The indigenous voice to parliament Arguments for and against 31 March 2023

 

Author Andrew Smallman

Preamble:  I am the sole author of this attempt to summarise and discuss  the pros and cons of the debate.  I have listened to and read arguments from both sides over a five year period and in the process reviewed hundreds of statements for and against the proposal.  My conclusion is that THE VOICE idea has no demonstrated merit. If voted into the Constitution it would cause immense damage to democratic government in Australia.

SHORT FORM SUMMARY

Arguments for THE VOICE

1. Aborigines currently have no say in laws, policies and other matters which affect them. THE VOICE will give them that say.

2. Aborigines must be recognised in the Constitution. THE VOICE is the means chosen by aboriginal advocates to achieve that recognition.

3. THE VOICE will foster reconciliation between aborigines and not-aborigines.

4. THE VOICE will deliver justice for aborigines.

5. Support for THE VOICE is just good manners.

6. Saying yes to THE VOICE will give you a clean heart, clean spirit and potentially clean hands.

7. Say yes to the VOICE and you will be liberated from guilt, shame and embarrassment.

8. Including THE VOICE in the Constitution will impress other countries.

9. THE VOICE will fix a history of aboriginal exclusion.

10. THE VOICE comes as part of a package of initiatives outlined in the ULURU Statement from the Heart which the Albanese government has committed to implement. These are Voice, Treaty, Truth, Rightful Place and Aboriginal Sovereignty which has never been ceded and co-exists with sovereignty of the Crown.

Arguments against THE VOICE

Rebuttal of arguments for THE VOICE:

1. The claim that aborigines have no say in matters which affect them is a great big bare-faced lie. Aborigines have more say in laws and other matters affecting them than any other ethno-cultural group in Australia. Aborigines have the vote in State, Territory and Commonwealth Parliaments. They have a dedicated Minister in each State and the Commonwealth. They can and do form lobby groups to press for anything they wish. They have enormous influence in decisions of State and Commonwealth Governments through aboriginal organisations which deliver aboriginal welfare programmes with multi-billion dollar budgets of taxpayers money.

2. a. The Constitution has never “recognised” any particular group of people. No case has been made to explain why the Constitution should start “recognising” any ethnic group in 2023. Aboriginal activists complain that aborigines are not mentioned in the Constitution. Neither is any other ethnic group.

2.b. The notion that THE VOICE constitutes some kind of recognition is to grossly distort any reasonable notion of the  meaning of recognition.

3. Reconciliation is not some grand national project. It is the sum total of all the everyday interactions between individuals and families of all the ethnic groups which make up multicultural Australia. THE VOICE is part of an ongoing separationist agenda which can only make reconciliation more difficult than it would otherwise be.

4. Aborigines feel distressed about past mistreatment, displacement and dispossession of their forbears. It is understandable that they seek some kind of justice for this. But it is not possible to implement our usual notions of justice when neither the perpetrators nor their victims are available. We cannot impose responsibility for past misdeeds on the descendants of the perpetrators even if we could identify who these might be. This is frustrating but the best we can do is make sure we do not repeat past mistakes. We function best as a nation when we work together to make Australia a place which welcomes and supports all people of all ethnic groups.

5. The prime Minister’s assertion that support for THE VOICE is just good manners might go down in history as the silliest reason for changing the Constitution that has ever been proposed.  It is really quite alarming that the Prime Minister should offer such a flippant contribution to the very serious matters under consideration.

6. This is senator Patrick Dodson’s contribution. The notion that we are unclean until we wash away our sins by saying yes to THE VOICE is astoundingly arrogant and disrespectful to those Australians who are not in favour of THE VOICE proposal.

7. This one is also from Senator Dodson. He wants Australians to believe that they will suffer from guilt, shame and embarrassment if they do not say yes to THE VOICE. This is an expression of the notion of original sin which permeates aboriginal activist sentiment. In effect all not-aborigines are deemed to be born in sin until they repent by undertaking whatever penance is required of them. This position has no justification in ethics or jurisprudence. It is manipulative and mischievous.

8. Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has put the view that other nations will think badly of us if we fail to say yes to THE VOICE.  This is yet another attempt to make unbelievers feel guilty if they say no. THE VOICE proposal is an entirely domestic matter.  It has nothing to do with Australia’s strategic or trading relationship with other countries.

9. The notion that THE VOICE can “fix” historical exclusion and disadvantage is fanciful. History is done. We can’t “fix” it. We can regret harms done and bad policies implemented. We can work together to find a better way forward which gives all Australians an opportunity to gain a good education, find paid work and stable housing.

10. If we say yes to THE VOICE we say yes to the whole package. The Uluru statement specifically states that aboriginal sovereignty is not ceded but exists alongside sovereignty of the Crown. This is the real agenda of THE VOICE campaign. Aboriginal activists want to establish either co-governance as some kind of fourth arm of government (in addition to legislature, administration and judiciary) or a separate aboriginal nation or nations. This is not a secret agenda. It is right there in the Uluru statement. Do most Australians or even most aborigines want this ?

Further arguments against:

11. VOICE proponents have not put forward any argument, case study, discussion or plausible narrative to show that THE VOICE could improve the health, welfare or quality of life of any aboriginal person anywhere.

12. VOICE proponents have not put forward any means by which the Australian Electoral Commission could independently confirm whether any person is or is not an aborigine.

13. VOICE proponents have not made any attempt to explain why people who identify as aborigines are thought to require a specially dedicated multi-tier bureaucracy to represent them when no other person of any other ethnic group requires such a thing.

14. Some VOICE proponents insist that the interaction between THE VOICE and the government of the day will not be justiciable and that the form of words to be written into the Constitution will prevent references to the High Court. This is wishful thinking just like the entire VOICE project is wishful thinking.  Other VOICE proponents such as Professor Marcia Langton have stated on the public record that they expect and welcome references to the High Court.   They cannot have it both ways.

 

LONG FORM DISCUSSION

Humans are essentially emotional creatures.  When we become aware of a problem our initial reaction is usually emotional. For instance we become  distressed when people are injured or killed in motor vehicle accidents. We feel strongly that somebody should do something about these terrible traumas. At some point we realise that emotional feelings  will not reduce the road toll. We realise that we must harness our capacity for reason in the service of finding a solution to the problem. We fund research institutes to study traffic management, road design, vehicle design, seat belts, air bags and much more. We apply the results of empirical research to public policy.  As a result we are able to implement policies which we know to be effective.

Emotion provides the impetus to action.  Reason delivers actions which have been shown by research to be effective.

A working flow diagram for effective policy development goes like this:

Problem flagged > Emotional response > Analysis of issue > Strategy developed > Field testing > Feedback > Policy revised  >  Implementation phase > Further feedback > Consolidation phase.

Unfortunately, humans often ignore due process.  We devise a policy based entirely on our emotional response to a perceived problem then devote all our intellectual capacity to defending the position we have taken.  We get snarky and abusive towards unbelievers who question our wisdom.

The case for THE VOICE   is driven by emotions. With reference to the flow diagram above we have

Problem flagged > Emotional response > > > > Policy announced and locked-in by insertion into the Constitution so it cannot be revised.  Due process of policy development has been totally ignored.

