Behind The Spin on

I'd certainly be voting YES in the upcoming referendum on The Voice - if I identified as a First Nations Person. Why wouldn't I?

I'd proudly back my own team all the way. Sure, we're the underdogs, but we're used to that. The odds are against us winning are high, but that only makes me more passionate in supporting those of us brave enough to take to the field in our name. It takes courage to fight the heavyweights. We're used to being ignored or abused, to be written off as a bunch of dysfunctionals that couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. We're used to being laughed at, or patronised, when we discuss our plans for the future.

Yes, non-indigenous Australians see us as an ancient culture with deep and ancient traditions rooted in a love of nature and the land. And that's nice. But many of those same people see us as primitive mobs who lack both the wherewithal and drive to make a successful transition into 'the modern world'. They're not comfortable our living standards are so low and unemployment, alcohol and drug use, domestic truancy and domestic violence rates so high. It reflects badly on the Country's image-and their quality of life by way of car theft, property damage and street violence. And while most are sympathetic to our plight (in that they are happy to provide 'welfare' to help alleviate the worst of these seemingly intractable problems) they also find it somewhat embarrassing to have such 'problems' in their communities.

As a First Nations person I know the horrible things that happened to my people after the Invasion. The stealing of land, the wars of extermination, the huge number of deaths caused by diseases whites brought with them, the murders, economic exploitation, the ‘stolen' children and their institutional abuse - topped off by the indignity of not being afforded the vote until 1962.

No wonder we were broken. No wonder our cultures crumbled. No wonder our men lost self-respect as they lost their traditional roles to become reliant on welfare for income and grog to numb the pain. No wonder all sorts of problems surfaced after the glues that held our families and communities dissolved.

We have reasons to fight back, to regain our place in the sun - and I'll lend my support to anything that moves us in that direction, including The Voice. It may or may not be a good idea, it may lead to worthwhile improvements or be proved a waste of time. I don't know if there are better ways for my people to achieve the equality we seek. All I know is that I must back the team that runs onto the field wearing our colours. I'd feel a traitor to do otherwise.

How would I, as a non-indigenous Australian, vote in referendum on The Voice?

It depends if I was voting with my heart or head.

If I were to vote with my heart, I'd vote YES. I want to see our First Nations Peoples advance to lift their living standards and life experiences with the help (that is support) of non- indigenous Australians - and I'd like to see that happen sooner than later.

The more 'we' (meaning Indigenous groups, political parties, governments - Federal, State and Territory - and the attendant host of relevant bureaucracies and lobby groups) waste time arguing about who’s responsible for what, the less likely we are to save future generations of Indigenous youth from deprivations and wounds that have plagued FNP since the establishment of the first British penal colonies. We've wasted generations circling around 'the problem' without achieving much by way of concrete progress. It’s time to break that destructive cycle of pursuing virtuous goals and then, repeatedly, failing to achieve them.

Personally, I think The Voice is a flawed vehicle for delivering concrete results that would be both fair to First Nations Peoples and affordable to the taxpayers who will fund them. The reasons for reaching that conclusion are presented later on.

Notwithstanding these reservations, I don't want to do anything to further disappoint, dispirit, depress or demotivate FNP from pressing forward. Consequently, if they agree that The Voice is their preferred way forward I'm heart-bound to support The Voice.

My head reaches a different conclusion.

The 2023 Voice is not, power wise, as strong as its predecessor (ATSIC). ATSIC was judged a failure by The Howard Government (and backed by the Labor Opposition) disbanded in 2005. Given that, why would you expect an 'advisory only' Voice to be able to achieve more? I don't.

Furthermore, I think that because the new Voice will not be responsible for programmes (their details, implementation funding ...or their success or failure) they'll have few constraints on making unrealistic demands. As a taxpayer funded lobby group for Indigenous people (which is essentially what The Voice would be) it will have to keep on visibly and loudly pressing governments to do more, better, to prove to Indigenous populations that it deserves their ongoing support. That need to forever 'complain ' could easily trigger a backlash reaction from taxpaying Australians along the lines of 'they'll never be happy no matter how much they get'. If that happens division, not harmony, is the most likely outcome. The threshold for such a backlash will be quickly reached if the third element of The Uluṟu Statement from the Heart, Treaty, is also judged to be excessively demanding in terms of reparations for the past and/or FNP privileges extending into the future.

