We said No to the Voice. What now ? Some suggestions for Plan B

 

 

Author Andrew Smallman 15 October 2023

Australians have rejected the proposal for an indigenous Voice to parliament and the executive at a referendum on 14 October 2023.

Yes campaigner Noel Pearson said in an interview on  radio 3AW with Neil Mitchell  that a No vote would be a “precipice, an abyss” into which Australia would plunge.

Well, here we are, the numbers are in and nobody has fallen off a precipice. No abyss has opened up to swallow us.

Which leaves us with the reasonable question: If not the voice what is plan B?

In the aftermath of the No vote, it seems to me that three themes have emerged in statements by disappointed yes campaigners.

One theme is nihilism. There is no alternative. All is lost. Reconciliation is dead.

A second theme is demands for a truth and reconciliation commission (TRC)  “like they have in South Africa”.  We might respond to this by pointing out that Australia is not South Africa and never has been. We might also observe that enthusiasm for the TRC in South Africa is by no means universal with many commentators on the ground questioning its value.

A third theme is that we must re-double our efforts to “close the gap”. At a superficial level this seems perfectly reasonable but unless we come to better understand why aborigines in remote settlements have such a poor quality of life then rhetoric about closing the gap is just words.

A major problem in remote communities is youth suicide. I am a retired psychiatrist with experience of suicide, its causes, and measures which can reduce its frequency. People who feel like outcasts are much more likely to kill themselves than people who feel like valued members of a functioning society. The way forward will not be found in rhetoric or more funding for services. As a nation we need to implement policies which will help people in remote communities who feel like outcasts to become valued members of the mainframe of the larger entity of Australian society.

In the discussion below I put forward three specific suggestions which could help this process along.

I put the view that plan B in 2023 and beyond is what should have been plan A  in 1967 leading up to the referendum held in that year.

I will try to explain what I mean.

Debate about Aboriginal policy in Australia has been conducted around two main conceptual ambitions.

The first is based on the equality-engagement paradigm. This holds that the aim of policy should be to assist disadvantaged people, including some aborigines and others, to achieve equality  with the mainstream of the population in law and rights and responsibilities and opportunities.

Any explicit policy driven initiatives will be in the form of affirmative action programmes which are self limiting. They cease to operate when their objective has been achieved. That objective is to become engaged with and part of the mainstream, or “mainframe” as Noel Pearson calls it, using a term suggested by his mentor Galarrwuy Yunupingu.

Mr Pearson’s term mainframe seems very appropriate to me as it conveys the idea of people joining the flow then maturing to become part of the structure of the society which enables that flow to occur.

The second conceptual basis of aboriginal policy is grounded in the idea that aborigines require special provisions  in perpetuity.

Precisely why they require these special provisions is never clarified. However it appears to rest on a kind of inverted exceptionalism which represents aborigines as damaged by the ravages of colonial invasion perpetuated by the mystery of intergenerational trauma.

It is fundamentally separationist in ambition.  This has been the main thrust of elite aboriginal activism since the 1960’s. Aborigines must have separate lands, separate health services, separate education, separate housing, separate welfare services,  separate laws, separate judicial arrangements and never-ceded aboriginal sovereignty.

Much of the rhetoric around this approach utilises words like justice, truth, recognition, reconciliation, reparations, rightful place, treaty, Makarrata, sovereignty and self determination.  These are notions with a legalistic character. The most ambitious expression of this legalistic-separationist approach to aboriginal policy was the Voice proposal which sought to alter our constitution to provide special provisions in perpetuity for people who identify as aborigines and for no other reason.

The two approaches to policy are incompatible and mutually exclusive.

Which policy leads to the best outcomes; legalistic-separationist-special provisions or equality-engagement ?

As a result of the naturalistic experiment  of aboriginal policy since 1967 we now know that the majority of aborigines who  opted for equality and engagement have become part of the mainframe and have achieved a good quality of life in the urban middle class.

An unfortunate minority find themselves stranded in remote outstations where they were supposed to enjoy the benefits of aboriginal culture untrammelled by colonial overlords.

These people have had the full dose of separation and special provisions. The outcome has been a disaster. They are caught in a poverty trap, enfeebled by welfare dependency and ravaged by internecine violence.

The legalistic-separationist-special provisions experiment has failed.

The equality-engagement  approach has been successful.

Now we can cut through the  post-referendum recriminations and argy-bargy about what comes next.

We already know what needs to come next. The evidence is in.

The task is conceptually quite straightforward.

For the majority (70-80%) of urbanised aborigines who are already part of the mainframe of society no action is required or desirable.

For the minority (20-30%) of aborigines who are trapped in the purgatory of dysfunctional remote communities we can offer affirmative action plans which will help these people become part of the mainframe.

In crafting these plans we need to be mindful of what governments and official policies can and cannot achieve. Neither governments nor policy initiatives can tell individual people what they should hope for, think, believe or do. Governments can create legal frameworks within which individuals can make their own decisions and governments can support some of those decisions financially.

So, with these thoughts in mind, here are my three suggestions for a post referendum plan B.

1. Combine all aboriginal and mainstream health, welfare, education, housing, legal and other services. This could start on a voluntary basis if initially a region elected to trial combining services with an evaluation programme over 5 years. The process to include all services might take 20 years.

Combining aboriginal and mainstream services will provide clients with a staff cohort having greater breadth and depth of knowledge and experience than is possible with separated services.

 Part of the process will be evaluation of services as to outcomes and ensuring services are provided on the basis of need not ethnic identification.

2. Enable private ownership of property on lands currently under corporate ownership acquired through aboriginal land rights legislation.  Private property ownership is one of the bedrock characteristics of modern society. Without secure private property ownership individuals cannot have their own home and have little opportunity to make any kind of capital investment which might allow private enterprise to flourish.

I envisage the creation of a land rights and native title commission with authority to host the necessary negotiations and present actionable proposals to government.