When a VOICE advocate is hoping for our support they often begin their presentation with an account of their own family history. For instance Professor Megan Davis, a prominent VOICE proponent writes in The Australian Newspaper on 25 March 2023. She begins by describing events which affected her carpet snake people west of the Bunya mountains. She describes how  remnants of the Wakka-Wakka tribe were rounded up and dumped on a reserve on the banks of Barambah creek, then …..forced onto an aboriginal settlement ostensibly for their care and protection.

This is just one of many accounts of displacement and dispossession suffered by aborigine people over a period of many years.   I think most people will  feel an  emotional response to these accounts.

A positive emotional response is sympathy.   Negative emotional responses are vicarious guilt and shame.

I describe the negative emotions as vicarious because the great majority of Australians alive today have never knowingly harmed an aborigine person.  So the only way they can be persuaded to feel guilt or shame is on behalf of some unknown forebear who might have perpetrated harm to aborigine people.   VOICE proponents insist that there must be vicarious atonement for this vicarious guilt.   They insist that the only way to achieve this is to support THE VOICE proposal.

They tell us that THE VOICE will achieve recognition, reconciliation, justice, rightful place, closing the gap, self determination, a  good look for the neighbours and empowerment.

No attempt is ever made to explain what all these words mean or how THE VOICE is supposed to achieve them.

Senator Patrick Dodson tells us that if we support THE VOICE  we will acquire a clean heart, clean spirit and potentially clean hands. He tells us that if we support THE VOICE it will be one of the most liberating things. It will free everyone from guilt, shame and embarrassment. Presumably this includes those of us who are so deluded as to our true feelings that we are unaware of any experience of guilt, shame or embarrassment about aborigine people. The notion that the sins of the fathers should be passed in perpetuity to their descendants has no standing whatsoever in ethics or jurisprudence. It is mischievous and malicious.

At this point we need to stop and have a think.

The case for compulsory seat belt wearing is firmly grounded in empirical research providing a very clear policy based on facts.

The case for THE VOICE rests entirely on emotions.

There is no argument, case study, reasoning or plausible narrative that THE VOICE will or might achieve anything useful at all. Problem analysis, strategy development, field testing, evaluation and feedback are all missing.

All we have is vehement assertions by advocates that THE VOICE will fix whatever problem appears to affect aborigines.

For instance Shireen Morris (The Conversation 14 March 2023) wants us to believe THE VOICE can “fix” a history of exclusion. She ignores the obvious fact that we cannot “fix” history. History is done. We cannot un-do it. All we can do and are doing is ensure that we do not repeat past mistakes.

The big lie

The other assertion made over and over and over and over……….by VOICE proponents is that aborigines do not have a “say” in matters affecting them.

My comment:  I hope that in the course of debate about THE VOICE this bare-faced lie will be outed as such. In fact people who identify as aborigines have many more avenues by which they can have a say than any other group in Australia.  Aborigines have the vote, they have a dedicated Minister in each State and Commonwealth Parliament. They can make submissions individually or in groups to their parliamentary representatives. There is a huge and very influential aboriginal welfare industry which gives aborigine representatives access to a range of members of parliament, ministers, department heads and representatives. Aborigines can exert considerable influence over mining, industrial and tourism industries. There are about 30 land councils, 70 large aboriginal organisations including the National Indigenous Australians Agency and about 2700 aboriginal corporations.

Together these organisations represent a very influential constituency in the corridors of State and Federal power.

The irony of this is that a succession of aborigine advocates repeatedly mis-use their well publicised voice to claim they don’t have a voice.

The real truth is that we already know what will enhance the  health, welfare and quality of life of any humans of any ethnicity anywhere. The needs of aborigines are no different from those of anybody else. The main requirements are good education, regular paid employment and stable housing.

More layers of un-elected bureaucrats claiming to represent the interests of aborigines is not what they need, now or ever.

The guilt trip

If you fail to do the right thing and support THE VOICE you are a racist, punching down on black-fellas and abandoning aborigines. You should be ashamed of yourself. The strategy here is to hurl vindictive personal insults at anybody who fails to support THE VOICE or even dares to ask reasonable questions about it.

My comment : This strategy is a great big tell. If we have a sound case to make about some important issue we will patiently state that case whenever the opportunity arises. By resorting to personal insults VOICE advocates reveal that they do not have a persuasive case to present.

And that summarises the case for THE VOICE with my comments about each of the main streams.

As Peggy Lee might have said…Is that all there is ???....

Unfortunately yes that indeed is all there is by way of argument in favour of THE VOICE.

The dire lack of substance in THE VOICE proposal was starkly revealed by Professor Megan Davis at the grand campaign launch in Parliament House Canberra on 23 March 2023.

Prof Davis said that key design principles would include….that THE VOICE be empowering, community led, inclusive, respectful, culturally informed and gender balanced,  include youth and be accountable and transparent and work alongside existing organisations.

This vacuous verbiage strings together a random selection of buzz-words with no attempt to assign meaning to any of them. As key design principles they constitute nothing useful at all about what the heck THE VOICE is supposed to do and how it will achieve whatever that might be.

Note that “being elected” is not mentioned as being one of the key design principles for VOICE committee members.

What else are VOICE advocates not saying ?

What we don’t say is often more revealing than what we do say. VOICE advocates are not saying anything about the most important issues raised by THE VOICE proposal.

* The biggest failing of THE VOICE idea is that proponents have not made and not even attempted to make any case, argument, discussion or plausible narrative about how they imagine THE VOICE might improve the health, welfare or quality of life of any aboriginal person, anywhere.

Some VOICE advocates assert that the Alice Springs riots would not have occurred if THE VOICE had been in place but they offer not a single word as to how THE VOICE might have prevented those riots.

* VOICE proponents have not uttered a single word to explain why they think those Australians who identify as aborigines need a separate multi-tier structure over and above the many existing representative bodies available to aborigines.  This is demeaning and disrespectful to the great majority of people who identify as aborigines who are perfectly capable of using existing representative structures and do without impediment as they see fit.

* The idea of THE VOICE is that regional groups of aborigines will  select a small group to represent them in a higher forum.

Therefore it is necessary to decide who is and who is not an aborigine. But VOICE advocates will not engage on this issue. When pressed they say that somebody will apply the three-part test (heritage, affirmation, acceptance) proposed by Justice Deane of the High Court.   The Australian Law Reform Commission notes that there have been 67 definitions of an aborigine used by various agencies since British settlement, none having stood the test of time or attempted usage.  Nobody has ever offered a satisfactory definition of “aboriginal descent” or “aboriginal heritage”.

The reality in 2023 is that the great majority of people who identify as aborigines are of mixed ethnic heritage. They make a personal choice to identify as aboriginal, or not as the case may be.   In 200 years nobody has managed to craft a definition of an aborigine such that the Australian Electoral Commission could independently verify whether a person is or is not an aborigine.

The notion that we should change the Constitution of Australia to pander to the personal preferences of people who elect to join a particular ethnic team is bizarre and totally unacceptable in any country but particularly in Australia’s multicultural liberal democracy. 

