Categories
The Voice to Parliament

Voice of hope and reason

May 5, 2023

Cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face is an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive reaction to a problem… a warning against acting out of anger, or revenge in such a way that it would only do more damage rather than help or heal a situation. This is how I feel honestly about our own Mob opposed to an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament.

The problem for many of our people is true reconciliation leaves no thrill of victory… they have become addicted to the fight and will never be satisfied with finding a resolution. You have to seriously question yourself when as an Aboriginal person you agree with the likes of Pauline Hanson, Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones, these people have never been our allies—extremism on both sides is motivated in ripping relationships apart and keeping our people separate from privileges that come with living in a developed world. A romantic ideology of justice that maintains trauma for many while privileged others find identity and a platform in their pain.

"You have to seriously question yourself when as an Aboriginal person you agree with the likes of Pauline Hanson, Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones, these people have never been our allies."

At Griffith University we run an ‘in conversation’ with Kerry O’Brien series. O’Brien, the former host of the 7.30 Report and Four Corners, winning six Walkley Awards for journalism during his career, interviews prominent Australians on contemporary issues of National significance. He recently interviewed acclaimed filmmaker Rachel Perkins who explained her motivation towards becoming a filmmaker was in being born to a people, who despite her famous father, had ‘no voice’ within ‘their own country’.

Perkins cited as motivation filmmaker Essie Coffey, ‘the Bush Queen of Brewarrina’, who left an indelible mark on Australian politics, arts, and culture. Another was Tracey Moffatt, a filmmaker and photographer, having held around 100 solo exhibitions of her work in Europe, the United States and Australia. There was also Lester Bostock, a Bundjalung man regarded as a pioneer of Indigenous media in Australia. Perkins explains how the silence broken by these pioneers awakened Australia to the brutality of its past in giving a voice to our people previously silenced and written out of history.

A voice that screamed injustice and spoke for the first time of the systematic massacres of Aboriginal people. Perkins speaking about how archeologists have since recorded a technique throughout Australia where Aboriginal bodies were dismembered into small pieces and burnt at great heat with bodies piled on top of each other in mass graves utilising fossil fuels to break down the bones and get rid of any evidence of the many massacres that took place.

Hearing this horrific personalised emotional account, Perkins was talking about her own family history of survival, makes you understand why so many non-Indigenous people are opposed to having an Aboriginal Voice. A Voice that derails the romantic tales of great white pioneers and free settlement. The Voice for Perkins became her time to “make a stand” and she became involved moving from observational filmmaker to a signatory to the Uluru Statement from the heart.

Rachel questions those within our own Mob opposed regarding the legitimacy of the process, stating that the Mob gathered in Uluru were a far greater number recorded for deliberations than for the Australian Constitution. She also cites the work done at a regional and then national level having thoroughly endorsed the process. Those who argue Treaty before Voice she answers calmly that the Voice remains a framework towards treaty…

Perkins describes the yes vote if successful will become a watershed moment, an event marking a unique and important historical change of course for this country… a turning point, an exact moment that changes the direction and most importantly, the way people think about themselves, their history and their country. She also says that finally our Black women from country will get representation to tell the country what they really feel about grog laws, funding for domestic violence, their culture and language.

Marcia Langton has been working with Tom Calma since 2017 to produce a report to the federal Coalition on a Voice to be legislated as an advisory body to parliament and government. For those who question the detail of the Voice together they produced a 272-page document that proposed local and regional voices feeding into a National Voice of 24 members.

The final report of the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process, commonly known as the Calma-Langton report, was submitted to the Coalition Federal Government in July 2021. It is now seen as the blueprint for the Voice, which under the Labor Government policy will be enshrined in the constitution if the nation votes yes.

Langton was present on March 23, when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the referendum wording, in Parliament House. Her reflection when asked by a reporter on the day was one that comes from a lifetime of research and advocacy, defiance, anger, frustration and sadness:

“Each one of us here has been involved in a major initiative. The royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody. The inquiry into the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their families. The Don Dale royal commission … and in each case, we have doggedly recommended changes to stop the deaths, the incarceration, the early deaths, and the miserable lives and it is so infrequently that our recommendations are adopted”.

She then added, “… and each year, people like you come along to listen to that misery-fest, and each year, people go away wringing their hands. We are here to draw a line in the sand and say this has to change.”

Noel Pearson has lashed the Liberal party for what he called “a Judas betrayal” over its opposition to the Voice referendum. Criticism continues to mount over the opposition leader’s decision, announced recently, to actively campaign against the Indigenous Voice and force his frontbench to do the same. The reaction from former minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt was to hand in his resignation in protest the decision. Mr Wyatt told the West Australian, “Aboriginal people are reaching out to be heard but the Liberals have rejected their invitation”.

Mr Wyatt, the first Aboriginal person to be elected to the federal House of Representatives, has long urged his Liberal colleagues to back the Voice before his resignation. He sits as a member of the Indigenous working group set up to advise the Albanese government on its referendum strategy and stood alongside the Prime Minister as he announced the wording for the proposed change to the constitution.

And finally, to those who argue that this is a form of apartheid classification based on race I say to you this is no argument about race this is about the correcting of the wrong side of our history and healing our future. This is not about race this is about geography, invasion and colonisation.

"... this is no argument about race this is about the correcting of the wrong side of our history and healing our future."

The Voice proposal recognises and acknowledges we were the first people here… and over tens of thousands of years we built the most sustainable eco-bio-diverse economy of any continent seen in the world.

