Some Thoughts on the Voice to Parliament

MetaSkill specialises in Conflict Leadership and Critical Thinking, so here are some thoughts on The Voice to Parliament. I haven’t been following the debate too closely as I have pretty settled views, but some things have jumped out from social media and headlines that seem to be persuasive and so are worth a considered response.

Is installing a voice to Parliament is divisive?

On the part of the authors of the Uluru Statement, it is hard to imagine a more considered approach. Some years in the making, tackling their issues head on, listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and then respectfully taking those requests to the parliament, who is taking them to the people in a referendum. There is no reason to think that the Australian people wouldn’t have got behind the statement or that the whole process wouldn’t initiate a unified healing movement between Indigenous and Non Indigenous Australian.? Hopefully this can still happen. Additionally, some of the major spokespeople for those who claim the Voice and referendum is divisive have form in stirring up division - think Children Overboard and the referendum for Australia to become a Republic. From a Conflict Leadership point of view, the proponents of the Uluru statement have carefully addressed an issue, followed a transparent and public process, listened carefully and offered to collaborate with the Australian people on a solution.

More on division

Marcia Langton was attacked for labelling No voters as ignorant and or racist.? This caused a week of massive headlines, a “deplorable” moment, the Yes voters apparently showing their true colours.? In fact she said that when she broke down the No arguments, she found racism or ignorance.? That is a very different thing.? In Conflict Leadership and Critical Thinking, we need to seperate out the personal from the issue in question.? Prof Langton did that and made a comment about the arguments being put forward.? The correct response would be to get her to defend that view, to get her to demonstrate the ignorance or the racism behind the arguments. Instead the reporting attributed to her a personal attack on her opponents.? This was a shocking misrepresentation designed to create division and give licence to anyone who wanted to make a personal attack on Prof Langton.? From a Critical thinking point of view it is dishonest, from a Machiavellian manipulate the conversation point of view,? it was devastatingly effective.

Is enshrining the Voice in parliament racist?

This comes up a lot. Locally it took the form of, “Simple question - Do you believe one group in our society should gave a special consideration based on its race?” Except that this simple question is deeply misleading as it carries the assumption that a Yes vote for the Voice is designed to confer a benefit on a group of Australians based on their race.? But that is not the? case.? If we are correcting an historical wrong, the benefit is being conferred on the descendants of the first inhabitants of Australia, benefits that would have been conferred if the early colonisers had followed their own Colonial Office rules. A bit of research is useful here.? I used to think “Always was, always will be Aboriginal Land” was just a slogan, but when I read about the resistance to colonisation, particularly by Pemulwuy around Sydney, and in particular the lengths that the officers off the NSW Corp went to to ensure that knowledge of the resistance was not reported to the Colonial Office, important aspects of our early history fell into place.? By not reporting the true situation to the Colonial Office, they were able to continue their land grabbing and were not required to negotiate any treaties or land sharing with the original inhabitants.? If Colonial Office rules had been in place, the Indigenous Australians would have gained a benefit not because of their race, but because of their rights.? That remains the case today in the opinion of many of us, just as we believe that land Rights was fair and just and we were right to not be fearful of losing our back yards. Perhaps the absurdity is more obvious is we imagine early settlers and colonisers as saying to the Aboriginal people, “We want to discuss land sharing arrangements with you not because we think you have any rights to that land, but rather we randomly looked at the races available and randomly chose you as the best recipient, for this benefit.”

Can we vote on something that is not defined?

This is a version of the Don’t Know, Vote No” slogan and on the face of it it is pretty reasonable. Personally I don’t think it is much of a problem.? My understanding is that the Voice is quite modestly enshrined? in? the Constitution, and the details will be decided by Parliament, and can be changed by Parliament, and you will get to vote? for its members every election. ? Closely defining it in the? Constitution I would see as more problematic as this proposal makes sure that the ultimate authority rests with Parliament, which is as it should be.? Constitutional experts who I respect see it as at least a very acceptable risk given the potential benefits.? And the reality is I couldn’t give you the details of any policy I voted for in recent elections.