* VOICE advocates have failed to offer a single word to explain what characteristic or circumstance of all the people who identify as aborigines requires them to have in perpetuity a separate multi tier representative structure in addition to the many pathways for representation already available.

* Voice advocates have deliberately avoided acknowledging or discussing the fact that aboriginal disadvantage is not distributed evenly throughout the land. In fact the greatest concentration of disadvantage and dysfunction lies with the 17% of aborigines who live in remote and very remote outstations.  VOICE proponents have nothing to say about improving life circumstances for this minority group. The assertion that THE VOICE will achieve something useful for this group is disingenuous at best and deceitful at worst. In any event it is wishful thinking.

* Voice advocates have stated clearly in the Uluru Statement from the Heart that they do not regard aboriginal sovereignty as having been ceded and they are of the view that aboriginal sovereignty co-exists with the sovereignty of the crown.

It is clear that VOICE advocates see the creation of a separate aboriginal sovereign nation or nations as the culmination of their campaign. But they have uttered not a word about how they think this might work in practice or who might who they think might benefit.

* VOICE advocates have not clarified whether

a)  they want THE VOICE to be just an advisory body in addition to the plethora of advisory bodies already in place.  If so what would be the point of it ?   or

b)   Do advocates want THE VOICE to have executive power or at least so much influence as to be the equivalent of power ?    In their public statements VOICE advocates have been disingenuous about this, insisting that THE VOICE will be just advisory with no power but simultaneously have direct access to the executive government which would give them so much influence as to be the equivalent of power. They cannot have it both ways.

The case against THE VOICE

Of the many issues swirling around in debate about THE VOICE I raise just five.

1. We have no say in matters affecting us.   The assertion that people who identify as aborigines do not have a say in matters which affect them is an outright bare-faced lie. People who identify as aborigines have access to all the representative pathways available to all other Australians. They can,  and in fact are required to, vote in State, Territory and Commonwealth elections. They can and do form lobby groups to pursue any matter at all. They can seek and will get audience with their local member of State, Territory or Federal parliament.

Each State and Territory and the Commonwealth has a Minister for aboriginal people. No other ethno-cultural group has such representation.

In addition to that there is a multitude of aboriginal organisations, including 30 land councils, 70 large aboriginal organisations including the National Indigenous Australians Agency, 2700 aboriginal corporations and many smaller aboriginal welfare bodies.  Taken together these organisations wield very substantial power over decisions about the expenditure of many billions of taxpayer dollars each year on the aborigine welfare industry. Executives of these organisations have influential access to staff of Commonwealth and State departments. They largely direct the design and administration of aboriginal services. It is very difficult for an ordinary citizen to figure out how much is spent on aboriginal programmes each year due to the convoluted and opaque ways in which this is reported. In 2016 Warren Mundine estimated this at around $30 billion per year. The amount will have increased substantially since then.

The point of this is that aboriginal executives in charge of the expenditure of extremely large sums of money each year also wield considerable power.

2. THE VOICE can “fix” historical disadvantage.  The second narrative is about historical discrimination towards and displacement and dispossession of aboriginal people over a 200 year period.  This is true but repetition of this narrative does not in any way lead to a conclusion that THE VOICE is a meaningful way forward.

If we stop and think about this we will realise that many millions of Australians, most of them not-aborigines, can relate a family or ethnic group history of persecution, displacement and dispossession. Think about the Jews who have been and continue to be persecuted all over the world.   Consider the Rohingya in Myanmar, Nepali ethnic refugees from Bhutan, Syrians, Iranians, people from the former Yugoslavia…the list goes on and on.

None of these people ask for a separate “voice”. None of them think they need it. They are getting on with the business of life, gaining education, employment and housing and becoming a vital part of the great Australian multicultural polity.

The existential task facing all humans everywhere is to move on from past tribulations and find ways by which we can engage with each other in the service of living in peace and harmony.

THE VOICE proposal is part of an ongoing aboriginal separationist agenda which is driving us away from harmonious co-existence towards sectarian tribalism.

The problem for aborigines living in remote regions is not a lack of “voice”. It is that they are trapped in existential  purgatory created by separationist policies past and present. They need geographical and economic opportunities to escape from this dreadful situation.

3. For the VOICE project to go forward it is necessary to find a definition of an aboriginal person and a method for applying that definition such that the Australian electoral commission can independently verify whether a person is deemed an aborigine or not. The oft quoted three part test (descent, self identification, acceptance) proposed by Justice Deane of the High Court does not meet that requirement. There is no satisfactory definition of the terms “aboriginal heritage” or “aboriginal descent” and no satisfactory way has yet been proposed for independent validation of an individual’s “acceptance” as an aborigine by an aboriginal community. Neither has there been any attempt to clarify what is meant by “aboriginal community”.

As every year goes by and the influence of miscegenation continues to grow, the concept of a person as being “an aborigine” or “an Italian” or “Chinese” or any other ethnic appellation becomes less and less meaningful. We are all Australians living in an ethnically evolving multicultural society.

4.  Justiciability    As I write this in late March 2023 there is much heated argy-bargy reported in the public domain about the issue of justiciability with respect to legal issues arising from THE VOICE.  We have constitutional lawyers at 40 paces firing off shots at each other. That alone should tell us all we need to know. They are fighting about it already and the deal is not yet done. I make no pretence to be any kind of lawyer but I am a long time observer of human behaviour. One abiding quality of humans is our propensity for arguing, squabbling and mischief-making. Anyone who imagines that some magic form of words in a Constitutional amendment can ward off legal argument is indulging in self deluded wishful thinking.

Actually VOICE advocates such as Professor Marcia Langton have expressed the view that they expect and welcome the prospect of the High Court being drawn in to conflict situations arising from THE VOICE.

5. Mysterious special attributes of people who identify as aborigines      The entire VOICE proposal rests on the unproven notion that people who identify as aborigines possess some mysterious quality which prevents them from utilising the normal democratic apparatus which everybody else uses.  No evidence or semblance of fact or argument is ever put forward in support of this notion.

People who identify as aborigines are humans and as such have the same needs and capabilities as other humans. It is demeaning and disrespectful of aborigine elites to designate other aborigines as needing some kind of unelected special voice to speak for them.

6. Implementing the Uluru Statement in full   The Prime Minister Mr Anthony Albanese stated on election night in October 2022 and has subsequently confirmed that his government intends to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full.  This commitment refers to the total package of which THE VOICE is a part.  The Uluru Statement clearly states that aboriginal sovereignty has never been ceded or extinguished and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.

If we agree to THE VOICE then we agree to the whole package. That means aboriginal sovereignty and that means either co-governance or a separate aboriginal nation or nations. Either of these outcomes would represent an institutionalised separation between the majority of Australians and those who for their own reasons elect to identify as aborigines. This would be a disaster for all Australians.

There is a better way

Almost everybody who has contributed to debate about aboriginal welfare in the public domain has agreed that the sum total of policies and practices and programmes over the last 200 years to date has failed to rectify aboriginal disadvantage in remote areas.

Despite this aborigine activists continue to propose measures which have already failed on multiple occasions. For instance there have over the years been multiple bodies which were supposed to represent aboriginal voices for the purpose of designing better policies. Yet despite this or more likely because of this, indigenous disadvantage persists in remote regions and may be getting worse. We keep tossing new bad policies on top of old bad policies in the expectation of a miracle.

