aboriginal people to come up with the solutions and I know there are individual voices out there already proposing solutions. However, individual voices do not get to speak to Parliament.
When the Voice represents people across Australia, it will have power equal to the lobbyists because the Voice will have the power of numbers, even when it is arguing for the needs of individual communities.
Abbatangelo is correct in saying the Voice has no legislative power, but it will be able to hold the government accountable for listening or not listening to its recommendations. This is why Peter Dutton does not want the Voice — why else would he be against a Voice with no legislative power? Except of course to undermine the government by spreading misinformation.
Like Abbatangelo, I am concerned about the inaction on the age of responsibility, Don Dale and cashless welfare, but I can understand that the government would want input from Aboriginal people about what to put in their place to deal with problems that may arise if these abhorrent issues were suddenly removed with no alternative to build positive outcomes.
No one has said the Voice will immediately provide everything Aboriginal people need and want, but surely it has to be better than what politicians have done to date. Let us hope for a Yes vote and the constructive building of trust and respect. A No vote leaves us all with no hope for a better future.
Anthony Levine writes: The only issue that was not addressed in Abbatangelo’s long article (at least I wasn’t able to find it) was what would he wish to see in its place. Nay-saying achieves absolutely nothing.
Michael Nugent writes: I appreciated Abbatangelo’s articulate and passionate piece — it is always good to hear as many sides of a story as possible.
I worked in Indigenous health for many years, and am deeply invested in trying to do the right thing. I’m a bit confused about what he suggests people like me should do. I take it he thinks we should vote No to the Voice, but isn’t that like the Greens voting against that carbon bill because it didn’t go far enough? Surely something is better than nothing? What is Abbatangelo’s solution to the inherent issues he so eloquently describes?
Dale Ryder writes: I’ve known and worked with many Indigenous people and have nothing but enormous respect for many of them. It really is time to start a new dialogue that deals with the 21st century and what that is likely to deliver for all people in Australia. I doubt the Voice will do that but credit does have to go to Anthony Albanese and Labor for making the effort as part of a commitment.
Christine Joy Lee writes: I’ll be voting Yes. Our Indigenous brothers and sisters have often been wronged since white occupation, by neglect, misunderstanding or deliberate intent. We need to right those wrongs, not just apologise. We’ve got to do better for Indigenous peoples than we’ve done before and/or are doing now. We’ve all got to continually engage in crucial conversations about Indigenous issues. Indigenous voices must always be heard and genuinely taken into account.
This referendum is a wake-up call to all Australian governments — indeed, to all Australians. Parliament/s should see the proposed constitutional amendments as a starting point to legislate for meaningful improvements for Indigenous citizens (whether it fails or not). Our governments need to actually do constructive and positive things, not just pay lip service. There’s a long way to go to fixing all the issues, but Yes is a small step in the right direction.
The simple point is that 250 years of not listening is where we are with indigenous policy. Utterly unsuccessful. What harm can a constitutional mandate to LISTEN do?
NO has turned it into a purely racist contest. If NO wins, Australian will have voted itself Racist.
And Australian No voters will be proud that they won.
Thank you, Crikey Readers for so many considered replies as to why we must vote “Yes”.
The Voice could do more damage than good.
The Voice is fundamentally misguided.
It’s premised on three misconceptions/forms of outright denials:
First that the issues facing indigenous Australians to date have arisen because white Australia didn’t “listen” – that white Australia committed an accidental genocide. For example apparently white Australia just sort of assumed that indigenous Australians would be only too happy to give up their children as the Stolen Generation if only white Australia had listened.
Second that the resolution to these issues is to set up a separation institution for dealing with “indigenous issues” e.g. not being killed by police. The single biggest challenge facing indigenous people is institutional racism and the Voice could well reinforce that institutional racism by diverting indigenous people to a separate (powerless) body, as well as entrenching institutional racism in those very organisations who feel they are being targeted or undermined by this new body e.g. this could actually increase the levels of antagonism with the police. The way to deal with institutional racism is through aggressive affirmative action. The way to reduce discrimination by police against indigenous people is to increase the number of indigenous people in the police – indigenous people policing indigenous people.
Third that indigenous people can somehow separate themselves from Australia – become a nation within a nation. I’m generally against nationalism because it’s divisive, but it’s simply unworkable when there aren’t clearly defined borders. This isn’t like Scotland or Wales where some arbitrary border can be used for devolution. Indigenous Australians are spread throughout Australia. And as above, whether they like it or not, the same institutions govern them – parliament, the judiciary, the police, the health service, the prison service.
The Voice could well make things worse.
Tp counter my above points:
On the issue of denial of genocide, maybe this is how Australia deals with its past. Looking at the collective denial from the “yes” campaign, especially from non-indigenous Australians, maybe if we allow ourselves to believe that it was all some big misunderstanding, that might help heel. It’s unlikely non-indigenous Australians will ever actually face up to their history in any real, tangible way., so this is better than nothing. History is admittedly a serious of better-than-nothings.
On the seperate institution point, maybe the voice will act as vehicle to get indigenous views heard (assuming that this has all just been a huge misunderstanding). In the absence of direct representation in the institutions of power (which would admittedly take time and fade fierce resistance) this is their “in”.
