Indigenous Voice to the Australian Parliament. Why it is a really bad idea and a proposal for a better way.

 

Author Andrew Smallman, concerned Australian citizen.  4 August 2023

This week we have seen the sorry spectacle of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Aboriginal Australians twisting and turning on the hook of their own device trying to explain how the Indigenous Voice to Parliament does and at the same time does not presage agreement making, as stated in the Uluru Statement, or treaty making as it is often described. 

It might be tempting for advocates of the No case to enjoy a frisson of schadenfreude as they gleefully watch the Yes case drowning in its own collective ineptitude.

But issues relating to the proposed Voice and to the whole body of aboriginal policy in Australia are too important to be lost in the one-upmanship, personal abuse  and points scoring which have featured prominently in the debate thus far. The lives and welfare of many real people are going to be affected by the outcome of the referendum.

What follows is a short form summary of material  which I have presented in longer form previously on this blog.

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

Australians are overwhelmingly concerned for the welfare and quality of life of those among us who are doing it tough for whatever reason.  Aborigines have historically been displaced from their lands and discriminated against by not-aborigines.

If we look at this from a philosophical and ideological perspective we can propose that broadly speaking there are two possible responses to this situation.

The first is based on the equality  paradigm. As a society we work towards policies and actions which assist people in need regardless of their ethnic origins or affiliations, religion, colour or recency of citizenship. We acknowledge that many Australians have come from a very difficult background including many immigrants.

Our main social welfare programmes including such things as the aged pension, unemployment and sickness benefits and the national disability insurance scheme are based on this paradigm.   

The second type of response is based on the notion of sectarian policies.  This approach tries to identify people in need by ethnic affiliation. Since the 1967 referendum this is the approach we have used in Australia with respect to aborigines.

This approach has failed. As aboriginal activists repeatedly point out we as a nation are not “closing the gap”. In other words there remains a significant minority (about 20%) of the aboriginal population of Australia who are still living in conditions most Australians would not accept for one day.

The reason this approach has failed is that it actively promotes separationism and special provisions.  These interventions generate fiefdoms run by indigenous elites, welfare dependency and the debility of entitlement.

This approach has generated a massive aboriginal welfare industry estimated by many commentators to cost about 30 Billion dollars per year. Despite  or more likely in my view because of this,  “closing the gap” remains an elusive prospect.

We must understand that aboriginal elites require an underclass of disadvantaged aborigines to remain in place so as to provide a platform from which their polemic can be proclaimed.

The indigenous Voice to parliament is yet another in a long line of failed policy initiatives based on the doctrine that aborigines require special provisions, for which not one scrap of independently verified evidence has ever been produced. In fact such evidence as we have all points the other way. Urbanised aborigines (the majority) who attend generic services have a better quality of life than those inoutback and emote areas who attend aboriginal services.

If the Voice is not the way forward, what is ?

Conceptually the approach which I propose is straightforward. It is based on the concept of equality as the driving force for progress for all Australians regardless of ethnicity or other characteristic.

Almost everybody is in furious agreement that current aboriginal policy to date has failed as evidenced by failure to close the gap.

Many aboriginal activists including Prof Megan Davis have pointed out that the bulk of taxpayer funds intended for aboriginal welfare programmes actually end up servicing the bloated bureaucracy which is supposed to be managing the funds.

Noel Pearson in an address to the Centre for Cultural Competence (whatever that might be) at the University of Sydney this year referenced his mentor Yunupingu in proposing that the way forward for aborigines is for them to “become part of the main frame”.

All right then. When I put these pieces together this is my suggested way forward.

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

2. Ensure that all support services are based on need and that recipients have access to the best available depth and breadth of support available.   Defund benefits and programmes offered to people simply because they are or claim to be aborigines but who do not otherwise demonstrate a need for special benefits.   Merge existing aborigine-only services with mainstream services over a period of 15 years.

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

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

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

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

6. Remove from the Census form the question asking people if they identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.  It is no longer usefully possible to determine who is and who is not an aborigine and  the question  serves only to increase sectarian divisions in Australian society.

End of presentation.