Many aborigine activists agree we need a new paradigm by which to shape our thinking about and development of indigenous policy but when it comes to the crunch they revert to old ideas and old strategies which have already been tried and failed. These old ideas continue in the service of the separationist agenda which has failed.

My proposed alternative for aborigines is based on the proposition that all policies based on ethnic separations have failed. Failed in Australia. Failed everywhere else. The White Australia policy failed. Aboriginal separationist policies have failed.  I want us to return to the basic philosophical position that all people are equal in principle and in law with equal capabilities given the right circumstances and all have equal rights and responsibilities in a liberal multi-ethnic democracy.

The bare bones of my proposal are:

1. Repeal part 26 of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution.  Section 51 lists the areas in which the Commonwealth can make laws. Section 51(xxvi) enables the Commonwealth 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.       

The Constitution was written in 1901 when it was thought there were different “races” of humans. We now understand that was incorrect. We are all of the same species but of different ethic origins.

I regard this part of the Constitution as an abomination. It does not comply with Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which holds that all humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

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.   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. If they want to move elsewhere there is no pathway by which they can sell any entitlement for money to fund an alternative place of abode. They are trapped.

4. Establish a transitional voluntary support 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.

Last words

In my view THE VOICE is one of the worst ideas ever put to the Australian people.  It would be a backward step in the evolution of Australian democracy if it were to be legislated. But to enshrine such an egregiously bad idea in the Constitution would be a disaster for all Australians.

I regard the  campaign promoting THE VOICE  to be dishonest, divisive, disingenuous, disrespectful and devoid of valid substance.

Please vote against it.

About the author, Andrew Smallman

I am an 80 years old retired psychiatrist. I was for many years Director of Northern Beaches Mental Health Service. Since retirement I have had more time to think and write about issues affecting many aspects of life.

I have no affiliation with any political entity.

 

 

 

THE VOICE update 15 March 2023 Statements by Senator Pat Dodson

 

 

As argy-bargy (thanks to Julia Gillard for that one) about  THE VOICE becomes more strident I will update this blog as material which I think is relevant becomes available in the public domain.

Today’s noteworthy contribution comes from Senator Pat Dodson, as quoted by Tony Wright in the Sydney Morning Herald of 15 March 2023.

Senator Dodson is quoted as having offered several reasons why people should vote for THE VOICE proposal.

In summary these are:

1. That failing to support THE VOICE would be an act of “partisanship”.

Senator Dodson fails to acknowledge that establishing a separate system of representation for one ethno-political group is the partisan course of action.  He is accusing unbelievers of doing precisely that which he is doing.

2. Next he offered some guidance on woke virtue-signalling.

He said THE VOICE presents the chance for Australians to show to themselves and the world”  that they can establish a new relationship between white and indigenous people.  Let us leave aside for the moment Senator Dodson’s myopic view of Australians as being either “white” or ‘Indigenous” and take note of his main message which is clearly about virtue signalling to impress the neighbours.

3. Next, Senator Dodson offers the bizarre notion that supporting THE VOICE is about hygiene. In his words…..”with clean hearts, clean spirits and potentially clean hands”.   This nonsense comes on top of the PM’s assertion that supporting THE VOICE is just good manners.

4. Now we come to a more pressing issue. Senator Dodson says….’if we..say “yes” it will be one of the most liberating things. It will free everyone from guilt and shame and embarrassment.”

This is in my view the main argument which VOICE supporters put forward to encourage the electorate to support the proposition. It is emotional coercion. If you fail to support THE VOICE you will be a nasty, evil person who punches down on aborigines and wants to destroy them. You will be a racist and an aborigine hater.  You will be responsible for the original sin of your presumed forbears who are supposed to have done terrible things to aborigines even though you yourself have never knowingly harmed a person who identifies  an aborigine and have no idea what your forbears might or might not have done.

This concept of original sin was popularised by the Roman Catholic church and I believe is still part of church doctrine. It is very convenient for the clergy as it automatically makes everybody a sinner in desperate need of whatever expiation the church might decide is required.

We have the same supposition in the current debate about THE VOICE.  All not-aborigines, presumably and irrationally including recent immigrants are burdened with the shame of the original sin of their forebears and must atone for this by agreeing to whatever demand is made by those who identify as aborigines.

The problem with this dark line of discourse is that it falls apart when subjected to the slightest ray of light.

Just have a think:

First:  the vast majority of people who identify as aborigines in Australia today are of mixed part-aborigine and part-something-else-not-aborigine heritage, including most and possibly all VOICE leading proponents.  So those who elect to identify as aborigines are also not-aborigines. They are both.

The notion that we can tell who is and who is not an aborigine or that there is any useful purpose in doing so is revealed as complete nonsense.

The notion that the not-aborigines have inherited the taint of original sin and that aborigines are perpetual victims puts most people who identify as aborigines in the impossible position of blaming one part of their own heritage for the suffering of the other part.

Second: I make no pretence to be any expert on justice, I am a retired psychiatrist. However it is abundantly clear that if my grandfather killed someone (just to be clear, he did not) there is no basis in philosophy or jurisprudence by which my father or myself can be held responsible.  We cannot hold our children responsible for our own misdeeds but VOICE advocated want you to believe just that. The worry is that they have been remarkable successful in their efforts to make ordinary people feel vicarious guilt for unknown past misdeeds by unknown persons. VOICE advocates are preying on the goodwill or ordinary people.

5. Last Senator Dodson said that THE VOICE which he disingenuously mis-characterises as recognising aboriginal people in the Constitution will …..”give them the capacity to make representations to the parliament and the executive government”.

 This line has been repeated over and over and over and over……

There is an old adage which says …if you are going to tell a lie make it a great big one and keep on repeating it …..over and over and over……..

The notion that people who identify as aborigines are somehow unable to make representations to any person or agency they wish is utter and complete nonsense and a deliberate falsehood.  People who identify as aborigines in fact have many more avenues than most not-aborigines by which they can make representations to their state or federal member or state or federal minister for aborigines (no other group  has a special minister) or anybody else anywhere anytime.

What is Senator Dodson NOT saying ?

He has not a single word to say about how he imagines THE VOICE might improve the health, welfare of quality of life of any aboriginal person anywhere.

He has nothing to say about why he imagines people who identify as aborigines might need a specially appointed representative body in addition to the many such bodies already in place.

He makes no case whatsoever for the VOICE being able to confer any benefit on people who identify as aborigines.

Summary

I have chosen to comment on Senator Dodson’s statements because they include the main arguments being put forward in support of THE VOICE proposal.

No attempt is made to define any benefit for any aboriginal person.

The main thrust of the case for THE VOICE rests on making ordinary Australians feel a sense of vicarious guilt about harms done to aborigines and urging them to atone for misdeeds about which they have no knowledge by acceding to the demands of an influential self appointed  group claiming to represent people who identify as aborigines but who are themselves just as much not-aborigines as aborigines.  