On the third issue of the seperate nation within a nation, admittedly the voice would never achieve that with its total lack of power, and perhaps this remains a far off dream.
Probably the best argument for the voice, and I touched upon it above, is it will allow Australia to pretend it’s less racist. That might give hope.
It’s all kind of depressing though.
C’mon Maldinis, you’ve got better analysis in you than this!
Your first misconception/denial is just silly. No one is suggesting that the atrocities, the land stealing, and the abuse meted out on the Indigenous people only occurred because white settlers weren’t listening.
These abuses did happen and are part of historical fact.
In my lifetime, overt government mandated abuse of Aboriginal Australia has ceased, and the question is now – how do we make up for that? (Let’s ignore the subversive / more covert govt abuse for now.)
So the govt pumps money into programs to improve Indigenous health, education, socio-economic status, etc, to “Close the Gap”. The problem is, these programs – purported solutions to blackfella problems that whitefella created – are also whitefella created, and fail to actually meet the brief. We’re wasting money imposing “solutions”.
The Voice is about getting blackfella input on programs that are meant to help blackfellas. It just makes sense.
Remember when Tony Abbott made himself Minister for Women? Having Indigenous programs and funding initiatives without Indigenous input (which, astoundingly, is still very much the M.O. of Canberra) is similarly ludicrous. The VtP is about rectifying that.
You may be correct that getting more Indigenous police, and judges, and lawyers, and doctors is the path to eliminating institutional racism…but I’d like to hear what the Indigenous people think of the idea before I agree with you.
Lastly, the nation within a nation view. I don’t see that at all. I see it simply as Australian’s of a different status to myself. Not elevated above, or pushed down below. Its not a hierarchical status. Indigenous peoples are Australian, as am I, as are all of us. In the same way that Australians who are female, or short, or physically disabled, or transsexual differ to myself and require different approaches to life’s issues than to I, none of those differences create an iota of change or differentiation to our Australian-ness. We have a Minister for Women, and govt funded programs dedicated to improving the lot of females. Does that bring about a divide between male and female? Does it lift the status of one over the other? No. It’s about acknowledging that there are specific challenges that women face that need addressing. We have the NDIS to assist Australians with impairments, but no one worries about NDIS participants being granted a privileged position in the community. 1, because that’s silly, and 2, because they’ve been on a lower rung for so long…any leg up they get is well deserved.
The Indigenous already have a different Australian status to us settlers – the original inhabitants. And they’ve been downtrodden and kicked by us for too long. For too long our attempts at (piecemeal) restitution have been solutions proposed by us and forced upon them.
The VtP is the first step in true restitution. The only coherent Indigenous argument against the VtP is that it doesn’t go far enough, Treaty should come first. And I agree with that, but unfortunately that is not going to happen anytime soon. The Voice could. Pragmatism dictates that we support this first step, however limp it may be.
Your last line “The Voice could make things worse” is a concise summation of the official No pamphlet. And it’s true. It IS possible that the VtP will make things worse, but I view the likelihood that an Indigenous advisory body in the public spotlight will have a detrimental impact on the lives of Indigenous people as very, very low.
On the flip side, I see a No vote, that allows racists to puff their chest knowing they’re in the majority, as highly detrimental to the cause of solving institutional racism.
That’s why you should vote Yes.
Thank you for your response to Maldini’s Heir ( not a typo, the person who decries ‘identity’ has actually stolen one ) .
I have often contended with that person over their expressed views, which are IMHO formed from the long discredited ideology of Nihilism and seek to decry any advancement merely on the basis of an erroneously applied scepticism.
The points you make in rebuttal will likely not be answered to, because in the end there are no intelligent answers to them.
More power to your pen.
For a person who thinks they’re this great debater you really are terrible at focusing on what’s important.
I’m definitely getting to the stage now where I’m seeing very little point engaging with you.
Rather than getting into the philosophical and fairly speculative issues about how the nation heals, I’ll just deal with what I think is the most practical issue you’ve raised.
If all goes well indigenous people will get input into, or to determine, education, heath, housing and other policies affecting indigenous people.
This is a nation within a nation.
What is a nation if not one that gets to decide its own education, heath, housing and other policies for their own “people”.
And putting aside that this is actually what has driven war and sectarianism for centuries, in practical terms there cannot be a nation within a nation.
There cannot be an indigenous education system and a mainstream education system because the former will put indigenous people at a huge disadvantage for the rest of their lives.
Whatever about the issues with mainstream education (which by the way is or should be founded on an evidenced based approach as opposed to cultural or religious preferences) that is THE education system.
And this is the parliament. And that is the police. And this is a hospital where medical experts decide what’s best.
The issuer is that many indigenous people have struggled to adapt to the mainstream. Many of those that have have become successful.
This is one of the key misconceptions of the whole thing.
But I’ll be voting yes for the reasons I said in my second post.
Treaty.
I take heart in the intelligent, well-considered and argued comments published above. If only the naysayers, especially the aboriginal ones were capable of such clear understanding of the issues and outcomes.