3. Some people might decide they would prefer to move out of a remote settlement to an urban setting with more opportunities for education, employment, health care and personal enterprise.

One way to support this would be by funding internal migration through a voluntary  affirmative action programme.  This could provide a grant of money sufficient for a family to acquire a house and land at median price in a regional city plus financial assistance during the post relocation adjustment period.

These three suggestions are practical. They are achievable. They are specific. They will provide disadvantaged people with opportunities not previously available. They will expand the framework within which people in remote areas can evolve their lifestyle.

They will not fix every problem by next Tuesday. The sorry state of aboriginal policy today has taken 50 years to evolve. It might take that much time again to rectify the situation.

Good public policy does not have to be dramatic or revolutionary. At best it is like the rudder on a supertanker. If we turn that rudder just one degree the ship will arrive at a destination thousands of kilometres from the one originally considered.

Given opportunities it is the initiative of individuals and families which will gradually make the big changes.

There are some things which we would do well to stop trying as they have failed.

Chasing after rainbows like recognition and reconciliation has not delivered any useful outcome.

Setting targets for “closing the gap” has failed without the practical means of reaching those targets.

There are two other things which I propose as part of a plan B initiative.

One is to delete the question on the census form about aboriginality. Collection of this data has not served a useful purpose for people who are aborigines and it has provided perverse incentives for people who are not aborigines. Various anecdotal estimates reported in the public domain have suggested that the number of fake aborigines who ticked the box at the 2021 census might be somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000.   

The other is to repeal S51(26) of the constitution. This is the race power.

I put the view that the notion of humans being divided into various races is obsolete, contributes nothing useful to the Australian polity and provides perverse incentives for activists to divide our country into artificial sectarian categories. This will require yet another referendum for which there will be little appetite by the people.

However I think the Commonwealth Government could publish a white paper offering the opinion that the concept of race is now obsolete and the wording of the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 effectively makes S51(26)  a dead letter.

There is a precedent for this in Section 25 of the constitution which is regarded as a dead letter as it contravenes the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 and the International Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, 1969.

I am a retired psychiatrist not a lawyer but I could readily advance an argument that S51(26) also contravenes the Racial Discrimination Act and the International Convention. 

Here is an excerpt from the Racial Discrimination Act. The emphasis is mine.

9  Racial discrimination to be unlawful

             (1)  It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

 

Andrew Smallman,  October 2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noel Pearson's Gough Whitlam oration 2013 His views have changed. Why ? 11 October 2023

 

Whitlam Institute, University of Western Sydney  13 November 2013.

Here is an excerpt from Noel Pearson’s oration in 2013 which I think is highly relevant to his passionate advocacy for the Voice proposal to be put to a referendum of the people of Australia on 14 October 2023.

I have no problem with people changing their minds about matters of public importance.

However in the context of debate about the Voice proposal, I have not seen in the public domain any acknowledgement by Mr Pearson that his position on a range of matters appears to have changed in the 10 years since 2013. These include racial discrimination in the Constitution, the failure of race-based solutions to aboriginal disadvantage, the negative effects of well intended policies and the failure of policy to hold indigenous people to the same standards as other Australians.

In 2013 Mr Pearson said “ A person should be rewarded on their merits and assisted in their needs. Race and indigeneity should be irrelevant to matters of public welfare and government assistance.”

Yet in 2023 in the lead-up to the Voice vote he has frequently insisted that indigeneity is the all-important issue.

He said in 2013 “ We need to move from a position of racial discrimination in law and public policy to one of individual equality before the law”.

The words spoken by Mr Pearson in 2013 have been repeated, almost word-for-word by advocates of the No case in 2023.

Here follows the excerpt:

The emphases are mine. I have viewed the video of the address on the website of the Institute and the transcript appears to be an accurate record of Mr Pearson’s words.

“For the most part, our Constitution is fine. It has set up the legal framework for a stable, prosperous democracy in Australia. It is – mostly – written in neutral democratic language. It contains no gender bias. It makes no mention of preferred sexuality. It contains no religious bias. It is primarily a fair and just document, and creates a fair and just democratic system. Except in two respects.

There are two problems in our Constitution. The first is the non-recognition of Indigenous peoples. The second is racial discrimination: our Constitution still contains provisions which allow governments to discriminate on the basis of race. Prior to the 1967 referendum, Indigenous peoples were explicitly excluded from the Constitution. Section 127 prevented Indigenous people from being counted in the Census. Indigenous people were also excluded from the scope of s 51(xxvi), the Race Power. The 1967 referendum reversed this exclusion by deleting s 127 and deleting the exclusion in s 51(xxvi).

Ironically, however, the Constitution now makes no mention of Indigenous peoples whatsoever. As a founding, historical document, our Constitution is inadequate. Mabo overturned the doctrine of terra nullius in Australian domestic law. But our Constitution fails to recognize that this land was not empty when the British arrived. There is no mention of the Indigenous contribution to Australia’s heritage and history.

The second problem is that the Constitution contains racially discriminatory provisions which enable governments to treat Australian citizens differently on the basis of race. Section 25 contemplates barring races from voting. S 51(xxvi) gives the Commonwealth the power to pass race-based laws – whether positive or adverse.

This allowance and promotion of racial discrimination is at odds with fundamental tenets of democracy: individual equality before the law, the rule of law (in that the same rules should apply to each individual regardless of colour or ethnicity), and the idea that each person’s vote should be equal. The racial discrimination in our Constitution is an undemocratic error. On the issue of race, our founding fathers erred.

Their error was based on outdated factual and moral beliefs, now known to be incorrect. Racial categorizations between human beings, we now know, have no scientific basis. Race should no longer, therefore, have any legal or policy application. We now understand that there is only one race: the human race. Most would now agree that treating citizens differently on the basis of race is unfair. This is why removal of racial discrimination from the Constitution has strong public support.