THE VOICE Constitution alteration bill is not ready for a vote 13 March 2023

 

THE VOICE  Constitution alteration bill is not ready for a vote

Introduction

With respect to the Section 128  Constitution Alteration Bill which will be presented to the Commonwealth Parliament in March 2023, I believe no case has yet been made for the VOICE and many questions about THE VOICE proposal remain unanswered and in some cases unasked.

THE VOICE proposal involves a major change to the Constitution of Australia and a major change in the balance of power which affects decision making in federal government.

I want to see a Constitutional Convention established to fully explore issues raised by THE VOICE proposal before the Section 128 Constitution Alteration Bill is put to a vote. This Convention would meet as often as necessary to ensure all pertinent questions have been discussed and answered. Too many important issues have simply been ignored by VOICE proponents in their efforts to push THE VOICE through as quickly as possible.

These issues include consideration of doctrines and memes about aborigines, the problem of false attribution of causes and outcomes, the existential task for all Australians indigenous and not-indigenous and thinking about the endpoint for aboriginal policy and activism.

Some of the questions as yet unanswered by VOICE proponents include:

1. Please present an argument, case, rationale or at least a plausible narrative explaining how THE VOICE could improve the health, welfare or quality of life of any person, anywhere.

2. Please provide a process by which some agency can determine who is and who is not an aborigine using a method and criteria which can be independently verified by the Australian Electoral Commission.

3. Please explain what characteristic or circumstance of people who identify as aborigines requires them to have, in perpetuity, a separate multi-tier representative structure in addition to the many pathways for representation already available.

4. a. Do advocates want THE VOICE to be just an advisory body in addition to the plethora of advisory bodies already in place ?  If so what would be the point of it ?

4. b. Do advocates want THE VOICE to have executive power or at least so much influence as to be the equivalent of power ?  If so why would the Australian people agree to this dramatic re-shaping of the balance of power in favour of people who identify as being of one ethnic group ?

5. Do Australians want to live in a country characterised by ethnic sectarian division resulting in two separate “Nations”,  one for the 3% who identify as aborigines and another for the 97% who identify as not-aborigines ?

 

 The rest of this document is in the form of a discussion paper about issues raised by THE VOICE proposal, with some suggestions about an alternative approach.

Summary of the discussion paper

In this discussion I investigate what proponents of THE VOICE are saying and also what they are significantly not saying. I review some of the doctrines and myths about aborigines which underpin current discussion.    I raise the issue of false attribution which has received remarkably little airing in the public domain yet is central to any discussion about aboriginal matters.   I explore the existential task of living which aborigines and not-aborigines must undertake. I ask what is the end point for aboriginal policy in Australia.   Along the way I explore unanswered and in several cases un-asked questions which arise from THE VOICE proposal.  Some of these are listed above.

I offer for discussion  suggestions for an alternative approach to aboriginal issues in Australia.

1. What are proponents of THE VOICE saying in support of their idea ?

In a recent interview with Patricia Karvelas on ABC RN Breakfast radio the Prime Minister Mr Anthony Albanese said “ The voice is about two things: recognition for aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our Constitution and about consulting them on matters that affect them. That is all that this is about”.

a) The assertion that THE VOICE is about recognition  represents a disingenuous mis-representation of the meaning of the word recognition.

In most dictionaries, the word recognition when used to refer to a group of people means:

An acknowledgement of the existence, validity or legality of the people or group.

Over a period of many years there have been many proposals about ways in which aborigines could be recognised in the Constitution. One of these was a proposal for a preamble to the Constitution acknowledging  this recognition.

But this was rejected by aborigine activists and somewhere in the middle of the discussion process the idea of a preamble morphed into the idea of THE VOICE. 

There is no sense in which the proposed multi-tier VOICE structure can be equated with recognition. It is an entirely different concept altogether for which no rationale has ever been presented.

b) The notion that  THE VOICE is about consulting them (people who identify as aborigines) on matters that affect them is even more disingenuous, to the point of being outright dishonest. People who identify as aborigines already have far more “voice” in “matters that affect them” than any other ethno-political or  ethno-cultural  group in Australia.  In very brief summary:

* The Commonwealth Government and each State and Territory Government have a Minister for aboriginal people. No other ethno-cultural or ethno-political group has a designated Minister.

* There are 11 members of the Commonwealth Parliament who identify as aboriginal.

* There are 30 Aboriginal Land Councils, 70 large aboriginal organisations including the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA)  and 2700 Aboriginal Corporations, each able to represent the interests of its constituents in any fashion whatsoever.

* All people who identify as aborigines can and do seek audience with their State, Territory or Federal parliamentary representatives.

* All people who identify as aborigines have the right to vote in State, Territory and Commonwealth elections, congregate, form lobby groups and to engage in any legal activity they wish in order to pursue any matter they wish.

* There is a very large  aboriginal welfare industry involving state and federal government departments, politicians, a multitude of service provider organisations , service recipients and others who benefit directly or indirectly from this industry. All these people have a “say” in matters which they believe affect them, often very loudly.  Some of these organisations such as the NIAA have very large budgets derived from taxpayers, giving them considerable influence in public affairs.

c) ….”that is all that this is about”.   If this assertion by the Prime Minister were true THE VOICE proposal would come to a halt right there as we can readily demonstrate that it is not about “recognition” or about  “having a say”.  Something else is going on and the PM’s refusal to acknowledge this is disingenuous and  disappointing.

Notwithstanding the above Mr Albanese has described the Uluru statement from the heart as a “generous offer” although what exactly is being “offered” is unclear. 

He also said that support for THE VOICE is “simply good manners”, a view which surely extends the notion of good manners into previously unimagined realms.  

The current PM and former PM Kevin Rudd have both said if we fail to support THE VOICE then people of other countries will think badly of us. This is almost as silly as the exhortation to good manners and has nothing to do with the merits, if there are any, of THE VOICE proposal.

d) Proponents of THE VOICE point to the Uluru Statement from the heart as the wellspring of ideas forming the basis of THE VOICE proposal. The Uluru statement says:

* That people who identify as aborigines constitute the first sovereign nations of the Australian continent even though the concept of a sovereign nation as we now understand it would not have been part of aboriginal culture over the last 40,000 years.  The Uluru Statement states that …”this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood”. This is important to our understanding of the real purpose of THE VOICE proposal which is promotion of the separationist aboriginal nation agenda. It is not hidden, it is there for all to see.

* “the torment of our powerlessness”.  This promotes the false notion that people who identify as aborigines are “powerless”. In what way people who identify as aborigines might be “powerless” is not identified.

With respect to THE VOICE we need to consider the question of power. If we just have a think about this we can grasp that either THE VOICE will have no more power than the existing multitude of advisory bodies and voices, in which case there is no point to it OR THE VOICE will have real executive power or at least so much influence as to be equivalent to power, then it will be a de-facto third chamber of parliament and totally unacceptable in the Australian system of democratic representative government. Proponents of THE VOICE cannot have this both ways but they are trying to do just that.

* ..”We seek Constitutional reforms to empower our people to take a rightful place  in our own country”.  This concept of a “rightful place” was promoted by Gough Whitlam in 1972 and has been repeated many times since then but precisely what that “rightful place” might be has never been clarified  by anybody.

