Cate's Letter

'Cate's Letter' is the sort of thing that we need more of. A heartfelt and well-informed plea from one person to friends and relatives, to think clearly about the imminent referendum on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians. You are welcome to share it.

I've written the below because of all the misinformation and fearmongering circulating about the Voice. I just want to do my bit to encourage people to get informed if they're not informed.?It's way too long and not so polished but I hope you get to the end. xx

I’m writing because I believe?it will be devastating not only for our First Nations people but for all of Australia if the Voice proposal doesn't get through because of a no campaign that has done its upmost to fearmonger by spreading misinformation and confusion.?I have so much respect for Marcia Langton and Noel Pearson and see this as such a generous offering of a way forward following?a very dark history.?Stemming from the?Uluru Statement from the Heart?–?a consensus statement resulting from extensive consultation with hundreds of Indigenous leaders across the country – the proposal seeks meaningful recognition by giving our First Nations people a say about?policies and programs that impact their communities?through a Voice.?As Marcia says, in this referendum there are only two options: a yes vote that delivers recognition through a voice and all the hope and healing it represents; or a no vote that binds us more closely to a broken status quo – another turn of a cycle of poverty, disadvantage and disempowerment.?Consistent polling provides us with evidence that the Voice proposal is supported by the vast majority of Indigenous people, with over 80% of First Nations people calling for this practical change.

I am passionate about the Voice proposal because I've watched the paternalistic policies that have failed to improve the lives of First Nations peoples and which have been scrapped by successive governments over and over again. The Voice's proposal of an advisory body whose importance will lie in its ability to provide direct recommendations on how to better address this entrenched disadvantage just seems so logical to me and I am sickened by the 'If you don't know, vote no' campaign given we're talking about people's lives – the lives of the oldest living culture in the world. Despite Peter Dutton's pledge for a second costly referendum, constitutional recognition can't just be symbolic, it needs to be practical if we are to stop wasting money, close the gap and repeal the disadvantage.

I've attached a link to the?Yes123 website?and the?Liberals for yes website?which are informative as well as a?strategic planning document?prepared by the?First Nations Portfolio at The Australian National University (ANU) which responds to common concerns currently being raised about the Voice. It is intended to help people better understand some of the complex issues and confusing commentary that has surrounded the Voice proposal so they can make an informed decision when they vote in October's referendum.?Along with the websites, the document answers questions including

? Is the Voice a Third Chamber? Will the Voice delay Parliament or make governing more difficult?

? Why we need an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice when there are already elected Indigenous parliamentarians?

??Would a separate body for Indigenous Australians divide Australia based on race or give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people special rights?

??Why do we need to put the Voice in the Constitution?

? How can I vote for the Voice if I do not know what it will look like?

Many commentators have argued that a Voice will delay and frustrate Parliament and make government more difficult because the Parliament will have to wait to hear what the Voice says before it can pass laws. This is simply untrue.?The Voice is not a Third Chamber of Parliament, it will not be able to make laws to decide how funding is spent or decide anything other than what advice it would give to parliament. Equally, it?will have no ability to delay or frustrate Parliament. As former High Court judge Kenneth Hayne has said, the Voice 'will not impede the ordinary working of government'.?The Voice will simply be able to make representations to Parliament and the government while Parliament retains complete control over its own procedures. Parliament can also amend legislation and adjust processes if it believes the relationship between the Voice and other institutions of government is not working appropriately.

?Of the top?20 businesses listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), 70% have?thrown their support behind the Yes vote, with?14 businesses?(including the big banks, Transurban and resources giants BHP, Rio Tinto and Newcrest)?in favour of the constitutional change through the Voice.?None of the top 20 firms have backed the No campaign, with the remaining seven taking a neutral stance by refusing to back either side. I don't believe any of these companies would back the Voice if it was going to be a Third Chamber of Parliament.

Malcolm Turnbull changed his view in support of the Voice when he saw that the Voice as proposed by Anthony Albanese won't be a third chamber.?Despite pressures from the no campaign, many moderate members of the liberal party who support the Voice are trying to get the message across with their?liberalsforyes.com.au?campaign mentioned above. Kate Carnell, Julie Bishop, Malcolm Fraser, Malcolm Turnbull, Jeremy Rockcliff, Julian Lesser, Mark Speakman,?Bridget Archer to name a few.?They pledge that voting 'Yes for recognition through a Voice will be a positive expression of empowerment and national unity. It will acknowledge the desire for Indigenous people to be accountable to themselves and their communities, and to their fellow Australians who voted Yes and put their faith in them.' They state how the Voice captures the essence of liberal values –?taking personal responsibility for outcomes, getting value for taxpayer dollars, not repeating past failed approaches, and helping people be the best they can be – and acknowledges?that 'the?current model of stop-start policy making and ad-hoc consultation in Indigenous Affairs is costly, inefficient and in many cases, ineffective, leaving Indigenous people marginalised and the broader community disheartened.' 'A?Constitutional guarantee will ensure the Voice has the longevity it needs to exist beyond election cycles, and make a practical difference by addressing the challenges in local communities.'

