Rest assured, if Anthony Albanese had unveiled a detailed model for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament on the weekend — say, the local and regional/national Voice model outlined in last year’s Indigenous Voice Co-design Process report — we’d already be down in the weeds debating the minutiae, with obstructionists searching for issues to exploit.
Instead, Albanese unveiled a referendum question and suggested words to be added to the constitution, with the model’s details to be left to Parliament. Albanese remembers how John Howard derailed a push for a republic by making the referendum and the debate that preceded it all about a model, not about the majority of Australians’ support for a republic.
The Indigenous Voice Co-design Process panel, led by Marcia Langton and Tom Calma, produced nearly 300 pages of detail on how its model of 35 local and regional Voices, and an overarching national Voice, would operate, based on extensive consultation with nearly 10,000 people and organisations. It’s difficult to think of a more credible and well-founded model, or of a substantially different one that could somehow emerge from another consultation process. But the referendum would be about the principle of enshrining a Voice in the constitution, not machinery issues. A constitution that doesn’t even mention a prime minister or cabinet is no place for the details of, say, how gender balance will be achieved in the Voice.
Deprived of the detail to criticise, obstructionists instead are criticising the lack of detail, either unaware of or ignoring the Langton/Calma report. This led the Financial Review today into a bizarre position in an editorial that insisted “detail is crucial” and “would make debate less divisive”, but then complains of too much detail: “Indigenous academic Marcia Langton says such questions are answered by her 2021 co-design report co-authored with former Indigenous social justice commissioner Tom Calma. But with that document running to almost 300 complex pages, it falls short of an easily digestible blueprint.”
Maybe Langton and Calma should have included lots more pictures so the geniuses at the AFR would find it “digestible”.
In truth, complaints about detail are usually cover for a fundamental rejection of both a Voice to Parliament and the broader project of constitutional recognition of Australia’s First Peoples, just as the claim that a Voice is a “third chamber” (for which at least one high-profile opponent has since apologised) was often cover for an outright hostility to Indigenous recognition.
That rejection is mainly sourced from some sections of the right, though by no means all. It is predicated on a straight denial of Australian history and the invasion and dispossession of First Peoples. The rejectionist line is that Indigenous peoples are nothing special; they’re just another minority group and singling them out is somehow “racist” — their Indigenous status is irrelevant to their status as workers, consumers and voters, just like everyone else.
Faced with the consequences of invasion and dispossession, which are detailed in the large gap in health, educational, economic and social outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples, rejectionists split off into different responses — some more overtly racist in arguing that too much money is directed to Indigenous peoples, others arguing that Indigenous capitalism and entrepreneurialism must be fostered as the only way forward.
Both ignore the core meaning of the Voice: that it would formalise the clear, well-evidenced truth about Indigenous policymaking — only policies and programs that have been designed by and with Indigenous communities and which are implemented by and with Indigenous communities deliver effective outcomes on the ground. It’s not merely “symbolic” or “decent” to have an Indigenous Voice, it’s crucial to Closing the Gap and beginning to address the continuing impacts of invasion and occupation.
Obstructionists and rejectionists refuse to acknowledge this practical reality. Obsessing about detail is another step in the long history of dispossession.
Albo’s doing this the smart way, keeping the overarching issue in question simple and clear.
Something clearly fair is a hard thing to say no to. Even those on the conservative right still see themselves as being basically fair citizens.
The flapdoodles at Sky can carry on all the want, but in the end if the question remains as straight forward as is currently proposed, all their hypothesising and fear-mongering will dash against the fortress wall of fairness.
I’m just staggered that there should still, in this day and age, such blatant racism still influencing social progression. Who are these naysayers, and what’s in it for them? Just opposition because Albo’s made the move?
Not just that, Drandy, I hope I’m wrong, but there has seemed to be an ugly undercurrent of racism and discrimination in so much of what the LNP has increasingly stood for over the last almost 4 years of their government.