The race-based approach has also been unsuccessful in addressing the problems we face in Indigenous affairs. This practical failure has had its roots in the philosophical understandings that underpin the race-based approach. Race is a colonial concept. Inherent in the idea of race is the notion that some races are superior and some are inferior. The incorrect notion that Indigenous people belong to an inferior or incapable race has arguably had a poisonous effect on Indigenous policy, law and, consequently, Indigenous people.

While in the past there was much adverse discrimination against Indigenous people on the basis of race, now there is positive discrimination – well intentioned – but often with adverse results. Cape York Institute’s work in welfare reform has shown us this all too clearly. The race-based approach has perpetuated low expectations and undermined personal responsibility.

Consequently, as many Indigenous leaders have argued, the law and public policy often fails to hold Indigenous Australians to the same responsibilities and expectations as other Australians. This attitude does Indigenous people a great disservice.

We must unequivocally reject the idea that Indigenous people are innately or biologically disadvantaged. Indigenous people are not an inferior race. Yes, Indigenous people are for the most part socially and economically disadvantaged due to past discrimination, dispossession and other contemporary factors. And yes, we should do everything we can to assist disadvantaged people, black or white. But we should do so on the basis of individual need – not race. A person is not automatically disadvantaged just because he or she is Indigenous. A person should be rewarded on their merits, and assisted in their needs. Race, and Indigeneity, should be irrelevant to matters of public welfare and government assistance.

We need to move from Indigenous non-recognition to recognition. And we need to move from a position of racial discrimination in law and public policy, to one of individual equality before the law.”

 

I think that many Australians would agree with most of what Mr Pearson has to say here, especially about all of us being equal in law regardless of race or indigeneity.

The only matter on which I hold a contrary view is about constitutional recognition of any ethnic group. The Constitution does not mention any racial or ethnic or religious or any other particular group of people. In my view there is no good reason for it to do so.

I am well aware that many prominent Australians are saying in in 2023 that they would support the insertion into the Constitution of some form of words giving “recognition” to aborigines  (if anybody can figure out who is an aborigine)  or indigenous people (if anybody can define what indigenous means) or firstnationspeoples (if anybody knows what that means) but the old adage “be careful what you wish for” applies. At the very least our leaders should  subject this wobbly notion to a long term process of constitutional review before promising anything.

End

 

 

 

The 1967 referendum put the wrong question, with bad outcomes for some people 22 September 2023

 

The Australian Constitution was written in the last decade of the 19^th Century and  became the lawful basis of the newly formed Commonwealth of Australia in 1901.

One of the main tasks of the constitution was and still is, to specify the respective powers and responsibilities of the States and the Commonwealth.

Section 51 of the Constitution lists the legislative powers of the (Commonwealth) parliament.

As written in the original,  Section 51(26) gave the Commonwealth the power to make laws for the people of any race except aborigines. This is often referred to as the “race power”.  We must remember that in the 19^th Century it was believed that there were several different “races” of humans,  that some races were inferior and required special laws for their “protection”. From what, has not always been clear.

We now know that all humans are of the same “race” or species, to use a more biologically relevant word. Some minor biological variations between ethnic groups have been demonstrated, for instance with respect to external appearance and  glucose tolerance,  but in general all ethnic groups have equal potential for personal development given equal opportunity.

The first half of the 20^th Century saw a marked increase in aboriginal activism in Australia. Many individuals and groups lobbied strongly for better treatment of aborigines. Some sought equality, others wanted special provisions. All sought to change the Constitution in the belief that this would improve the lives of aborigines.

But what change should that be ?

I put the view that S51(26) is a dead letter and could reasonably have been understood as such in 1967.  Why ? because the notion that there are separate “races” of humans is false and was known to be false or at least unproven, in 1967. The “race power”  of S51(26) is meaningless because the notion of different “races” is without foundation in evidence.

In the event the notion of S51(26) as a dead letter did not enter public discourse in the period leading up to the referendum.  I guess that was not unexpected as the notion of “race” still had traction in the public arena even though there was no scientific basis for it.

Section 127 was repealed in 1967, as it should have been, but inexplicably Section 25 was left intact.

In the 1960’s aborigines seeking equality would likely have preferred to remove the race power altogether by repealing S51(26), S127 and S25.

But those seeking protection and special provisions for aborigines would have been better served by amending S51(26) to remove the exclusion of aborigines.

I do not know what discussions went on behind the scenes but the protection and special provisions advocates got their way. 

The 1967 referendum was conducted in what seems to me to have been a very strange fashion. There was no constitutional convention. There appears to have been no public debate about the respective merits of repeal vs amendment of S51(26).  Nobody advanced a No case as far as I can tell from the public record.

I have to admit feeling a bit paranoid about this. The case for repeal of S51(26) was actually very strong. It would have been the constitutional  reform most likely to advance the quest for equality.

In 1967 I was a resident medical officer at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney, working way too many hours a week and trying to organise marriage and career and life and all that, so I really had no head space for aboriginal matters. I can’t remember but I probably voted Yes because the No option was not supported.

But now I am retired and have time to think. And the more I think about it the more it appears the whole 1967 referendum process was rigged in the back rooms.

I think the course of history shows us well enough that when a big issue is decided in  back rooms the outcome is almost always less durable than when all the ramifications are openly debated in the public domain. That is the essence of the democratic system which as Winston Churchill said is the worst form of government except for all the others which have been tried.

Now in 2023, very few people who find themselves anywhere near a microphone or a camera dare to suggest that Australia might have made a big mistake in 1967.

But it really was a big mistake and I will try to explain what I mean.

The 1967 amendment to  S51(26) had two effects, legal and ideological.

The legal effects are easy enough to understand at least in their basic form although perhaps  not as to the long term ramifications.

In December 1976 the federal parliament passed the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. It was the first legislation in Australia that enabled aborigines to claim the right to legal title for land where traditional ownership could be proven.