Australians will not, and should not, accept any group demanding special, inherited, immutable rights born of ethnicity, race or culture. All of us, as citizens of the one country, have equal rights. If that principal is violated we won't and can't have a multicultural democracy.

There are more pragmatic reasons for believing The Voice is not the best strategy forward. It will be but one more voice amongst many, many Indigenous voices. There's no dearth of Indigenous voices that make the claim that they speak for their mob much better than any Canberra elite of sophisticates ever could. The paper, legalistic, treaty way of working is not theirs. That's the white-fella way of doing things, a way that many Indigenous communities find alienating. Overarching treaties aren't what they're looking for. They don't see themselves as one nation. They are many nations, tribes and mobs who, understandably, want to follow their local elders and leaders in setting their own priorities and doing things in ways that express their particular culture. Why should they delegate their tribal rights to a non-elected body that has but scant awareness of how they live and what they aspire to?

The future of local, and especially remote, communities lies in empowering local leaders and their people to increasingly set their own goals, to design programmes as to how to best achieve those goals, to manage and staff those operations - and be responsible for the success or failure of their initiatives (knowing that they'll be supported to try again when failures, inevitably, occur). The 'cargo-cult' solutions of providing ever more welfare and/or fostering ever greater reliance on 'outside' government agencies coming in to provide services, only serves to sap a people's will and their ability to determine their own future. These old, repeatedly tried 'solutions' don't aid the much needed move toward 'self- determination'. They're impediments. They foster the growth of dependency.

An advisory Voice to Federal Parliament operating within the Canberra Bubble belongs in the 'old ways' bag of tricks. Been there, done that, doesn't work.

Instead of more of the same with a twist, we need fresh on-ground approaches. Approaches that see government agencies recommissioned to enthusiastically work with Indigenous communities, not to do things for them as if they were incapables or to police them when they break the law. The quid pro quo from the Indigenous side is to demonstrate a willingness to engage and work to improve things from within - to stop chanting "they oughta fix it" as if they had no responsibility to do anything beyond insisting that 'the government' act. Action, cooperative action, is required from both sides.

The latter on-ground, customised, cooperative offers greater chances of success than what's been tried in the past. Yes, it's a harder strategy to follow. It won't be easy. It will test how serious we are as a nation to do the right thing.

I'd like to see us try the harder path because I'm pretty sure an advisory voice is bound to fall short. That it won't deliver to expectations, indeed it will probably exacerbate divisions rather than heal them. That’s what my head says. My head and heart are in a Gordian's knot that I can't unravel. I’d prefer to be voting YES for a more convincing proposition.

I can't understand why anyone (excepting the deplorables) would vote against this generous invitation from First Nations Peoples to walk together with them, in harmony, to build a better Australia. Why would you say NO?

As a non-indigenous Australian (and one of Anglo Celtic stock) I'm uncomfortably aware that the British colonised this land to the great detriment of its Indigenous Peoples who'd lived here for tens of thousands of years.

The diseases our forebears brought killed many. Because the settlers (and later gold miners) wanted land, the best land, for themselves they pushed native people out of their tribal areas into marginal country. They often did that by force, sometimes by murder.

Where Aboriginals survived we used them as cheap labour. Overall, we behaved as the 'superior' race by denigrating theirs - and classifying both them and their cultures as primitive. The conditions they lived in, whites asserted, 'proved' these primitives would never be capable of adapting to live in the modern world.

To 'save' their children from squalor and ignorance we took them away from their families to be ‘properly’ raised in government institutions, religious establishments and white foster homes. We sought to replace their ways with ours.

