While the Sydney Anglican Synod voted last year urging that “church members to give generous consideration to the case to vote ‘Yes’ to the referendum question of whether the Constitution should establish a First Nations Voice, once the details have been made clear,” some Christians have decided to oppose it.
Academic Dr Stephen Chavura recently gave readers of the conservative Canberra Declaration website a list of ten reasons to oppose the proposed First Nations “voice” to parliament.
What would a more “generous consideration” look like?
Here is a reflection on his ten points, written to continue the gentle tone that Stephen helpfully brought to the topic.
- It’s premised on the lie that Indigenous Australians have no voice to our parliaments. Our state and federal governments all have Indigenous affairs ministers that regularly liaise with many Indigenous organisations. Don’t accept the lie. The first thing you say when someone asks if you support the voice is: “Of course, and Indigenous Australians have had direct voices to our parliaments for years.”
We have a record number of 11 Indigenous Australians in the federal parliament, and 26 in all our parliaments. But it may change at the next election. For example, Ken Wyatt was the first person to identify as Indigenous in the House of Representatives when he was elected in 2010. Senator Neville Bonnar was appointed to the Senate in 1971. When he was defeated in 1983 there was a gap in Indigenous representation until Aden Ridgeway of the Australian Democrats was elected in 1990.
The writers of the Uluru statement that called for the Voice, were well aware of this history of Indigenous MPs. They knew that direct election to parliament had occurred from Bonnar on. They may have been pleasantly surprised at the record crop in the 2022 election..
It is unlikely that the Federal Parliament won’t have any Indigenous representatives in the future.
But the make-up of Indigenous representatives won’t necessarily represent the Indigenous population of their state or region. Does Senator Lidia Thorpe represent all the indigenous people in Victoria, for example? Or, on the other side of politics, would a One Nation senator represent the first nations people in their state? - It’s racist. It assumes that all Indigenous Australians agree on everything and therefore their will can be expressed in a single voice. We’d never say that about other races.
The Voice will likely be elected, probably with 24 or more members, by community organisations with the method to be determined by Parliament. Australia’s elected bodies have never shown signs of all saying the same thing, and the Voice won’t be any different. First Nations have conservatives like Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and progressives like Senator Lidia Thorp. - There is not a shred of evidence or even argument to show that it will make any practical difference to Indigenous employment, health, educational, substance abuse, or domestic violence outcomes.
Strictly true. We are in prophecy territory. But it is a high bar to suggest that the Voice won’t come up with any worthwhile suggestions. The Senate helps refine laws, and holds useful inquiries. The Voice can do the same. - It’s a boondoggle — a pointless exercise designed for professional activists and academics who have little idea of how to address practical problems to be able to point to something and say: “This is what we’re doing.” As Ralph Wiggum would say: “I’m helping!”
Australians do elect a lot of activists, but not so many academics. But the Voice design, as proposed in the Marcia Langton/ Tony Calma plan, will ensure that people from the regions get to choose representatives. This is a key aspect of the Voice as envisioned in the Co-design report (led by Langton and Calma) presented to the Morrison government, is the building of strong links from communities to the national voice. If this report is followed, we can expect practical problems to be the focus of these local groups. - We really don’t know how it will work in practice, and people pointing to 750 pages of details without being able to summarise its workings in a few sentences is no help and shows that those 750 pages don’t tell us much about its operation.
Yes, the details are being left till later. Can I suggest reading the 272-page Langton/Calma report? It is very detailed, and the Albanese government will likely follow it closely. Chavura may have another report in mind. It has a 4-page summary beginning on page 16.
But setting the detailed operation of the Voice in stone in the constitution is not appropriate. We are voting on the principle of having a voice, and the parliament gets to set the details. This means it can be quickly changed, if the model needs to be fixed or an incoming government wants something different. - Discussion of the Voice has often led to a discussion of a separate and sovereign Indigenous nation in Australia — a Treaty. Indeed, this Voice is seen by many of its engineers as another step closer to two Australias. Two Australias will in reality be non-Indigenous Australians perpetually funding a failed Indigenous state.