It appears that this particular law would not have been contemplated without the provisions of the 1967 referendum as aborigines excluded from S51(26) in 1901 were deemed to be a “race”. 

However had S51(26) been repealed, presumably the  Commonwealth or States could pass laws granting legal title to the traditional occupants of defined parcels of land. I think this would be preferable as it goes to the relevant matter which is traditional occupancy and not the irrelevant issue which is the “race” or ethnic affiliation of the applicants.

The Commonwealth Native Title Act was passed in 1993.  

Native title is one of the most oddly named concepts in Australia’s history. It is actually a type of permissive land and water use legislation available to traditional occupants for specified purposes.

This legislation refers to aborigines but I can see no pressing need for it to have done so. The substantive matter is the claim by a group of people to traditional use of a parcel of land, land, not the “race” of the group.

I believe the ideological effects of the 1967 referendum have been far greater and   more pervasive, leading to long term damage to those it was supposed to help.

Think about this:   If as a nation we decide that some group of people require special provisions in the Constitution this clearly signals that we believe they have some kind of permanent disability or incapacity and that this disability will be transmitted to their children and grandchildren… regardless of  the effectiveness or otherwise of the special provisions.

The consequences of this ideological mind set have been disastrous for a significant minority of aborigines who have been unable to escape the debilitating effects of welfare dependency  and low expectation.

The 1967 referendum ensured perpetuation of the myth of aborigines as an inferior race. In the absence of actual evidence supporting the idea it required stewardship by an influence group. This was initially the white elites but in 1967 the baton of stewardship was transferred to the aboriginal elites.

We need to ask: how and why have aboriginal elites promoted the notion of aborigines as an inferior race?

As to the how, we understand that aboriginal elites are not going to come out and say openly that aborigines are an inferior race. They manage this problem by inventing notions which when used as a basis for aboriginal policy have the effect of treating aborigines as if they are inferior.

One of these notions is “cultural safety”. If we google “cultural safety” a range of definitions and explanations comes up. In practice it has meant that anytime a person identifying as aborigine claims to have been treated in a manner not to that person’s liking by a health, welfare or other  service, aboriginal elites demand and get funding for separate aboriginal-only services.

Another notion favoured by aboriginal elites is “intergenerational trauma”. They had to invent this to explain why the children and grandchildren of displaced and dispossessed aborigines need special provisions in perpetuity.

We know from long term sociological studies that dysfunctional parents regardless of ethnicity neglect and mistreat their children who when they become adults are more likely than usual to neglect and mistreat their children…and so on. This is a real type of intergenerational trauma which is transmitted by adverse experiences.  As the generations advance, the tendency is towards reversion to the population average.

However proponents of the notion of intergenerational trauma as it applies to aborigines have advanced theories of  genetic or epigenetic biological transmission of enfeeblement affecting successive generations following the original trauma. This is controversial to put it mildly.

What about the millions of people who migrated to Australia after suffering from war, torture, displacement and dispossession in their country of origin ?    These people do not seem inclined to claim special provisions in perpetuity due to a hypothesised biological disability caused by intergenerational trauma.

What about the why ?

I think this is now very clear for all to see. In a word, it’s about power.

 Aboriginal elites have played on the good nature of ordinary Australians to advance the notion that aborigines need special laws, special health services, special welfare services, preferential  access to training courses, special justice systems……..and on and on it goes without end.

All these services must be administered by aborigines, operated by aborigines, for aborigines using taxpayers money mainly from not-aborigines.

Aboriginal elites seek to justify this administrative structure with the concept of  “self determination”. What this actually means seems to depend on what the activist of the day wants it to mean, rather like another favourite of aboriginal activists, “rightful place”.

Nobody has ever shown that aborigines actually need such exclusive services or that the care they receive is any better than they could get at a generic service down the road. Actually all the evidence such as it exists is to the contrary.

As aboriginal activists repeat over and over,  “the gap” is not closing. This suggests rather strongly that the sum total of all the special services for aborigines has affected them adversely not beneficially.

Now they want a special Voice enshrined in the Constitution, setting up yet another aboriginal bureaucracy and power structure.

And so the wheel turns full circle.

In the 19^th Century, white colonial elites regarded aborigines as an inferior “race” requiring “protection”.

Now we see that aboriginal elites have taken over the task of treating aborigines as if they were feeble and in need of the giant protection racket which the aboriginal welfare industry has become.

This has been a disaster for the minority of aborigines (about 20% of them) who live in remote settlements and some outback towns. These people suffer from a very poor quality of life. Their poverty has actually been entrenched and maintained by the very policies and practices which were supposed to benefit aborigines but have in fact promoted welfare dependency and loss of personal initiative.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and littered with bad policies.

It will take an almighty national effort by all Australians to unravel the dysfunctional shambles into which aboriginal policy has fallen.

An integral part of that process will be repeal of Section 51(26) of the constitution or at least acknowledgement that it is a dead letter.

Andrew Smallman Mona Vale September 2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How to lose friends and influence people. It's easy: Insult and denigrate them 18 September 2023

 

Australians will vote on a referendum question about the creation of an indigenous Voice to parliament and the executive on October 14,  2023.

One very notable feature of “debate” about the Voice proposal is the propensity of Voice advocates to respond to questions about the Voice or disagreement with the proposal by hurling personal abuse at questioners or unbelievers.  Our experience teaches us  that when proponents of an idea behave this way they have no valid case. If they had a valid case they would patiently repeat it, in detail, as often as required to get their message across.

Prof. Megan Davis said that questioners are illiterate because they were in her opinion  incapable of reading the Langton/Calma document which would supposedly answer all their questions. In fact that document, which I have read,  raises many more questions than it answers.    

When the Nationals declared their opposition to the Voice, Noel Pearson referred to the Nationals Party as “a squalid little party” and its  leader David Littleproud as “a kindergarten kid”.