* The Uluru statement also refers to a Makarrata Commission and a process of agreement making or treaty between governments and people who identify as aborigines. These concepts make it clear that the assertion by the PM that “that is all that this is about” is entirely and disingenuously incorrect and that aboriginal activists have a much larger agenda. They are not hiding this, they have it right up front in the Uluru statement which, by the way the PM has said the Government will implement in full.

There are several more ideas which have been put forward as relevant to THE VOICE proposal.  These include

* VOICE proponents including the PM have asserted THE VOICE will assuredly “close the gap”. In this context “the gap” is shorthand for the difference in indicators of health, welfare, quality of life, life expectancy and  incarceration between people who identify as aborigines and those who do not identify as aborigines. Not a single word of evidence or plausible narrative has ever been produced to explain how THE VOICE might close the gap.

* Many advocates of THE VOICE have said that it will enhance a process of reconciliation between people who identify as aborigines and those who do not.  Not the slightest attempt has been made to explain what “reconciliation” might mean or how it might be promoted by THE VOICE.

In the real world reconciliation is not some grand national project at all. It is the sum of the actions of all the individuals and families who decide to live with and share experiences with their neighbours regardless of ethnicity. This is the character of the Australian multicultural society of which people who identify as aborigines are a part just as are people from each of the 200 or so ethnic groups which make up our polity.  Reconciliation at a personal and family level between people who identify as aborigines and those who do not has been underway for 200 years and is now far advanced. The claim by movie maker Rachel Perkins and Senator Lidia Thorpe that people who identify as aborigines are engaged in an ongoing “war” with the rest of us is a misrepresentation of the real situation which is very much more complex and nuanced. It is a beat-up to promote the separationist aboriginal sovereignty agenda.

* Several proponents of THE VOICE have said it is the right thing “in principle”.  To what principle do they refer ?  If they mean that people who identify as aborigines should have a say in matters which affect them then yes of course they should but they already have this in great abundance.

e) 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 the 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 raises many more questions than it answers.    

Noel Pearson referred to 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 completely oblivious to the fact 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 THE 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.

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”.

Greens leader Adam Bandt has described THE VOICE as “a step towards first nations justice” without making the slightest attempt to explain what he means by “first nations justice” or how he believes THE VOICE will bring it about.  This it yet another example of VOICE advocates tossing words around like confetti at a wedding. All show, no meaning.

f) In view of the complete absence of any kind of coherent case for THE VOICE why have so many Australians indicated in polls that they would support the idea ?  The short answer is emotional blackmail.  Indigenous activists have for many years successfully pursued  the notion that aborigines have been so damaged by the displacement and dispossession inflicted by colonisation, which we readily acknowledge, that they require perpetual special status by way of compensation.

The proposition is that all the descendants of not-aborigines must bear the burden of guilt for the harms done to aborigines by their forebears. 

Anybody who does not agree with whatever request is made by aborigine leaders by way of recompense is a racist, and a hater of aborigines, encouraged to feel vicarious guilt for presumed crimes about which they have no knowledge.

This paradigm has a kernel of truth of course. Aborigines were displaced and dispossessed over a period of many years and subjected to discrimination some of which undoubtedly persists.

However most of that story is in the past.  These days most people who identify as aborigines have engaged with the mainstream of modern life and are doing well as a result. Most of the more strident advocates of the story that aborigines are perpetual victims are themselves professors, heads of corporations, leaders of health and welfare services, members of Parliament and holders of high status positions.  These people are a living testament to the fact that for the majority of people who identify as aborigines life in the post-colonisation era is pretty good.

2. What are VOICE proponents not saying ?

a) VOICE proponents have not said a thing about how they imagine THE VOICE could, would or might improve the health, welfare or quality of life of any person anywhere.

At best they have simply ignored this most important of questions.

At worst we have reason to wonder if members the aborigine aristocracy who are  promoting THE VOICE are reliant on some aborigines remaining disadvantaged in perpetuity in order to provide them with some appearance of relevance.

Proponents of THE VOICE are notably absent from any specific proposals, plans or real activities which have a reasonable prospect of reversing the disadvantage experienced by some aborigines, especially those in remote and very remote locations, these making up about 17% of the total population of people who identify as aborigines.

b) VOICE proponents refuse to engage on the question of who is and who is not an aborigine, who gets to decide, on what criteria and by what process.  THE VOICE proposal is specifically conceived as a system by which people who are aborigines are chosen by some unspecified means to represent the views of regional populations of aborigines.

It is therefore a fundamental requirement that THE VOICE have a means of determining who is and who is not an aborigine and that this process can be independently evaluated by The Australian Electoral Commission to prevent gaming and fraud.

Aborigine advocates refer to the three part definition of an aborigine proposed by Justice Deane of the High Court in 1983 but refuse to engage in debate about the problems which this test raises.

The three part definition is:

1) The person must be of aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. The intractable problem with this part of the definition is that nobody has ever agreed on what it means.    Who decides and by what means using what criteria if a person is or is not of ATSI descent ? Nobody can agree on this and no aboriginal activist will engage in debate about it.

Senator Pauline Hanson proposed that the person should have at least 25% of aboriginal DNA. This notion got shot down in flames from all sides including from some in the scientific community who pointed out that there is no reference aboriginal genome which could act as a benchmark.

2) The person must identify as an ATSI person. As we discovered from the 2021 Census about 200,000 people decided to do just that even though they had not so identified at the previous census. What all this means is anybody’s guess but as a way of deciding who is and who is not an aborigine it is useless or worse, opening a door to fraud, posturing and gaming.

3) The person must be accepted as an aborigine by the community in which he or she lives or lived.

Once again we have an unworkable definitional element. Who decides and by what criteria what constitutes “the community” of people who are to determine acceptance or otherwise of the supplicant’s aboriginal identity and what does “acceptance” mean ? The idea itself invites nepotism, favouritism or exclusion for unstated reasons.

When Bruce Pascoe announced some while ago that he decided to identify as an aborigine he was denounced as a fraud by people who were familiar with his family history. But then Minister for Aboriginal Australians Ken Wyatt said he accepted Pascoe as an aborigine on the basis of his self declaration. With this one act Mt Wyatt rendered meaningless any definition of an aborigine.

In other realms of public life the decision as to whether a person belongs to a category is determined by independently verifiable criteria. For instance a person’s eligibility for the age pension is determined by clearly stated and verifiable criteria.

If THE VOICE advocates cannot resolve this question the VOICE proposal should not proceed.

c) THE VOICE proponents are not talking about equality.   In fact aboriginal activists and their supporters stopped talking about equality around about 1966. Prior to the 1967 referendum aborigine activist groups sought to repeal Section 51 part 26 of the Constitution. This would have removed the ability of the Commonwealth Government to make laws about anybody on the basis of their “race” or as we now understand it their ethnicity, all being of the same species or race.