Keep in mind Howard ran the 1996 election on race. He sat in front of maps showing most of the country being “given” to Aboriginal people. Bob Katter was part of that team. Pauline Hanson, then a Lib candidate in a safe Labor seat was simply following Lib talking points in running a race based campaign and her removal as an endorsed candidate was pure Howard hypocrisy. Tim Fisher, who was gifted a diplomatic job by Labor boasted that the Wik legislation had “bucketloads of extinguishment” of native title. Racism in the LNP runs deep and they use it relentlessly.
One of those naysayers is furiously downvoting all the comments supporting Bernard’s piece.
Great article Bernard, thankyou.
1. Plenty of detail already exists. People just have to be bothered to read and listen to what is already available, and to what will come from further discussions. So, “detail” is a non-issue.
2. Relevant advice from, and consultation with, key stakeholders is fundamental to efficient, evidence-based policy and service delivery which means that every single taxpayer is made better off by a well functioning Voice to Parliament.
3. Other countries have done so much more in this space than us. I can’t believe we’re so incredibly stupid and incompetent that we can’t manage it too.
4. The usual lazy, idiotic suspects will offer up culture wars drivel because they’ve got nothing honest and productive to contribute. The rest of us need to leave them to their bubble of irrelevance and get on with things.
1. Disagree. It needs to be in the Referendum proposal and worded in such a way as to be extremely clear what Voters are either voting for or against. Too ambiguous and its open for interpretation. Too detailed and it may be prescriptive and not achieve its aims. Too vague and it can go beyond what voters approve or decline. It’s a balancing act.
2. Neutral until costings are provided that support this but given governments everywhere, I doubt it.
3. N/A
4. Agree.
Plenty to read and listen to – up to you to do it. Plenty of discussion to come as the vote is many months away – up to you to get yourself informed along the way. Same goes for the rest of us.
That’s all very well and good to say but people won’t do that as it isn’t a priority in their lives. Australia doesn’t have a good track record of passing referendums.
That’s where quality media and family, friends and acquaintances come in. Very few of us live as islands.
In a perfect world yes but comes the day anyone who doesn’t care about this or is unsure will vote No. The question put to the voters is paramount.
Of course the question is paramount. Nobody disputes that. I have confidence that enough of us are over lies and culture wars and intelligent enough to get this done. We didn’t get sucked into thinking that marriage equality was going to lead to an epidemic of beastiality, we didn’t get sucked into thinking a bunch of hair legged netballers were going to take over the world and we won’t fall for these hysterical lies either.
I think you will find that “marriage equality” was seen by a lot of people as “why shouldn’t they have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us” or “ffs let’s just shut them up” rather than anything altruistic. Most people care little for politics unless it personally impacts them.
Re point 3: believe it.
Those who preach Capitalism as the saviour of indigenous people from disadvantaged inequity are not heeding Einstein’s definition of insanity; ie keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. That crap has been rained down upon poor blackfellas for decades with no evidence of success. Why? Because at the sacred heart of Capitalism is reverence for property over humans. Blackfellas have a meet different concept of ‘property’ and certainly don’t revere it as whitefellas do. That is why blackfelles are not buying into Capitalism. And the rest of us would profit from listening to them on that topic. In fact, the reason why the Uluru statement, including The Voice to parliament has good prospects of success is that for the first time it will force whitefellas to listen to blackfellas and that is the way to successful and respectful relationship with First Nations people and allow blackfellas to design what success is to them.
And the clamour for ‘detail’ is just the ignorant asking for material to use for a racist obstruction of indigenous opportunity.
Nice example of reverse racism/intolerance – “the clamour for ‘detail’ is just the ignorant asking for material to use for a racist obstruction…” – have you considered that it might sensible people asking for material to use to make a intelligent decision?
Of course not.
Look at the people asking for “more detail”……………
Racist thugs one and all.
Is that your definition of “sensible people”?
How dare people seek more information on a Constutional change! Ordabealoraginit!
If the statement “Racists opposed to the Referendum will use the excuse of asking for more detail ad infinitum to undermine the Yes case” does not logically imply “Anyone asking for more detail on the proposed Referendum is a racist”.
Marxism 101. Do they still teach this stuff?