I really don't know what to make of "The Voice".
I wanted to know more about what the actual proposal is, but factual information is distinctly lacking.
"The Voice" is a measure proposed by the "Uluru Statement from the Heart", but an investigation of the statement web page reveals nothing in the way of mechanicals, schematics, or indeed any any information on what The Voice might look like or how it will work. Some vague information has been offered by Prime Minister Albanese, but again, this information has been unclear on concept, yet alone details.
I have no doubt that Mr Albanese and his Government are well-intentioned, and I truly believe that all Australians despair at the plight of our remote Aboriginal Communities in particular. Mr Albanese and a plethora of talking heads have indicated that The Voice is a step towards true reconciliation, justice, and improved life outcomes for those in the communities. So, naturally, the old heartstrings are tugging away and the default position for Yes vote. While voting Yes may make you feel virtuous, what are the real life percussions of a successful Yes vote?
The lack of details from the Government and Aboriginal lobby groups is concerning. I can't think of a time when we have been asked to risk so much and offer so much trust with so little information given. Mr Albanese is telling the voting Australian public to trust the Government to deliver an outcome that we all will embrace. Just vote YES and worry about the details later. But if you honestly trust the Government, and believe that they are capable of determining what is right and fair and just, then you haven't been paying attention over the last few years. Why are the details remaining hidden? I can only assume that means full implementation of the Uluru Statement? Unlike the truth behind the Covid response which is slowly emerging, we will never have the opportunity to hold those responsible for any failures with the voice. Once enshrined within our constitution, it is set in stone regardless of what public opinion may become at any time after enactment, or how corrupt, divisive or acidic The Voice may become.
Mr Albanese hasn't indicated to us just how the many voices of Aboriginal Australia will be heard. There are something like 350 traditional 'nations' of aboriginal people. How will each of them be represented by The Voice? Will there be a representative from each group reporting to The Voice? Will these representatives be meeting in Canberra (or some other location) to pass on and share their thoughts and opinions? If so, is this an additional house of parliament?
For the last several decades, Aboriginal activists have worked hard to bring their causes to every Australian. I think that they have done a good job with more and more people becoming aware of the Aboriginal people's wants and needs. I also believe that racism has declined significantly within my lifetime and any individual that wants to participate and contribute will always be given a fair go regardless of race or background. The Voice looks like it will undo all of this hard work by dividing our nation into two distinct classes of people, dependent upon your ancestry. The increase in unity that we have seen in recent times is destined to be destroyed by the establishment of a class of citizen with unprecedented privileges and rights not available to the rest of the population. I suspect... no, I am certain, that this will breed resentment and, regrettably, set reconciliation back 100 years.
Successive governments have all contributed generously towards Aboriginal causes, with the blessing and encouragement of the Australian taxpayer. Federal Government spending alone is approaching something like one billion dollars per week, and yet outcomes for our Aboriginal people are not improving.
It has been reported that National Indigenous Affairs employs more than 1,000 bureaucrats, and that there are over three thousand Aboriginal corporations providing services. No wonder that money is not being spent how and where it does the most good.
Clearly, the top-down approach of all of these corporations that has been happening for decades isn't working. A top-down approach never works in favor of the people. Successful organisations, ranging from independent nations, to bush school P&C associations are all bottom-up structures, where the people rule the "government", and any attempt to reverse that structure, (like we saw during Covid), leads to civil anger, unrest and revolt. Why should Aboriginal affairs be any different? The Voice looks like it will be a top-down and ultimate authority not just upon the Aboriginal people, but upon all Australians, with a group of 24 decision makers far removed from remote communities making decisions which affect those same communities, without any sign of input from the ground level, or any sign of democratic process.
The lack of details makes things very unclear, but one thing you can be guaranteed of is a massive increase of bureaucracy and size of government across all three levels, which will lead to further waste of money and resources, and, further alienation of those people who need the most help sooner.
For what I suspect is the majority of "Yes" supporters, the facts above are either not known, not believed or not acknowledged. They believe that a successful Yes vote will settle once and for all all of the conflict and frustrations surrounding Aboriginal claims. From what I can see, it will embed it permanently within our national psyche, perpetually funded by the taxpayers.
"No" proponents are arguing that it is wrong, at the most basic level, to place race class within our constitution. This will give one group of people a collection of rights that are denied to all other citizens. This flies directly in the face of the principals Liberal Democracy, and Christianity for that matter, on which our free and successful society has been built. We, Australians, live in a society where each individual is free to peruse their own destiny, where each person has the same rights and responsibilities as every other citizen, where one person has one vote regardless of their position or social stature. Regardless if your family has been Australian for ten minutes or ten thousand years. Regardless of your gender, sexuality, or political beliefs. A Yes vote is to deny these truths, and granting additional rights to a (around) 4% section of the community is sacrificing democracy to tribalism. And the social costs of that would be immense.
Historically, the most successful programs aiming to "close the gap" in Aboriginal communities are programs devised by the community themselves. For example, Fitzroy Crossing. Their self-imposed restrictions on alcohol resulted in "hospital presentations ... fallen from 85% down to below 20%, and alcohol-fuelled domestic violence incidents fell by 43%".
The Aboriginal population is around 4%. Currently in our Federal Parliament we have eleven or twelve representatives in the two houses that identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. This would indicate that the Aboriginal population is over-represented within our parliament. But many of these elected representatives don't seem to be listened to by the Albanese Government.
Two Northern Territory Senators, Senator McCarthy (Labor) and Senator Price (Country Liberals/Nationals), both Aboriginal women, pleaded for the reversal of the Government's decision to lift several restrictions in the Territory including alcohol. They warned that the results would be destructive, they were ignored, and it turns out they were correct. Why was the "voice" of these two women ignored? Why did the Government think that the opinion of city-dwelling Aboriginals was better than those that actually live in the affected communities? Will The Voice represent those in the bush, or just the city dwellers that are the main people pushing for a Yes vote? Just which Aboriginal voices will be represented by The Voice?
I don't know about you, but I'm sick of being told that I am personally responsible for the plight of a group of people that I have had very little contact with, or that their plight is a result of the actions of my grandfathers. Yet this is what we are being told daily, and also what our children are being taught in schools and universities.
It has become verboten to challenge the notion of "invasion". Or, indeed, to challenge the notion that we must accept that another group of people own the land that you live on, work on, play on, or even buried within. We are being continually told that the Australian Flag symbolises the oppression of Aboriginal people by cruel and brutal colonialists.
While most of the workings of The Voice are hidden, ambiguous, or simply unknown, some details have been leaked. Documents from the group preceding the Uluru Statement, released under the freedom of information act, says: ‘Any Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process,’ and that the Treaty must include ‘a fixed percentage of Gross National Product’. There is also mention of rates, land tax and royalties. There is no mention of what this treaty, rates, commissions will cost the taxpayer. You.
If Mr Albanese's proposal was to simply add a paragraph or two to the Constitution to formally acknowledge the Aboriginal and Torres Strait people as the original custodians of Australia, then the Yes vote would romp it in. I would vote yes to that. A singular Voice to Parliament under legislation would also be viewed favorably and would be a popular decision.
However, with so many questions unanswered, and so many questions still to be asked, and the risks being so high, I can't see how the proposal will get over the line.There's just too much at stake.
One last thing. The thought of dividing a people into groups, the haves and the have-nots, the cans and the cant's, the wealthy and the poor, or whatever deliniage you choose; during a time of high national debt, spiraling inflation, increasing taxes, increasing tyranny and declining democracy; class struggle and revolution... has a dreadfully familiar ring to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment