Arguments for and
against the Voice
The proposed indigenous voice to Parliament and the
Executive rests on two main propositions, one false, the other unsupported by
any form of evidence.
1. Aborigines have no say in matters affecting them. This is
manifestly false. Aborigines have the same voting rights and the same access to
representatives at Local, State, Territory and Federal level as anybody else. They
can and do form lobby groups which have been very successful in gaining land
rights and native title. They have persuaded governments that aborigines are in
some never identified way special and different from all other Australians and
therefore need special services for
health, housing, education, welfare and much more. This aboriginal welfare
industry has grown to massive proportions, consuming about $30Billion
yearly. Input into the disbursement of
so much money gives aboriginal groups a very big “say” and great power over the
use of taxpayers money.
2. Proponents of the Voice say it will be of great benefit
to aborigines but have not attempted to put forward any argument, case,
rationale, demonstration project or plausible narrative to explain how the
Voice might improve the health, welfare or quality of life of any aboriginal or
any other person anywhere.
Note that it is the proponents themselves who make no
attempt to present a case in support of their assertion.
These two failures by Voice proponents should in a rational
world have stopped the idea in its tracks. But at least with respect to
arguments about the Voice we are not in a rational world.
We have a proposal for a change to the constitution to
enshrine forever a multi tier bureaucracy appointed by unknown processes within
an ethnic group presented as “recognition” thereby making a mockery of any
recognised meaning of the word.
We have a power grab by unelected ethno-political elites
seeking to expand their fiefdoms being represented as a “generous offer” when
it is neither generous nor an offer.
Words have become devices not to convey meaning but to
obfuscate meaning.
So we must examine a few more of the egregious problems
inherent in the Voice idea.
3. Having no actual rationale to present in support of the
voice, proponents resort to emotional blackmail tactics to encourage ordinary
Australians to feel guilty should they dare think of voting against the idea.
They are accused of being “racists” or “bedwetters”, “bashing down on
aborigines”. They are advised that a Yes vote will relieve them of the burden
of guilt and shame which they should be feeling about the ill treatment of aborigines
in a past era.
4. The Voice is a Trojan Horse for demands by aborigines for
Makarrata, treaty, and aboriginal sovereignty. This is not some conspiracy
theory of mine, just read the Uluru statement from the heart. Even the one page
version mentions the word sovereign once and sovereignty four
times and makes it very clear that Voice proponents regard sovereignty as
having never been ceded. The 20 page version of the Uluru statement expands on
this to include reparations, a special tax for aborigines as a percentage of
GDP, self determination (whatever that means) and self government. The prime
minister has been attempting to distance himself from this recently (August
2023) but having loudly and frequently promised to implement the Uluru
statement in full he is stuck with the whole package by his own initiative.
5. The idea that aborigines need a separate, special
representative hierarchy with attendant bureaucracy to express their views is
an insult from aboriginal elites to the great majority of aborigines who have
shown themselves perfectly capable of using existing organs of representative
democracy to advance their various causes. The reality is that aboriginal
elites are just seeking to expand the reach and power of their fiefdoms.
6. The voice as proposed is yet another attempt to promote a
type of initiative which has repeatedly failed in the past and is failing now.
The idea that closing the gap will be achieved by adding more voices to the
chorus of them already calling loudly and often is not supported by any kind of
evidence. In fact the oft mentioned failure to close the gap is evidence that
all policies and initiatives to date have failed.
Existing aboriginal policies essentially constitute a
separationist, protectionist regime in which aborigines are encouraged to
become dependent on welfare and enfeebled by entitlement. The measures which are supposed to help
aborigines actually harm them.
7. The idea of a separate representative bureaucracy for a
group of people based on their identification as being of any particular
ethnic, ethno-political or ethno-religious group is contrary to basic
principles of representative democracy.
Australia began as a number of separate penal settlements. A
far flung place to which Britain consigned its undesirables. These came
together as a Commonwealth in 1901. For many years there was a white Australia
policy. Since this was abandoned by the
Whitlam government in 1973 we have seen
our country flourish as one of the leading examples of a successful multicultural
society on earth. The Voice proposal if approved would see Australia return to
the bad old days of sectarian division to the detriment of all.
8. The Voice idea as proposed consists of a legally and
constitutionally sanctioned multi level
representative structure by aborigines, of aborigines, for aborigines, all of
whom are Australian citizens. It is therefore essential that an
independent authority such as the
Australian Electoral Commission be able to determine who is and who is not an
aborigine. But this has become impossible. Voice advocates say they will use
the three part test (heritage, affirmation, acceptance). But this just kicks
the can down the road. Nobody has yet managed to define what the terms “aboriginal
heritage” or “aboriginal ancestry” mean and with the level of miscegenation
which prevails, they never will. Anybody can claim to be an aborigine. Nobody
has yet defined what “acceptance” means or what constitutes an “aboriginal
community” or by whom or how such acceptance might be effected in such a way as
to satisfy an independent authority as to fairness.
When Bruce Pascoe announced himself to be an aborigine he
was accepted as such without question by the then Minister for Aboriginal
Australians, Mr Ken Wyatt without reference to the three part test or any other
form of test as to Mr Pascoe’s claim to be an aborigine.
Dr Gordon Reid was elected to the House of Representatives
for the seat of Robertson on the NSW Central Coast at the 2022 federal election.
His claim to be an aborigine has been disputed by several commentators on the
basis of an apparent absence of aborigines in his family tree.
Prominent Voice advocates have refused to engage in debate
about the legitimacy of Pascoe and Reid’s claims to aboriginality.
It is not my aim to enter this debate at all. Rather to put
the view that the question and any possible answer have become irrelevant to
the Australian polity. We will do
Australians a service by acknowledging that we all have equal rights and
responsibilities and that seeking to create legal divisions between us on the
basis of claimed ethnic affiliation is an enterprise which will drive us apart,
not bring us together. This is already happening (August 2023) as vexatious argument
about the Voice gains momentum in the public domain.
Neither do I regard the question of indigeneity as being able to assist anybody in their efforts
to define any ethnic group. Nobody has ever offered a legally sound definition
of indigeneity. I am 80 years old. I was born in Australia. My parents,
grandparents and great grandparents were
born in Australia. If I am not indigenous to Australia, what am I, a
tourist ??
9. Clueless or devious ? Australians are being asked to approve a major
change to our Constitution with a promise that somebody, somehow, will figure out the details later, after the vote. We are over six years on from the
2017 Uluru statement and still the Voice architects are unable or unwilling to
present a clear explanation as to what the Voice is supposed to achieve and how
it is supposed to get there. It seems to me that we might reasonably conclude that
either:
Voice proponents are clueless, finding themselves unable to clarify their
purpose and direction after six years or
They are devious, knowing their full intentions but keeping
these from the voting public.
10. There is a fundamental flaw in the logic of the Voice proposal.
As presented it has many of the characteristics of an
affirmative action programme. That is an intervention of some kind designed to
lift up a specific group of disadvantaged people to the level of the
mainstream. At this point the programme can be scaled back then withdrawn,
having achieved its purpose. Sickness benefit programmes are an example. When we are unwell we qualify for the benefit but when we are well enough to return to work the benefit ceases.
Let us suppose that at some future time the worst problems
of the most disadvantaged aborigines have been overcome. The “gap” is closed or
almost so. The majority of aborigines have become part of the socio-economic
mainframe.
I suspect this will happen anyway regardless of government policies as more and more people
who identify as aborigines figure out for themselves that welfare dependency is not the way to personal
fulfilment. However it comes about and regardless of whether we think that the
improved condition of aborigines has been brought about by the cumulative
effect of individual initiatives (most likely) or as a beneficial outcome of official
policies and programmes, we reach a point at which the objective has been
reached and the policies and programmes are no longer required.
The only kind of programme which requires ongoing input is
one like the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and even that can be
wound back for many recipients if their disability is partly or fully overcome.
This can often happen with the less severe cases of ADHD for instance.
The only rationale for ongoing intervention for a group of
people is if they have a continuing disability which significantly impairs
their capacity for self care. The fact of identifying as an aborigine is not a disability.
Some aborigines may have a condition causing disability, for instance foetal
alcohol syndrome, but any requirement which they may have for some kind of
ongoing programme is because of the FASD which can happen to anybody if their
mother drinks alcohol to excess while pregnant.
There is no rationale whatsoever for any kind of permanent
programme of any description for any group of people simply because of their
stated ethnic affiliation.
The proposal that any ethnic programme no matter what the
particulars, be included as a separate chapter in the Constitution is so
extreme that it only reinforces my view that the entire Voice project is at
heart a power grab by indigenous elites which should be firmly denied by
thinking Australians.
Politics
Labor is for the Voice and also for, or maybe against treaty, depending on who is speaking and who asked
what question in parliament last week. the Greens are for the Voice, the teal
independents seem to be for it and the Nationals are unambiguously against it.
I cannot understand the current position of the Liberal
Party. The leader of the parliamentary Liberals has said he is against a
national Voice enshrined in the Constitution but in favour of legislating for
some unknown number of local and regional Voices. This just looks like indecisive dithering and
attempted appeasement to me. It cannot find favour with Voice supporters
because it is not the full package and cannot appeal to No voters because it proposes a half-baked version of a bad policy. If I
were in any way involved with liberal party policy making which I am not I
would be advocating that the party step away from this and make sure it is not
a millstone around their collective necks at the next election.
My suggested
alternative way forward.
If we can unclutter our thoughts from the argy-bargy and the
insults which appear to have supplanted proper debate about the Voice proposal
I think we can see that the issues are actually clear enough and reasonably
straightforward.