But someone persuaded someone that aborigines for some unknown reason needed special laws to be made about them so the “race provision” in the Constitution was not repealed but expanded to include people of any “race” including aborigines.

d) THE VOICE proponents have nothing to say about why they think that people who identify as aborigines are in some unknown and never clarified way so disabled that they cannot use the existing system of representative democratic government  to express their wishes in appropriate ways. In a former era this demeaning, paternalistic attitude was embodied in the office of the Protector of Aborigines. Unfortunately we now see self appointed aborigine activists adopting the same prejudice, despite overwhelming evidence from everyday life that the great majority of people who identify as aborigines are perfectly well able to speak for themselves and do so.

e) VOICE advocates have nothing to say about how they imagine THE VOICE would interact with the many “voices” already in play. The Langton/Calma 2018 Joint Select Committee document states “Consideration must be given to the interplay of any indigenous voice body with existing ATSI organisations at both local and national levels…”  A vague reference to “consideration” is nowhere near any kind of viable proposal.

f) We hear nothing from VOICE proponents about any kind of characteristic possessed by  or circumstance experienced by people who identify as aborigines which might form the basis for their supposed need for special representation to the federal parliament. Of course the reason we hear nothing is that no such characteristic or circumstance exists. Nobody proposes that people who are Han Chinese or Arabic or Koren or any other ethnic group require a perpetual special representative body.

The reality is that people who identify as aborigines exhibit as much diversity within their ranks as people of any other group. Some are rich and  famous, some live in remote “hellholes” (description courtesy of Jacinta Price) and most occupy a socio-economic and cultural middle ground.  Many live in cities, mostly on the East Coast, some live in country towns and a few live in outback locations. The only thing which people who identify as aborigines have in common is ticking the box in the census form. There is no basis for believing that people who tick the box form a meaningful ethno-political group.

g) The details. I leave it to others to expand on this theme. Suffice to say at the time of writing in early March 2023 that even rusted-on Voice supporters like Ken Wyatt are calling for more details and warning that THE VOICE proposal will fail if the Government, PM and VOICE proponents keep insisting that details will be provided after the referendum.

Prof Marcia Langton warned in July 2022 that “avoiding the matter of the structural arrangements for THE VOICE does not achieve the clarity that many ATSI people will require”.  “If you don’t present the voter with the available information in some form then the voter is going to say I don’t know what I am voting for”.

3. Aboriginal doctrines, myths and memes.

Some of these are promoted often and loudly, others simmer in the background of public discussion.

a) People who identify as aborigines are perpetual victims of colonisation, displacement and dispossession.  This never ending  victimisation is driven by the intergenerational transfer of anguish caused by harms done, mostly in the past.  There is enough truth in this doctrine to keep it going even though doing so greatly impedes progress in the existential mission of mutual engagement (see below) and perpetuates separationism to the detriment of all.

b) People who identify as aborigines have special needs, in perpetuity.   They must have special health services, schools, legal services, welfare and housing services and special administrative structures. The usual “reason” given for this extreme separationist endeavour is that regular services are not “culturally sensitive”. What this might mean is never explained.

Also never explained is why people of every other ethno-political and ethno-cultural group manage just fine with regular mainstream services.  Despite frequent loud assertion by prominent indigenous activists there is no evidence that these special indigenous services confer any benefit at all, despite their considerable cost to the taxpayer. Indeed one constant complaint by indigenous activists is that we are not “closing the gap” which would suggest rather strongly that the special services project has failed.

Notwithstanding this you can bet your life savings that if THE VOICE gets up it will demand yet more funding for special services.

 c) The notion of “self determination” was championed by former PM Gough Whitlam in 1972. Until then the official commonwealth policy about aborigines was assimilation. This was unpopular with many aborigines at the time as it seemed to be a way of diminishing their sense of identity, their connection to the land and their culture. 

So Whitlam came up with self determination. He said this was about “aborigines deciding the pace and nature of their future development as significant components within a diverse Australia”.

Reading these words 50 years later I have to wonder what on earth he thought he meant by them. It just sounds like waffling verbiage to me. 

The problem with policies which have no readily apparent meaning or purpose is that they are used as a bandwagon on which activists seek to transport initiatives of their own device.  In this case “self determination” has been used to promote the ongoing separationist agenda in the form of separate services for aborigines run by aborigines and administered by aborigines but funded by the general taxpayer with no accountability for the considerable sums spent.

d) This next doctrinal view is internally contradictory. It goes like this:

On the one hand,   only aborigines are able to provide effective services for aborigines. Aborigines are wise and strong.  They know best.

On the other hand aborigines are so incapable of speaking for themselves and managing their own lives they need special representatives to interpret and transmit their views to State and Federal Parliaments and the apparatus of government.

This dichotomy permeates narrative around THE VOICE proposal . Activists want the electorate to gloss over the disingenuous nature of the doctrine and allow them to have it both ways.

e) Aborigines have a deep and abiding spiritual attachment to the land. No doubt this has been the case for millennia. But nowadays most people who identify as aborigines live in cities or country towns. Only a small number  live on lands to which title was acquired by a claim under aboriginal land rights legislation. Unfortunately some of these are the same people who have the poorest quality of life of all Australians. I mention this to remind us that some consequences of the aboriginal special measures and separationist enterprise have done more harm than good despite the best intentions of their architects.

The point about these doctrinal issues is that they set the stage on which not-aboriginal Australians are encouraged feel guilty about aboriginal suffering and as a result moved to agree with whatever proposal is put forward by aboriginal activists.  THE VOICE is such a proposal.  It has no merit but many ordinary Australians feel inclined to wave it through to appease aborigines and assuage their sense of vicarious guilt.

4. The problem of false attribution

Please bear with me on this fundamental issue which I have not seen raised in the public domain.  Many years ago I saw a Chinese man in Sydney’s Chinatown step off the footpath in front of a bus which promptly ran over and killed him. This event happened to a Chinese man  in Chinatown. Do we think getting run over by a bus is a problem particular to Chinese men?  Of course not. That would be false logic. It is a problem for any of us who step into a traffic stream without looking.

We apply the same false logic to our national discourse about aborigines and aboriginal policy. We make the mistake of treating problems which affect the lives of aborigines as having come about because they are aborigines or indigenous people.

What are these problems ? In summary they are displacement, dispossession, cultural dislocation  and prejudicial treatment.  

Now stop and have a think.

These same problems affect the millions of immigrants who come to Australia. Immigrants deal with these problems over a generation or few and in the process engage with the mainstream of Australian society as valued citizens. They have access to transitional support programmes as required but these are temporary and are limited by need not creed or ethnicity.

As I write this there is much discussion about aborigine children running riot at night in Alice Springs. There are more people who identify as aborigines living in Sydney that there are in the greater Alice Springs region, but none of those in Sydney are running amok . Why ? The children in Alice Springs are not out of control because they are Aborigines or indigenous people but because they are humans trapped in debilitating circumstances, unmoored from a past culture but not yet engaged with the new and lacking opportunity to do so.

The essential problem was described by the French sociologist Emile Durkheim in the latter part of the 19^th Century. He called this condition “Anomie”. Of course he was describing Europeans. My point is that the condition has been recognised for centuries and can affect any group of people of any ethnicity, anywhere, any time they are trapped in malign circumstances with little sense of self worth, little sense of meaning and purpose in life,  inability to engage the mainstream and lack of opportunity which might enable this to happen.

The solution to the problem is to rectify the circumstances. In relation to people trapped in outstations, offer them a time limited, need specific,  voluntary supported programme to relocate to a place where they can have a better life.