The wounds inflicted in the past haven't healed. They still manifest in poor health, low longevity, high school absenteeism, chronic disease, domestic violence and unemployment statistics. The gaps are wide. Only a few are narrowing even though billions have been spent on improvement programmes.

Some call this the ' black armband' view of history, claiming it is an excessively negative interpretation. I don't agree. We have a lot to atone for. That's one reason I'm pro Voice.

There's another.

I think lots of Australians discount the many, valuable lessons these ancient cultures have to teach us about the meaning of life, how to live in harmony with nature and how to look after the land in ways only ancient cultures can do .The oldest ,continuous culture on earth has a spiritual depth that we in the West have lost - a depth we need to rediscover. That’s the other reason I'm voting 'yes. We can learn a lot to our advantage by listening to their stories.

I don't listen to all the political carping. I don't need to hear all the details, the talk about costs or the legal debates about the consequences of tweeting things one way or another. I avoid all the angry name-calling and vicious personal attacks because they are the opposite, the enemies, of harmony. All those things are secondary issues as far as I'm concerned, mere incidentals.

This is a moral issue, a plea for justice. To refuse that plea would be an ethically wrong. It’s time we did the right thing. First Nation Peoples have extended their hand out, we should clasp and shake it. I intend to do just that.

A big lot of people think it's crass to talk about money-until they realise it's their money that's being talked about. Governments use taxpayer monies, our money (yours and mine), to pay for the programmes they promise.

Unless you're lucky enough to be filthy rich you have to manage your budget, set priorities and see what pans out to be good or poor value for money. It's the responsible thing to do. Governments share that same responsibility. And it's we voters who must hold them to account to ensure they spend wisely and well.

At the moment Federal, State and Territory governments spend about twice as much (per capita) on Indigenous people as they do on non-indigenous Australians. All up, somewhere between $35 and $40 billion a year is spent on welfare/safety net payments, closing the gap programmes, native title agreements, policing and incarceration costs. That’s a huge amount of money to spend to support 3.8% of the population.

In spite of all that money being spent, year after year, things are not improving for Indigenous Australians. In many areas they're deteriorating. The Productivity Commission's 2023 Report attests to that - as does the media's recent coverage of happenings in Alice Springs and other not so remote communities.

Clearly the 'throw more money at it 'strategy isn't working. Lack of money isn't the main problem. How well that money is being spent - and how Indigenous peoples use it - are where we need to look for answers as to how we might improve things.

These are messy areas to investigate because they involve addressing such sensitive issues as welfare dependency (and it's corrosive effects), evaluating the appropriateness of closing the gap programmes (both in design and implementation) and assessing how well (or otherwise) state bureaucracies cooperate with each other to deliver tangible results.

All those involved in the delivery process would prefer to let sleeping dogs lie for fear of exposing their weakness.

What's all this to do with The Voice? A lot.

The Voice would be yet one more 'advisory' lobby group for Indigenous Peoples; one of the many hundreds that already exist all over the Country. There is no shortage of such advisory bodies that, arguably, are better equipped to represent the needs of the local tribes and nations than any centralised body playing the political game within the Canberra Bubble.

Why should taxpayers fund yet another, very expensive, advisory group in Canberra when Parliament already has a whole government Department (the NIAA of over 1200 people) to do just that? That the States are developing their own Voice, Truth Telling and Treaty processes further weakens the case for duplicating things at the National level.

We've been down this path before with ATSIC. It didn't work. Why would this reincarnation fare better?

If we really want to improve the living standards and life experiences of FNP we need to get real and develop ways to work with and support Indigenous community leaders, on ground; to help them manage their own affairs, their way in line with their priorities and cultural mores.

More symbolism, nostalgia, virtuous talk, blame-gaming, High Court challenges and fluffing around aren't going to change the status quo. That's the lesson the past has taught us.

The time has come for both sides to adopt new, more pragmatic strategies that actually achieve results. It's going to be a lot harder to do that than continue as normal, nonetheless it's the only way ahead. The Voice would be but a sideshow in that new strategy.