He castigated Senator Jacinta Price as “punching down on blackfellas” having been “drawn into a tragic redneck celebrity vortex” orchestrated by the Institute for Public Affairs and the Centre for Independent Studies.  

When former Prime Minister John Howard expressed a negative appraisal of the Voice,  Noel Pearson responded with …”but who can arrogate to themselves that kind of presumption that their own views should be the view that prevails ?”   Mr Pearson appeared to be unaware that he was doing exactly that which he claimed Mr Howard was doing. 

Actually  Mr Howard was simply expressing his considered response to the Voice proposal but  Mr Pearson’s reaction shows just how intolerant are Voice proponents to any form of negative feedback and how they refuse to engage in reasonable debate or discussion about any of the issues.

When The Nationals took a stand against the Voice Prof Marcia Langton said in response       

 “We have to take these matters seriously. This is too important to play nasty electoral politics about … it would be terribly unfortunate for all Australians if the debate sinks into a nasty, eugenicist, 19th century-style of debate about the superior race versus the inferior race.”

I do not pretend to know what Prof Langton thought she meant by this strange outburst but it is clear she was attacking the messenger, not addressing the message.

Recently Prof Langton said that the No campaign is based on “…base racism…or sheer stupidity”

Leader of the federal opposition Peter Dutton asked the Government to answer 15 questions about the Voice proposal. The questions were not answered and the PM’s response was to accuse Mr Dutton of “trying to confuse the issue” and of engaging in ”cheap culture war stunts”.

The latest and perhaps most egregious contribution to the litany of insults comes from Geoffrey Robertson, an Australian lawyer resident in England,  who authored an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 16 September 2023.

The headline of the piece reads “ If the No wins, the world will think we’re racist anyway”.   

This suggests an extraordinary level of grandiosity from Mr Robertson who appears to believe that he possesses some mysterious superpower which gives him the ability to know what “the world” thinks.

He said “However much we may enjoy the spotlight on the world stage, the danger is that on October 15 and afterward, it will be interpreted by outsiders, whether we like it or not, as the vote of an ignorant and racist populace.”

My comment on this:

First, I think it highly unlikely that those of us who support the No vote have any interest in the world stage with or without a spotlight. That is more likely to be Mr Robertson’s preferred performance arena.

Second, Mr Robertson is telling Australians who vote No that they are “an ignorant and racist populace” but is doing so in a manner which is sneaky and disingenuous by pretending that this adverse assessment is coming from nameless  “outsiders” whoever that might be.

At least Prof Langton and Noel Pearson speak their insults directly and take responsibility for them.  

Mr Pearson has even acknowleged that some of his outbursts might  have damaged the referendum Yes case.  Indeed they have.

 Update 6 October 2023:  At a Yes rally attended by the prime minister yesterday, veteran broadcaster Ray Martin accused  people who don't know (how the Voice will actually work)  and vote No of being dinosaurs or dickheads too lazy to do a google search. 

 

 

A 364 million dollar committee ? Yes folks, that's the proposal. 25 August 2023

 

The official referendum booklet arrived in the mailbox today. Fascinating stuff.

The Yes case states that “The voice will be a committee of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who will give advice to the Parliament and Government on issues that affect their community”

And there you have it.

The Voice will be a committee.

Voice proponents are telling us that we need a referendum to set up a committee.

We already have thousands of committees claiming to be working hard to reverse aboriginal disadvantage but failing in this endeavour.

Nobody knows how many people will be on this committee or how they will be appointed or what they hope to achieve when they sit in the committee room.

At the top of the Yes case we are urged to vote Yes for “unity, hope and to make a positive difference”.  So when the 20 or 24 people get together what will they do ? Hold hands and hope ?

When did “hope”  become a strategy for anything ?

One thing we do know is that this is going to be one spectacularly expensive committee. The 2023 budget papers show that 364 Million dollars has been allocated to the Voice, in effect, to the committee.

A 364 million dollar committee with no clear constitution or function (somebody will somehow figure out those troublesome details sometime after the vote) is being presented to the Australian electorate as a “generous offer”.  

An offer of what ?? 

I reckon for that much money we could set up phase one of a co-ordinated national remote areas land management programme which could train and employ lots of aboriginal people in land management practices to deal with feral animals and plants, loss of native species, fire and land degradation. Much of the adversely affected land is owned by aboriginal corporations.

Maybe committee members could lend a hand in support of the National Feral Camel Action Plan which has been established to deal with the one million feral camels roaming around central Australia, causing severe environmental impacts.

The Yes case presents 8 numbered reasons for voting Yes.

Number 5  is “Save money”.    I have to ask, How will spending 364 million dollars on a committee save money ?  

I suppose we have to consult the hope secretariat  for that.  And I guess they will refer it to the budget liaison subcommittee for consideration.  And they will declare their deliberations commercial in confidence and outsource an audit to PWC.

Does the reader feel that I have strayed into mockery of the Voice proposal ?

If so, I guess I have to confess myself guilty as charged. But how else are we to respond to the inane nonsense which they are promulgating with the assurance that a Yes vote is “just good manners”.

The whole thing reminds me of a Monty Python script, or what might have been but regrettably will not be a Clarke and Dawe skit. I wonder if writers on the ABC TV series “Utopia” will dare to have a go at the Voice campaign, or if the ABC will let them ?

In 1958 Cyril Northcote Parkinson published his book “Parkinson’s law, the pursuit of progress”. I recommend this book some version of which is still in print to anybody interested in the fascinating study of public administration and the operation of bureaucracies.   Parkinson would have had a field day with aboriginal bureaucracies which have been proliferating in recent years and will expand even further if we are silly enough to vote Yes to the Voice proposal.

 

 

 

 

 

The indigenous Voice to parliament and the executive is a really bad idea. Here is a better way forward based on equality 20 August 2023

 

Arguments for and against the Voice

The proposed indigenous voice to Parliament and the Executive rests on two main propositions, one false, the other unsupported by any form of evidence.