As to considerations of policy, when  we implement a standing policy, ANY POLICY,  for aborigines other than transitional affirmative action plans we are barking up the wrong tree.

We keep making the same mistake over and over. That is heaping new bad policies on top of old bad policies in the vain hope that some beneficial miracle will happen. Such has not come to pass in the last 200 years or so which should be a clue that we are getting it wrong.

We need fewer, not more,  policies and  programmes directed specifically at aborigines and none of them should be fixed or perpetual.

5. What is the existential task for Australians, indigenous and others ?

Across the globe, everywhere humans find a place to live, there have been successive waves of new arrivals seeking greener pastures. This process has been under way for many thousands of years.   When a new group encounters established occupants of a territory there is always some kind of conflict. 

In most cases a settlement between the parties is eventually reached. The process is usually protracted and will never please everybody but in due course most people realise that living in workable harmony with others is preferable to fighting with them.

The existential task is mutual engagement. This is aided by the desire of most people to live in peace and  engage in productive lives. The process of mutual engagement is facilitated in Australia by a democratic polity, miscegenation  and multi-ethnic immigration.

THE VOICE proposal is part of an ongoing and thus far quite successful  attempt by a small group of influential self appointed aborigine activists to frustrate the primary existential task by keeping aborigines separated from the rest.

We see this in the establishment of separate aborigine health, welfare, education housing and employment services. Very few of these services have been evaluated so nobody knows if the vast sums of money spent on these services has achieved anything useful.

The next step is a separate VOICE to Parliament and also the executive if some advocates have their way. Then will come a truth commission the exact nature of which is not revealed followed by a treaty or treaties the substance of which is not revealed. In due course we will see some kind of separate “nation” or “nations” for aborigines.

If you doubt this is the aborigine activist agenda please read the Uluru statement which states clearly …”it (indigenous sovereignty) has never been ceded  or extinguished and co-exists with the sovereignty of the crown.”

6. What is the end point for aboriginal policy in Australia ?

Unfortunately I can find little evidence of the question having been asked and none at all of an answer being agreed upon.

If people are left to their own devices, free from ethnic (‘racial”) policies of unclear merit, a natural end point will be found when the existential task of mutual engagement has been substantially completed. At that point there is no need for aboriginal policy at all.

Aboriginal activists are applying much pressure right now for Australia to support THE VOICE which has been conceived as a perpetual bureaucratic device regardless for any need for it which might or might not be apparent. I think the reason for their agitation is that the process of mutual engagement is actually far advanced and has gone much further than indigenous activists would have you believe with their constant references to the stolen generation, dispossession, ongoing war, displacement, trauma and  the plight of aborigines in remote out stations. The last is very real but VOICE activists appear not to regard affirmative action about the problem to be a priority.

You could make the case that we should never have entertained any kind of policy for people of any ethnic group and I agree. But it is hardly surprising that in the latter part of the 18^th Century  early European settlers would consider aborigines to be an inferior race given their lack of technological advancement. The early colonists thought that some kind of policy for dealing with the aborigines seemed appropriate.

We now know that all humans are of the same species or “race” and that the slow development of aboriginal technology was due to lack of opportunity not lack of innate capability.

The other thing we know is that despite the best (or worst, depending on your point of view)  efforts of some indigenous activists to keep aborigines and not-aborigines separated they have in fact come together of their own individual volition, regardless of any government policy or activist agenda and have in the process made lots of children of mixed ethnicity. So many in fact that the number of “full blood” aborigines is vanishingly small. I have seen one estimate that the number might be about 5000.  The same process of miscegenation is occurring between migrants and not-migrants and between people of every ethnic group in the country.

The point of all this is that the enterprise of designing any kind of device to service in perpetuity people who identify as Aborigines or Indians or Chinese or Vietnamese or Koren or any other ethno-cultural group cannot have any meaningful purpose.

That does not exclude targeted, needs-driven affirmative action programmes which have a goal and which end when the goal has been reached.

Even now all the main proponents of THE VOICE are of mixed ethnicity. They identify as aborigines by choice. The could just a validly identify as not-aborigines. Or simply identify as Australians without getting over-excited about ethnic labels.

The narrative about aboriginal policy in Australia reached a decisive turning point in 1966.

Until then the main thrust of aboriginal activism, often associated with the crusading Faith Bandler, was a quest for equality. Henry Ergas, contributing editor to The Australian newspaper has stated that in the lead-up to the 1967 referendum the Bandler group wanted part 26 of Section 51 of the Constitution repealed. This would have removed the right of the Commonwealth Government to make laws about anybody on the basis of their “race” or ethnicity as we now understand it.

But somewhere along the way somebody convinced somebody that aborigines were so incapable of looking after themselves that there was a need for special laws and other initiatives designed to benefit them. And so the wrong question was put to the people at the 1967 referendum. To compound the error there was, as far as I can tell, little discussion about alternative questions and a “no” case was not presented. The referendum was rigged. I now believe this was a disaster for the course of aboriginal policy in Australia. Unfortunately I cannot recall what my own views about the referendum were at the time. I was working 100+ hours a week as a resident medical officer at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital with very little awareness of the world  outside the draconian peonage of my employment at the time.

It is impossible to know how matters relating to aborigines would have played out had a different question been put in 1967 but it is clear enough that the narrative about equality came to an end and a range of narratives about special provisions came to the fore.

This idea of special provisions has grown into the unwieldy congregation of perpetual programmes of undetermined merit which the aborigine welfare industry has become today. 

Humans are very strange creatures. We are able to simultaneously sustain mutually exclusive views without finding it necessary to reconcile them. Thus Noel Pearson has fulminated repeatedly and with good reason over many years about the debilitating effect of welfare dependency on entire communities but at the same time is a leading proponent of THE VOICE which is yet another special provision without demonstrated purpose.

For proponents of THE VOICE the end point is creation of a separate sovereign state or states for people who identify as aborigines.

An alternative proposal

This proposal is my own independent contribution to discussion about aboriginal policy. It comes from my personal analysis of the situation and what I believe could be the best way forward.

It is based on a fundamental belief that any kind of policy directed to people of any ethnic  group simply because they identify as belonging to that group (other than limited and results based affirmative action plans)  runs counter to basic principles of representative democracy in a multicultural society. This is not just an academic issue. Countries in which most citizens decide to live and work together in harmony score highest on international rankings for quality of life. Countries with internal sectarian division score worst.

The bare bones of my proposal are:

1. Over a period of 10-15 years repeal all policies and wind down all programmes  based on any person’s race, ethnicity or cultural affiliation.

2. Repeal part 26 of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution.

2. Ensure that all support services are based on need and that recipients have access the best available depth and breadth of support available.   Merge existing aborigine-only services with mainstream services over a period of 10-15 years.

3. Establish a Land Rights and Native Title Commission 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. If they want to move elsewhere there is no pathway by which they can sell any entitlement for money to fund an alternative place of abode. They are trapped.

4. Establish a transitional voluntary support 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.

About the author, Andrew Smallman

I am an 80 years old retired psychiatrist. I was for many years Director of Northern Beaches Mental Health Service. Since retirement I have had more time to think and write about issues affecting many aspects of life.

I have no affiliation with any political entity.