Issue 1. Do we want to live in a society riven by
legalised sectarian division
or one based on the principle that all people are equal in law, rights and responsibilities ?
Issue 2. Does
anybody think that aboriginal policies over the last 200 years have been
successful ? I have never seen or heard of anybody making such a claim. In fact
the main complaint of pro and anti Voice campaigners alike is that that the sum
total of all policy and programme endeavours to date has been a failure to
“close the gap”, in other words these
policies have left a substantial minority
of aborigines living in very poor conditions in outback towns and remote
outstations with very high rates of violence, alcoholism and incarceration,
poor education, poor health and greatly
reduced life expectancy.
Nobody thinks this is good enough.
My proposed better
way forward
1. I put the view that the fundamental problem with aboriginal policy is that it exists in any
form whatsoever. I refer to
permanent, fixed policies. There is definitely a place for needs based, results
monitored and time limited affirmative action programmes for particular groups
of people some of whom could be aborigines, to help them make a transition from
a bad place in life to a better place.
So, my first proposal is that State, Territory and Federal
governments gradually wind back all policies, programmes and initiatives
directed at anybody on the basis of their claimed ethnic affiliation and
approve only initiatives based on proven need and subject to independent
evaluation as to effectiveness and terminated when no longer required. Ensure
that all support services are based on need not ethnicity and that recipients
have access to the best available depth and breadth of support
available.
Merge existing
aborigine-only services with mainstream services over a period of 15 years.
2. Clear the
public domain of magical thinking, vote NO to the Voice proposal and
make way for a more reasoned debate based on evidence.
3. Establish a Land Rights and Native Title
Commission with a tenure of 50 years to help resolve the many problems embedded
in current arrangements. In particular the problem that title to
land acquired under land rights legislation is held by a corporation and
provides individuals and families with no negotiable stake in the enterprise.
Post a date ten
years hence, after which no new land rights or native title claims will be
received.
4. Establish a transitional voluntary
affirmative action programme to enable people currently existing in the
purgatory of native outstations to move to locations where they can find a
better quality of life.
5. Repeal part 26
of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution which enables the Australian
Parliament to …. “make laws for the peace, order and good government
of the Commonwealth with respect to….the people of any race for whom it is
deemed necessary to make special laws…”
This was written
at the end of the 19th Century when it was thought there were
different “races” of humans. We now know there is only one species of humans.
6. Remove from the
national census the question asking people if they identify as Aborigine or
Torres Strait Islander. It is no longer usefully possible to determine who is
and who is not an aborigine and the question only feeds sectarian division in
Australian society.
Comment
Some people might
say my proposals are “radical”. Actually they are very much mainstream liberal
democratic in nature and entirely conservative.
I would hate to find myself living in a society which thinks that
regarding all individuals as having equal rights and responsibilities is some
kind of radical idea.
Even strident
Voice advocates agree with me, at least in part. Noel Pearson, recalling advice
from his mentor Yunupingu has offered the view that aborigines need to “become
part of the mainframe of society”. He has also repeatedly decried the
debilitating effect of welfare dependency in aboriginal communities.
Professor Megan
Davis has stated on the public record that “the majority of the money (for
aboriginal programmes) isn’t hitting the ground”. Unless a lot of people are
putting the money in their pockets it is presumably feeding the vast
bureaucracies which are supposed to administer the funds. One of these is the
NIAA which is said to have 1000 staff and a budget of $4Billion annually with
little to show for it in terms of outcomes.
Prof Davis makes no attempt to explain how she thinks the addition of
yet another bureaucracy will fix this problem.
Summary
The current state
of argument about the Voice proposal is entirely unproductive. In the absence
of any plausible rationale for the Voice, proponents have resorted to vilifying
opponents and trying to make ordinary Australians feel guilty should they think
of voting No. The Prime Minister has
stated that voting Yes is “just good manners” which I suspect will go down in
history as the silliest reason for major constitutional change that has ever
been offered.
I put the view
that further argument about the Voice will not advance the Australian polity in
any constructive fashion.
Most people on
both sides of the argument want to see a substantial change in aboriginal
policy. The Voice proposal is not that change. Proponents have presented no
case that the Voice might benefit anybody in any way.
I present the view
that the real substantial change which we need to make is to renounce any policy
directed at any person or group on the basis of their ethnic identification.
I recommend the
six point proposal above as the framework to guide a better way forward for all
Australians. The philosophical basis of this framework is equality.
About the author,
Andrew Smallman
I am 80 years old,
a retired psychiatrist. For many years I was Director of Sydney’s Northern
Beaches Mental Health Service. I have no political affiliation of any kind. In
retirement I have time to think about issues and to research them. The views
which I put forward are mine alone.
More of my
thoughts and comments about matters affecting Australians can be found on my
Thinking Australia blog at thinkingaboutaustralia.blogspot.com