1. Aborigines have no say in matters affecting them. This is manifestly false. Aborigines have the same voting rights and the same access to representatives at Local, State, Territory and Federal level as anybody else. They can and do form lobby groups which have been very successful in gaining land rights and native title. They have persuaded governments that aborigines are in some never identified way special and different from all other Australians and therefore need  special services for health, housing, education, welfare and much more. This aboriginal welfare industry has grown to massive proportions, consuming about $30Billion yearly.  Input into the disbursement of so much money gives aboriginal groups a very big “say” and great power over the use of taxpayers money.

2. Proponents of the Voice say it will be of great benefit to aborigines but have not attempted to put forward any argument, case, rationale, demonstration project or plausible narrative to explain how the Voice might improve the health, welfare or quality of life of any aboriginal or any other person anywhere.

Note that it is the proponents themselves who make no attempt to present a case in support of their assertion.

These two failures by Voice proponents should in a rational world have stopped the idea in its tracks. But at least with respect to arguments about the Voice we are not in a rational world.

We have a proposal for a change to the constitution to enshrine forever a multi tier bureaucracy appointed by unknown processes within an ethnic group presented as “recognition” thereby making a mockery of any recognised meaning of the word.

We have a power grab by unelected ethno-political elites seeking to expand their fiefdoms being represented as a “generous offer” when it is neither generous nor an offer.

Words have become devices not to convey meaning but to obfuscate meaning.

So we must examine a few more of the egregious problems inherent in the Voice idea.

3. Having no actual rationale to present in support of the voice, proponents resort to emotional blackmail tactics to encourage ordinary Australians to feel guilty should they dare think of voting against the idea. They are accused of being “racists” or “bedwetters”, “bashing down on aborigines”. They are advised that a Yes vote will relieve them of the burden of guilt and shame which they should be feeling about the ill treatment of aborigines in a past era.

4. The Voice is a Trojan Horse for demands by aborigines for Makarrata, treaty, and aboriginal sovereignty. This is not some conspiracy theory of mine, just read the Uluru statement from the heart. Even the one page version mentions the word sovereign once and sovereignty four times and makes it very clear that Voice proponents regard sovereignty as having never been ceded. The 20 page version of the Uluru statement expands on this to include reparations, a special tax for aborigines as a percentage of GDP, self determination (whatever that means) and self government. The prime minister has been attempting to distance himself from this recently (August 2023) but having loudly and frequently promised to implement the Uluru statement in full he is stuck with the whole package by his own initiative.

5. The idea that aborigines need a separate, special representative hierarchy with attendant bureaucracy to express their views is an insult from aboriginal elites to the great majority of aborigines who have shown themselves perfectly capable of using existing organs of representative democracy to advance their various causes. The reality is that aboriginal elites are just seeking to expand the reach and power of their fiefdoms.

6. The voice as proposed is yet another attempt to promote a type of initiative which has repeatedly failed in the past and is failing now. The idea that closing the gap will be achieved by adding more voices to the chorus of them already calling loudly and often is not supported by any kind of evidence. In fact the oft mentioned failure to close the gap is evidence that all policies and initiatives to date have failed.

Existing aboriginal policies essentially constitute a separationist, protectionist regime in which aborigines are encouraged to become dependent on welfare and  enfeebled by entitlement.  The measures which are supposed to help aborigines actually harm them.

7. The idea of a separate representative bureaucracy for a group of people based on their identification as being of any particular ethnic, ethno-political or ethno-religious group is contrary to basic principles of representative democracy.

Australia began as a number of separate penal settlements. A far flung place to which Britain consigned its undesirables. These came together as a Commonwealth in 1901. For many years there was a white Australia policy.  Since this was abandoned by the Whitlam government in 1973  we have seen our country flourish as one of the leading examples of a successful multicultural society on earth. The Voice proposal if approved would see Australia return to the bad old days of sectarian division to the detriment of all.

8. The Voice idea as proposed consists of a legally and constitutionally  sanctioned multi level representative structure by aborigines, of aborigines, for aborigines, all of whom are Australian citizens. It is therefore essential that an independent  authority such as the Australian Electoral Commission be able to determine who is and who is not an aborigine. But this has become impossible. Voice advocates say they will use the three part test (heritage, affirmation, acceptance). But this just kicks the can down the road. Nobody has yet managed to define what the terms “aboriginal heritage” or “aboriginal ancestry” mean and with the level of miscegenation which prevails, they never will. Anybody can claim to be an aborigine. Nobody has yet defined what “acceptance” means or what constitutes an “aboriginal community” or by whom or how such acceptance might be effected in such a way as to satisfy an independent authority as to fairness.

When Bruce Pascoe announced himself to be an aborigine he was accepted as such without question by the then Minister for Aboriginal Australians, Mr Ken Wyatt without reference to the three part test or any other form of test as to Mr Pascoe’s claim to be an aborigine.

Dr Gordon Reid was elected to the House of Representatives for the seat of Robertson on the NSW Central Coast at the 2022 federal election. His claim to be an aborigine has been disputed by several commentators on the basis of an apparent absence of aborigines in his family tree.

Prominent Voice advocates have refused to engage in debate about the legitimacy of Pascoe and Reid’s claims to aboriginality.

It is not my aim to enter this debate at all. Rather to put the view that the question and any possible answer have become irrelevant to the Australian polity. We will do  Australians a service by acknowledging that we all have equal rights and responsibilities and that seeking to create legal divisions between us on the basis of claimed ethnic affiliation is an enterprise which will drive us apart, not bring us together. This is already happening (August 2023) as vexatious argument about the Voice gains momentum in the public domain.