The Voice recognises the tens and thousands of years behind these kinship practices and acknowledges our diversity and land management. It allows for the first time a western country to say invasion is wrong, genocide is wrong and just as with other dependencies built on our past such as fossil fuels and the move towards renewable energies this is a move towards sustainability and healing. This is a proposal allowing all Australians an inclusive future where we can all walk together and feel not only positive about who we are… but yes, even our past in healing our future.

This article was originally published in Koori Mail.

Author

Marcus WatersAssociate Professor Marcus Waters is the inaugural Dean Learning and Teaching (Indigenous) at Griffith University within the Office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Indigenous, Diversity and Inclusion), and a Convener of Open Learning, Sociology and Creative Writing. 

Share
Share
Share

You might also like

Categories
The Voice to Parliament

The Referendum Involves a Single Threshold Question

May 5, 2023

The forthcoming referendum requires each voter to make a choice. They must indicate yes they agree with the proposed constitutional change, or no they do not.

There is no other option. 

In addition, once the words of the proposed change are set by the referendum enabling legislation, there is only one question to answer. Voters have no opportunity to alter the proposal or to accept it in part. There is no other process on offer, no other solutions. It’s simply yes or no.

With the publicity and politicisation of the referendum and the proposed change, it can be difficult for ordinary voters to sort through the arguments. Many arguments are very technical. And many are politically partisan. Some statements have even been incorrect or misleading, and these incorrect statements are repeated in the mainstream media.

To assist voters to develop a basis for their vote, this post sets out the threshold question that needs to be answered in deciding whether to vote yes or no.

Threshold Question

Despite a lot of technical legal arguments about the effect of the constitutional change and the effect of the Voice as an institution, ordinary voters do not need to be conversant in these arguments. For a start, the nature of legal interpretation is all about canvassing possibilities. This often pits lawyers against each other in interpreting even the most straight forward provisions.

For everyone except specialist lawyers, engaging in legal technicalities does not really advance an understanding of which way to vote.

Instead, it is safe to assume that the law will be properly enacted to give effect to the change. In this case, the question is:

"Do you agree that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should have a say in matters that particularly affect them?"
The Yes Case

The yes case suggests that it is desirable for First Nations people to have a say in matters that affect them, and that the constitution should be changed to make this happen. Yes aims to provide recognition and visibility for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on matters particularly affecting them, while operating within the bounds of Australian constitutional norms.

This is seen as a question of justice based on the recognised status of Indigenous peoples as such.

The No Case

The no case, however, has two separate positions.

One no case does not want Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to have a say in matters that particularly affect them. Proponents of this position make a lot of specific arguments that they say support their case. These arguments suggest that there is no question of justice to be answered. But whatever the arguments, the answer to the threshold question for this group is that they simply do not want to see change.

The other no case is that the proposed amendments do not go far enough to achieve justice. Supporters of this argument seek far greater change than would be delivered by the referendum. They see the constitutional change as limiting the full expression of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ rights. And so they prefer to reject the change.

But the mechanism for change is set by the referendum. This is the process and the proposal that is on the table now. There is no other choice at this point. So for this group, no has the same effect as for all no arguments. There will be no change at all.

Importantly also, because to pass requires a majority of yes votes overall and a majority of yes states, failing to vote or failing to vote correctly will act as a no vote. It is incumbent on each voter to be informed, and to decide on the threshold question.

The yes case sits between the two no positions: one rejecting First Nations people having a say on matters particularly affecting them, and the other advocating for far greater change.

Voters’ Civic Duty

Because voters do not normally engage directly in law-making, we are offered only one chance to contribute to a threshold question. That is why the scope of the referendum question is actually quite narrow, leaving implementation up to normal parliamentary process.

The narrowness of the question means that voters need a way to process the complex arguments for each position, and focus just on the threshold question. Finding out more detail about what Parliament will enact is outside the power of each voter, and is a separate question to whether a voter accepts the threshold proposition. That is the way our system of governance is designed.

For voters, the threshold question is all that matters.

Selecting a response – yes or no – involves a matter of principle for each voter. It is our civic duty to inform ourselves of the accurate background to the proposition, and to make an informed choice.  Voters are asked to agree to create the means for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to make representations, or to refuse to change.

Author

Dr Kate GallowayDr Kate Galloway teaches and researches in property law and lawyering in contemporary global contexts. She is particularly interested in land tenure and land rights, reflecting her background as a property lawyer and in native title. Her work analyses how the dominant conception of property in land affects First Nations people in Australia, and the environment. Kate is an award-winning leader in legal education, specializing in curriculum, and is the editor-in-chief of the Legal Education Review.

Share
Share
Share

You might also like

Currency and Exchange

The risks and returns of cryptocurrencies

The cryptocurrency ecosystem continues to grow and attract more interest across the globe. It is becoming progressively intertwined with traditional financial markets, evidenced by a steady increase in the number of managed funds holding cryptocurrency assets on their balance sheets. FinTech expert Will Banks looks at the risks and returns.

Read more

Chatting about ChatGPT

In November 2022, the release of ChatGPT, a free-to-use chatbot based on GPT-3, brought powerful language models to the public. The educational sector faced a dilemma as the bot’s ability to assist in writing essays and passing exams sparked debates on whether to embrace or ban its use.

Read more
Australia seen from space

A Theory of Place

Griffith University’s Chancellor Andrew Fraser asks us to consider our our provenance. He asks us about place, posits questions of patriotism, of people with a fidelity, about loyalty, connection of place, and of belonging.

Read more