Canada and New Zealand are two settler societies similar to ours with indigenous treaties. Neither is perfect, and the Inuit and Māori peoples campaign for the fuller implementation of their treaties.
A treaty will outline some demands from the Indigenous peoples. This can engender controversy and debate.
However, neither Canada and New Zealand have evolved into two-state societies. (Well, on the basis of their treaties with indigenous peoples, anyway. Canada suffered the Quebec separatist movement, which sought independence for the French-speaking province.)
Perhaps the failure to “close the gap” and the resulting low life expectancy, poverty and degradation Australia’s first peoples endure mean we already have a failed state.
Well, the solution to a failed state involves aid and the building up of governing structures with democratic legitimacy. Something like the Voice would be needed. - The so-called Voice will eventually turn into a perpetual call for a Treaty, a Treaty that Australians will never allow, which means the Voice will eventually merely stoke cynicism and resentment among younger Indigenous Australians. It will make social divisions and integration worse, not better.
Voice or not, the call for a Treaty is already here. It is likely that we will see a Treaty as a major policy difference between the Albanese Labor Government and The Dutton-led Coalition at the next federal election. The Australian people will get to decide.
The outcome may hinge on the experience in States that implement treaties such as Victoria.
- The Uluru Statement from the Heart disgracefully tells Indigenous Australians that they are powerless over their own lives and destinies unless there is this Voice. What a horrible thing to say to a whole generation of Aboriginal Australians. The Statement is thoughtless, lying, and destructive.
Some First Nations Australians such as Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price will agree with Chavura, and others, a majority, support the voice. Some on the left want a treaty first.
The Uluru statement does speak of First Nation’s powerlessness. It is worth quoting. “Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.
“These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.”
However the statement finishes with a statement that shows confidence in tFirst Nations agency. “In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.” - The Voice and Statement further entrench the idea of two separate and opposed nations, which will dissuade Indigenous Australians from integrating into mainstream Australian “colonist” (“white”) culture. But the only way the Gap will ever be closed is through more integration.
Consultation between Indigenous and settlers is a process that can help First Nations believe that their interests can be advanced through parliament. Justice Joe Williams New Zealand’s first Māori speaker appointed to the country’s Court of Appeal, said it this way: “Fundamentally, there is a need for a mindset shift away from the pervasive assumption that the Crown is Pākehā (Anglo-Celtic), English-speaking and distinct from Māori rather than representative of them. Increasingly, in the 21st century, the Crown is also Māori. If the nation is to move forward, this reality must be grasped.” https://theconversation.com/lessons-from-new-zealand-on-the-duty-to-consult-first-nations-106245
If Australia wants First Nation’s peoples to be more integrated – that is to feel part of the nation – making sure our nation is consulting and listening to them is essential. Alongside the elusive closing of the gap. The Voice is beginning. - We are never told what the Voice will say that has not already been said. If there is nothing new for it to say, why do we need it? If its advocates believe it will say something new and of practical benefit, why not just say it now?
As point 3 says, practical outcomes in practical difference to Indigenous employment, health, education, substance abuse, or domestic violence outcomes are a measure of whether the Voice is useful or not.
If we did not have these issues as a nation, the case for a Voice would be less urgent. But despite its name, the Voice is not about words but action.
In the future, closing the gap will be a fair test of the Voice’s effectiveness but also a test of the governmental response to what it says to parliament. At any election, effectiveness in closing the gap should be a key policy for Australians to weigh the merits of a political party.
And here’s a bonus point. - One word often used of relations between the First Nations and settler Australia is “reconciliation”.
That is an obvious borrowing from Christianity and one we should welcome. Covenant – or treaty – is another borrowing close to Christians’ hearts.
And maybe we can also claim the ‘truth” component of “voice, treaty truth” because we know that promises – covenant or treaty require truth telling.
So having bequeathed key concepts behind the voice/treaty/truth process, we Christians should -– as the Sydney Anglicans have said – give “generous consideration’ to the call for the voice.
Image Credit: David Jackmanson