Neither do I regard the question of indigeneity as being able to assist anybody in their efforts to define any ethnic group. Nobody has ever offered a legally sound definition of indigeneity. I am 80 years old. I was born in Australia. My parents, grandparents and great grandparents were  born in Australia. If I am not indigenous to Australia, what am I, a tourist ??

9. Clueless or devious ?  Australians are being asked to approve a major change to our Constitution with a promise that somebody, somehow,  will figure out the details later, after  the vote. We are over six years on from the 2017 Uluru statement and still the Voice architects are unable or unwilling to present a clear explanation as to what the Voice is supposed to achieve and how it is supposed to get there. It seems to me that we might reasonably conclude that either:

Voice proponents are clueless,  finding themselves unable to clarify their purpose and direction after six years or

They are devious, knowing their full intentions but keeping these from the voting public.

10. There is a fundamental flaw in the logic of the Voice proposal.

As presented it has many of the characteristics of an affirmative action programme. That is an intervention of some kind designed to lift up a specific group of disadvantaged people to the level of the mainstream. At this point the programme can be scaled back then withdrawn, having achieved its purpose. Sickness benefit programmes are an example. When we are unwell we qualify for the benefit but when we are well enough to return to work the benefit ceases.

Let us suppose that at some future time the worst problems of the most disadvantaged aborigines have been overcome. The “gap” is closed or almost so. The majority of aborigines have become part of the socio-economic mainframe.

I suspect this will happen anyway  regardless of  government policies as more and more people who identify as aborigines figure out for themselves  that welfare dependency is not the way to personal fulfilment. However it comes about and regardless of whether we think that the improved condition of aborigines has been brought about by the cumulative effect of individual initiatives (most likely) or as a beneficial outcome of official policies and programmes, we reach a point at which the objective has been reached and the policies and programmes are no longer required.

The only kind of programme which requires ongoing input is one like the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and even that can be wound back for many recipients if their disability is partly or fully overcome. This can often happen with the less severe cases of ADHD for instance.

The only rationale for ongoing intervention for a group of people is if they have a continuing disability which significantly impairs their capacity for self care. The fact of identifying as an aborigine is not a disability. Some aborigines may have a condition causing disability, for instance foetal alcohol syndrome, but any requirement which they may have for some kind of ongoing programme is because of the FASD which can happen to anybody if their mother drinks alcohol to excess while pregnant.

There is no rationale whatsoever for any kind of permanent programme of any description for any group of people simply because of their stated ethnic affiliation.

The proposal that any ethnic programme no matter what the particulars, be included as a separate chapter in the Constitution is so extreme that it only reinforces my view that the entire Voice project is at heart a power grab by indigenous elites which should be firmly denied by thinking Australians.

Politics

Labor is for the Voice and also for, or maybe against treaty,  depending on who is speaking and who asked what question in parliament last week.  the Greens are for the Voice, the teal independents seem to be for it and the Nationals are unambiguously against it.

I cannot understand the current position of the Liberal Party. The leader of the parliamentary Liberals has said he is against a national Voice enshrined in the Constitution but in favour of legislating for some unknown number of local and regional Voices.  This just looks like indecisive dithering and attempted appeasement to me. It cannot find favour with Voice supporters because it is not the full package and cannot appeal to No voters because it proposes  a half-baked version of a bad policy. If I were in any way involved with liberal party policy making which I am not I would be advocating that the party step away from this and make sure it is not a millstone around their collective necks at the next election.

My suggested alternative way forward.

If we can unclutter our thoughts from the argy-bargy and the insults which appear to have supplanted proper debate about the Voice proposal I think we can see that the issues are actually clear enough and reasonably straightforward.

Issue 1.    Do we want to live in a society riven by legalised sectarian division or one based on the principle that all people are equal in law, rights and responsibilities ?

Issue 2.    Does anybody think that aboriginal policies over the last 200 years have been successful ? I have never seen or heard of anybody making such a claim. In fact the main complaint of pro and anti Voice campaigners alike is that that the sum total of all policy and programme endeavours to date has been a failure to “close the gap”,  in other words these policies have left a substantial minority  of aborigines living in very poor conditions in outback towns and remote outstations with very high rates of violence, alcoholism and incarceration, poor education, poor health and  greatly reduced life expectancy.

Nobody thinks this is good enough.

My proposed better way forward

1. I put the view that the fundamental problem with aboriginal policy is that it exists in any form whatsoever.  I refer to permanent, fixed policies. There is definitely a place for needs based, results monitored and time limited affirmative action programmes for particular groups of people some of whom could be aborigines, to help them make a transition from a bad place in life to a better place.

So, my first proposal is that State, Territory and Federal governments gradually wind back all policies, programmes and initiatives directed at anybody on the basis of their claimed ethnic affiliation and approve only initiatives based on proven need and subject to independent evaluation as to effectiveness and terminated when no longer required.  Ensure that all support services are based on need not ethnicity and that recipients have access to the best available depth and breadth of support available.   

Merge existing aborigine-only services with mainstream services over a period of 15 years.

2. Clear the public domain of magical thinking, vote NO to the Voice proposal  and make way for a more reasoned debate based on evidence.

3. Establish a Land Rights and Native Title Commission with a tenure of 50 years to help resolve the many problems embedded in  current arrangements. In particular the problem that title to land acquired under land rights legislation is held by a corporation and provides individuals and families with no negotiable stake in the enterprise.

Post a date ten years hence, after which no new land rights or native title claims will be received.

4. Establish a transitional voluntary affirmative action programme to enable people currently existing in the purgatory of native outstations to move to locations where they can find a better quality of life.

5. Repeal part 26 of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution which enables the Australian Parliament to  …. “make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to….the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws…”

This was written at the end of the 19^th Century when it was thought there were different “races” of humans. We now know there is only one species of humans.

6. Remove from the national census the question asking people if they identify as Aborigine or Torres Strait Islander. It is no longer usefully possible to determine who is and who is not an aborigine and the question only feeds sectarian division in Australian society.

Comment

Some people might say my proposals are “radical”.   Actually they are very much mainstream liberal democratic in nature and entirely conservative.  I would hate to find myself living in a society which thinks that regarding all individuals as having equal rights and responsibilities is some kind of radical idea.

Even strident Voice advocates agree with me, at least in part. Noel Pearson, recalling advice from his mentor Yunupingu has offered the view that aborigines need to “become part of the mainframe of society”. He has also repeatedly decried the debilitating effect of welfare dependency in aboriginal communities.

Professor Megan Davis has stated on the public record that “the majority of the money (for aboriginal programmes) isn’t hitting the ground”. Unless a lot of people are putting the money in their pockets it is presumably feeding the vast bureaucracies which are supposed to administer the funds. One of these is the NIAA which is said to have 1000 staff and a budget of $4Billion annually with little to show for it in terms of outcomes.  Prof Davis makes no attempt to explain how she thinks the addition of yet another bureaucracy will fix this problem.

Summary

The current state of argument about the Voice proposal is entirely unproductive. In the absence of any plausible rationale for the Voice, proponents have resorted to vilifying opponents and trying to make ordinary Australians feel guilty should they think of voting No.  The Prime Minister has stated that voting Yes is “just good manners” which I suspect will go down in history as the silliest reason for major constitutional change that has ever been offered.

I put the view that further argument about the Voice will not advance the Australian polity in any constructive fashion.

Most people on both sides of the argument want to see a substantial change in aboriginal policy. The Voice proposal is not that change. Proponents have presented no case that the Voice might benefit anybody in any way.

I present the view that the real substantial change which we need to make is to renounce any policy directed at any person or group on the basis of their ethnic identification.

I recommend the six point proposal above as the framework to guide a better way forward for all Australians. The philosophical basis of this framework is equality.

About the author, Andrew Smallman

I am 80 years old, a retired psychiatrist. For many years I was Director of Sydney’s Northern Beaches Mental Health Service. I have no political affiliation of any kind. In retirement I have time to think about issues and to research them. The views which I put forward are mine alone.

More of my thoughts and comments about matters affecting Australians can be found on my Thinking Australia blog at   thinkingaboutaustralia.blogspot.com

 

 

If we say NO to the Voice What is the Better Way ?

 

In this post I submit that the time has come to move debate about the Voice on to the next level. That is setting out basic elements of the  “better way”.

It is not enough for NO campaigners to point out the multitude of glaring deficiencies in the YES case. We must present a viable alternative in the best long term interests of all Australians.

In recent speeches the Prime Minister Mt Albanese has criticised the Liberal/National coalition’s opposition to the Voice proposal saying…” You cannot say it will change the entire system of government and then say you will legislate the Voice. Because that is what they are saying. You cannot say it will promote racial division and then say you will legislate for the Voice. Cannot say it will not make a positive difference but then say you will legislate for the Voice…”

He does have a point which aims at a weakness in the position currently being adopted by the Lib/Nat coalition.

This is ambivalence leading to lack of clear statement defining a better way.

Australians hate politicians who dither and prevaricate and say one thing today and another thing the next day. They respect leaders who are prepared to walk the hard road to champion policies which are initially unpopular with some sections of the community but are best for the nation in the long term.

When I boil down the Voice debate to the bare essentials and cut through the argy-bargy of the day-to-day cut and thrust of performative politics It seems to me the issue at the heart of it all is really quite simple.

Here it is:

Do we want Australian society to be defined by sectarian division or equality ?

If we had a national plebiscite tomorrow how many Australians would say they are in favour of sectarian division as the basic organising principle of our society ?

A few, maybe. Some neo-nazis or other fringe group members. But I think the great majority would be very clear they want equality for all regardless of ethnic affiliation, age, sex, religion, skin colour or wealth.  That is the central principle of a democratic society. One person, one vote.

Since the 1967 referendum sectarian division has been the principle guiding aboriginal policy. This approach has failed. “The gap” has not closed.

The Voice is the next phase of sectarian division, leading to aboriginal sovereignty as mentioned five times in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

If equality  is our guiding principle and I contend that it must be, then our national approach to policy for aborigines or those claiming to be aborigines or people of any other ethnic or religious or any other identifiable group will be entirely and unambiguously different. It will not involve a special Voice and will not involve “recognition” of any group by ethnic, ethno-political, religious or any other affiliation.

History books can tell the stories of the many people who make up our multicultural society. The Constitution does not “recognise” any particular group and no argument has been made by anyone as to why it should.

Here is my proposal:

The problem with aboriginal policy is that it exists in any form whatsoever.

The specific policies which I propose are

1. First we clear the public domain of magical thinking, vote NO to the Voice proposal  and make way for a more reasoned debate based on evidence.

2. Ensure that all support services are based on need and that recipients have access to the best available depth and breadth of support available.   Progressively defund benefits and programmes for people whose only claim is that  they are or claim to be aborigines but otherwise present no demonstrated need for special benefit. Merge existing aborigine-only services with mainstream services over a period of 15 years.

3. Establish a Land Rights and Native Title Commission with a tenure of 50 years to help resolve the many problems embedded in  current arrangements. In particular the problem that title to land acquired under land rights legislation is held by a corporation and provides individuals and families with no negotiable stake in the enterprise.

4. Establish a transitional voluntary affirmative action programme to enable people currently existing in the purgatory of native outstations to move to locations where they can find a better quality of life.

5. Repeal part 26 of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution which enables the Australian Parliament to  …. “make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to….the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws…”

This was written at the end of the 19^th Century when it was thought there were different “races” of humans. We now know there is only one species of humans.

6. Remove from the national census the question asking people if they identify as Aborigine or Torres Strait Islander. It is no longer usefully possible to determine who is and who is not an aborigine and the question only feeds sectarian division in Australian society.

Andrew Smallman

August 2023