?

Liberal ‘Yes’ supporters threatened with losing preselection

The leader of the Liberals for Yes organisation says party members have told her they are being threatened with losing preselection if they campaign in favour of voting ‘Yes’ at the referendum.

www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au

?

As prior Chief of Justice of the High Court Robert French has noted, the Voice is 'high return against low risk', because it will 'provide a practical opportunity for First Peoples to give informed and coherent and reliable advice to the Parliament and the Executive to assist them in law and policy making in one of the most difficult areas of contemporary government'.?A huge amount of work has?been undertaken, by both Labour and Liberal Governments, to inform the composition, functions, powers, and procedures of the final Voice model. You can?read the?Indigenous Voice Co-Design Process Final Report here?which provides more details on the proposed model.?

[... I have redacted a paragraph here relating to misinformation, bias of the media, and the power of the Murdoch Press. It referred to this article by Malcolm Turnbull and Sharon Burrows.]

Then there were multiple media reports?yesterday claiming that No campaign volunteers are being instructed?to use fear and doubt rather than facts to trump arguments used by the Yes camp.?The Age?and other media outlets reported that in an online training session, former ACT Liberal staffer Chris Inglis instructed volunteers – as they call thousands of persuadable voters – to not identify themselves as No campaigners upfront but instead to raise reports of financial compensation to Indigenous Australians if the Voice referendum were to succeed. There was also the?fake letter?sent in relation to the Victorian treaty, scaremongering about Indigenous land claims by deceptively telling landholders to seek legal advice to protect their properties from re-acquisition by Aboriginal traditional owner groups. Dylan Clarke, a Wotjobaluk man who the letter claims to have been written by, said 'the lies in this letter are designed to depict us as something to be afraid of. It's real coming after your backyard 'bullshit'. We're trying to have constructive conversations in the community and someone is going to extraordinary lengths to poison the goodwill and scare people about all the positive things we can achieve together.'?The Voice is not about compensation or land acquisition, it's an advisory body. The same fearmongering?about land claims and compensation circulated in the leadup to Kevin Rudd's apology.

I wasn't going to write about the history but it draws attention to the intergenerational trauma and the causes of the entrenched disadvantage and highlights why the role of a Voice is so important. I think most people are now aware about the?widespread massacres of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples throughout Australia, the dispossession, the racism and the white Australia policies which lead to the stolen generation – the forcible and systemic removal of Aboriginal children from their families, their communities and their culture from the mid 1800s right up until the 1970s, many never to be returned. A less known but equally insidious white Australia policy?that also inflicted tremendous harm across many generations was a policy called Aboriginal Exemption. Before the?1967 referendum, most Indigenous Australians were classed as wards of the state and lived on reserves or ‘missions’. One way to escape this oppression was (for the lighter skinned Aboriginal people) to apply for exemption to live independently.?Exemption promised to keep children safe away from welfare, it promised access to education, health services, housing, employment, and public venues such as swimming pools and pubs, but achieving and keeping exemption was extremely difficult and far from just. It meant not associating with Aboriginal people, it meant only speaking English and it meant police regularly knocking on your door to check?the cleanliness of your kitchen.?Aboriginal people both despised and supported exemption. Many called the certificate a ‘dog licence’, or?‘beer tickets’?and refused to apply for one, while others saw the potential benefits and accepted the hefty personal cost of compliance and carried a card that held shameful connotations.

I draw attention to all of the above to reinforce what a generous proposal the Voice is?– a proposal that I hope people will realise before the referendum?on October 14?as representing low risk for high return. All I ask is that if you're not informed, please make yourselves informed and encourage others to get informed. There is too much at stake here to not put the time in.?We have so much to gain from our?First Nations people, from their rich culture and their reciprocal and interconnected relationship with the land, and they?have invited us to walk with them in a movement of the Australian people for a better future. Non-Indigenous Australia will determine whether we will walk that path and as?Pat Lewis has put it, 'have a read, have a think and you'll likely find it is at the absolute minimum, a step in the right direction.'