Enshrining the Voice in parliament is some sort of scary precedent so vote No

I struggle to think of any direct effect the Voice would have on me other than feeling a little better about Australia and our collective determination to address a societal imbalance with respect to Indigenous Australians. Some of our tax money will be diverted to fund it, just as it was for nuclear powered submarines,? and yet we managed to get on with our lives.? Seriously - how will our lives change if we are not looking for something to be outraged about.? Disagree, sure, but be outraged about a country trying to do a bit better for probably the worst off group in our community?

It’s not fair

John Rawls in A Theory of Justice? developed a theory of justice as fairness, and argued that if we had to decide on the allocation of resources in our society, prior to knowing what our position in that society would be, one of the guiding principles would be that a benefit should only be allowed if it contributed to the bettering of the position of the worst off in that community. Given well known statistics about the health and incarceration levels of First Australians, I think? The Voice passes this test of fairness.

A lot of Indigenous Australian are against the Voice

Sure.? I am fortunate in that I have a lot of Aboriginal friends and colleagues and I don’t know any of them not voting for the Voice.? If you are looking for guidance away from the loudest voices, my advice is to find someone who on the basis of their known work and contribution will stand high in your esteem, and take your lead from them, see what they have written look up their public statements.? On this platform, I would check out Dr. Richard Franklin of Deakin University.? I have had the pleasure of working with him years ago.? Amongst other things, he did a lot of the research for the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, he has been making and sharing music forever, he has worked with other indigenous people around the world, he gives up time to help troubled young people….I could go on, but you won’t meet a better bloke - go and see what he has to say. Or find your equivalent amongst those recommending a No vote.

All the bad things happened so long ago

And this argument is often accompanied by the statement of “Why should I feel guilty for something that I personally had no part in?”? I agree with that, but I think we have room for a sense of shame, similar to my reaction to recent revelations about the conduct of the SAS in Afghanistan.? And shame is a positive emotion to the extent that it creates an impulse to do something about that for which we feel shame. ? I remember an American tourist asking me about the awful plight of many Aboriginal people in Australia.? I went through what we were trying to do, but his parting comment is what stayed with me - at least in Australia, as compared to his home country, it was an issue, it was being discussed and it was on the front pages of the newspapers.? He had little or no information about the plight of Indigenous people in his own country.? Feeling guilty isn’t going to get us anywhere, but if there is any aspect of the condition of Aboriginal Australians that might make us feel a bit of shame, well, with the Uluru statement, they have opened a door to what we might be able to do about it.? It might or might not work, but it is what they, with respect and consideration, have asked for

.

And how long ago was it really?? I think it can still be quite raw for many Aboriginal people, not just in terms of recent memory, as is the case with taking children away.? I had the privilege of meeting with Uncle Banjo Clark a number of times in the 1980s when I was working with incarcerated Aboriginal men and women.? He told me a story of when he was a young man leaving work in the abattoirs on a hot day and he saw an old woman trying to prune a tree.? He said something like, “Come on lady, it is too hot for this today, let me give you? a hand.” And he did the pruning for her.? She offered him a drink and then said that she was glad to see that there were still some of “you people “ around.? Her story was that she had come to the Western District of Victoria as an indentured servant, but she and another Jackaroo worker, at legal peril to themselves, had run away, disgusted by the killing of Aboriginal people that was regularly taking place and perpetrated by her employer and his colleagues. My realisation was that I had shaken the hand of someone who had shaken the hand of someone who was there when it was happening.? It is close enough for us to want to do something about it, and to take our guidance form respected First Nations Elders and spokespeople who have put so much of themselves into the Uluru statement.

Thanks to my granddaughters for their awesome YES art installation.

If anyone thinks that this post is a bit political for this platform, my justification is that I see it as a positive contribution to public debate which is at the core of the MetaSkill mission of enabling Conflict Leadership and improving the Critical Thinking skills of our clients.