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.
No comments:
Post a Comment