The indiginous voice should rank along side the voice of local government

With the Prime Minister confirming that the indigenous ‘One Voice’ referendum is set to happen this year, I though it is time for me to join the debate, if for no other reason that many of the ‘gap’ issues that exist in remote and regional communities can also be found in small rural towns, albeit on a much smaller scale.

Much has been written against the proposal for The Voice in the Australian by the likes of Janet Albrechtsen, Ian Callilan, Nic Cater, Peta Credlin, and Warren Mundine, who collectively point out that the risk of putting the voice in the constitution is akin to a great leap into the legal unknown.

Such a leap has happened before with the introduction of the Native Title Act which has over the ensuing years created a legal and bureaucratic mind field unimagined or quietly ignored by the original proponents, leading to decades of litigation, vast costs to the mining sector, rampant corporate governance failure of indiginous royatly recieving corporations, while having very little to show in addressing indigenous disadvantage.

Last week the leader of the opposition wrote to the Prime Minister listing 15 questions that needed to be answered to allow the community to make an informed decision on the voice.

1.?????Who will be eligible to serve on the body?

2.?????What are the prerequisites for nomination?

3.?????Will the government clarify the definition of Aboriginality to determine who can serve on the body?

4.?????How will members be elected, chosen or appointed?

5.?????How many people will make up the body?

6.?????How much will it cost taxpayers annually?

7.?????What are its functions and powers?

8.?????Is it purely advisory or will it have decision-making capabilities?

9.?????Who will oversee the body and ensure it is accountable?

10.??If needed, can the body be dissolved and reconstituted in extraordinary circumstances?

11.??How will the government ensure that the body includes those who still need to get a platform in Australian public life?

12.??How will it interact with the Closing of the Gap process?

13.??Will the government rule out using the Voice to negotiate a national treaty?

14.??Will the government commit to Local and Regional Voices as recommended in the report on the co-design process led by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton?

15.??If not, how will it effectively address the real issue that impact people's lives daily on the ground in the community?

The very fact that these questions needed to be asked after months of debate, raises suspicions that the government knows, that the more we know, the less we will like what we hear.

Far better for the government to let the cheer squad within the ABC, along with the usual suspects in the sporting and artistic world shout down anyone who attempts to ask such reasonable questions about what this will mean for Australian democracy and government decision making.

The one question that I want to focus on here is Question 15, 'how effective will be the voice be in addressing indigenous disadvantage'?

I suspect it will be completely ineffective, because as someone who has worked in the Kimberley for an aboriginal corporation and been around politics for far too many years, the one thing we don’t need is more voices pointing out the problems and calling for yet more government funding to solve problems where no amount of money will close th gap.

Rather, we need more politicians raising their voices and making uncomfortable speeches and making the point that families need to take responsibility for their kids, that the best welfare is a job, how people need to move to where the work is and more government is not the solution.

We need more courageous politicians and commentators like Mal Brough, Tony Abbott and Jacinta Price to come forward and articulate unpopular policy solutions that will break the endless cycle of poverty and violence in remote communities.

We need politicians brave enough to call for an end of the funding of unviable dysfunctional communities in the most remote parts of Australia, places that offer no jobs, no security, no governance, no private housing and worst of all, no hope.

These are the voices we need to hear from, not a constitutionally enshrined small group of elites, voted in by what I suspect will mostly be southern based, urban living, self identifying indigenous, people that have little to no connection to country, language or culture let alone the dysfunction that exists in all too many remote communities.

Just how representative will those few who make up the voice actually be when trying to select from a diverse mix of first nations people raises interesting questions of democracy, particularly when there are 229 Proscribed Native Title holding groups across the country.

How credible will they be if the turn out to vote site sits at levels similar to those of the old ATSIC which averaged just 23.56% across the 1993, 96 and 99 elections.

Where will the voice stand when put up against elected indigenous members of the House of Representatives or the Senate?

What about the voice of the various state governments who have most of the power when it comes to health, education and police, will we not need state based indigenous voice as well as one at the commonwealth level.

Or will we be happy having voices from other states tell our state government and taxpayers what to do??Should we not have voices at the local government level telling rate payers how council money should be spent, or is it enough, that local indigenous leaders can get close to local government service delivery by simply being elected to council??

It is not hard to predict what the voice will have to say about indigenous housing, welfare, health, education, safety, security, infrastructure etc, that is, all solutions lie with more government funding.

It’s unlikely the voice will be calling for more government intervention to take kids away from dysfunctional families, to end the lunacy of pouring yet more money into building public housing in communities where there are no jobs, or prioritising getting kids to school over funding more indigenous language classes.

Rather the voice will become the home for the firebrand indigenous wannabe politician, offering a seat at the table in Canberra on a package similar to MPs at $211,250 plus car and expenses plus the associated supporting bureaucracy.

The voice will be the go-to place for every news agency looking for a quick soundbite on a complex problem unlike asking government who have to make the hard decisions of balancing the costs and benefits.

If the government is serious about putting in place a ‘voice’ then they should take up respected former WA treasurer and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Ben Wyatts suggestion laid out in the Australian on 10 Jan 2023, Time for us to vote for legislation on a voice, calling for the establishment of a legislated rather than a constitutionally enshrined advisory committee based on representatives coming from the existing 229 native title body corporates.?

Such a committee would be similar to the Australian Council of Local Government which the Prime Minister recently announced he would reconvene, giving all 537 local council a legislated voice in Canberra.

Such a move would remove the legal uncertainty of a constitutionally enshrined voice, noting that even local governments are not recognised in the constitution, plus allow for bipartisan support.

It would support existing native title holding groups who have a direct link to their communities similar to how local governments are close to their communities, rather than attempting to draw new lines on maps to mark out new representative regions which incorporate aboriginal groups who may have little in common.

There is merit in having a Australian Council of Local Government working alongside a Australian Council of Native Title Body Corporates as two legislated bodies advising government on how to close the gap between regional Australia and mainstream Australia.

They would both be focused on policy development rather than political commentary, as is appropriate for legislated bodies.

If this is not good enough for the pro consititution supporters then why not elevate both bodies into the constitution.

I suspect such a move would see the resulting legal chaos send Australia into a constitutional crisis as critics of government devisions rush to the High Court to put a stop to anything they disapprove of.

A legislated voice is the appropriate way to ensure government gets the advice thinks it needs if it is not happy with our current representative system or the policy advice it can get from the bueacracy or private consulatnts.

If the proponents of the voice manage to convince Australians to vote to place it in the constitution then I suspect that like the 1967 referendum, the 1975 Whitlam hand back of part of Wave Hill station, the 1977 Land Rights Act, 1993 Native Title Act, the Redfern statement, Rudd’s apology, the Sydney Harbour Bridge walk or the Uluru statement, a constitutionally enshrined voice will be all symbol and produce little in the way of bridging the gap for the 100,000 indigenous Australians that live in the 500 or so remote communities where the bridge between the wealth, health, and lifespan gaps of mainstream Australia is the largest.