Why I am a passionate ‘yes’ voter for the voice

“Why are you so passionate about the voice?” a reverend reader asked me. It was a genuine question. This article won’t canvass all the reasons someone might choose to support the voice but is aimed at Christians who feel stuck and need to hear a relatively conservative case for the voice.

1. Because of the gap

To support the Voice, a body that will make representations to the government, but which can’t insist on being consulted, we don’t have to take on sins of the past generations.

Indigenous and non-indigenous Australians have strong views on the history of our country. But it is not necessary to have a particular view about our history to support the voice. It is enough to look at the present reality of First Nations people and the gap between their life experiences and the general population of Australia.

Here are a few of the gap measures from the productivity commission website

Close the Gap in life expectancy within a generation, by 2031.

Nationally, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander males born in 2015–2017 are expected to live to 71.6 years and females to 75.6 years, and non-Indigenous males and females to 80.2 years and 83.4 years respectively (figure CtG1.1)./

Between 2005–2007 and 2015–2017, the gap in life expectancy narrowed for males (from 11.4 years to 8.6 years) and for females (from 9.6 years to 7.8 years). Nationally, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander males born in 2015–2017 are expected to live to 71.6 years and females to 75.6 years, and non-Indigenous males and females to 80.2 years and 83.4 years, respectively.

Nationally, based on progress from the baseline, the target shows improvement but is not on track to be met for males or females.

 By 2031, increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander babies with a healthy birthweight to 91 per cent.

Nationally in 2020, 89.0 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander babies born were of a healthy birthweight (figure CtG2.1).

The 2020 proportion is below the previous year (89.5 per cent in 2019) but it is an increase from 88.8 per cent in 2017 (the baseline year).

By 2031, increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (age 20-24) attaining year 12 or equivalent qualification to 96 per cent.

Nationally in 2021, 68.1 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 20–24 years had attained Year 12 or equivalent qualification (figure CtG5.1).

This is an increase from 63.2 per cent in 2016 (the baseline year).

2. We have not been good at listening to First Nations people.

Ken Wyatt, the Indigenous Affairs minister in the Morrison Government, told The Australian that while many other groups are consulted, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups miss out.

 “Mr Wyatt said he looked at how many Indigenous organisations or communities were consulted on legislation that was valid and important to them in the first half of last year when the Coalition was in power. At the time, Mr Wyatt was Indigenous Australians minister trying to implement a proposed model for the voice.

“On amendments to social services laws, carers were consulted but no Indigenous people or groups. Amendments to the Religious Discrimination Bill had input from “many many groups, but not Indigenous people whose Dreaming is their religion and their faith and their belief of our country and our nation and our origins”.

“Mr Wyatt said 20 groups were able to offer their views on the Morrison government’s amendments to Centrelink rules affecting families before those amendments went to cabinet but, again, no ­Aboriginal people were consulted.

“He said no Aboriginal groups were consulted before the ­Coalition made changes to the bill on subsidised prescription medicine “and yet everybody else was able to provide input to the minister at the time before it went to the partyroom”.

The great silence: In addition, it is worth remembering that the Howard government closed ATSIC, a national consultative body, that was in need of reform but left the First Nation’s people without a mechanism to talk to the government. The Abbott government closed a similar body. This is why the Uluru statement calls for a body to be in the constitution, although the parliament can determine its size, shape and detailed function.

In Telling Tennant’s Story, Dean Ashenden tells the story of “the great Silence” the mmissing part of Australian history that wasn’t talked about in Tennant Creek when he was a boy. The town’s own history was not talked about. At school – the school where Ashenden was a teacher – he taught my twin – we learned all about the explorers and every dot on the map of white settlement but nothing of the aboriginal history of our state. There was huge silence. Australians need to learn the First Nation’s story from them, and also their needs and desires.

3. Yes, there is an Aboriginal Industry.

But most of the bureaucrats are white. We need a mechanism to tell if the money is well spent, with regional and local voices reporting from the ground. This is especially true of the NT government and states with outback communities. We need a voice, or rather voices, local regional and national.

4. Because the Aboriginal population have asked for it.

After a careful process over many years with much internal consultation, the First Nations people called for the Voice in the Ulhuru statement. It is a mild proposal, with only the right to make representations. The most the high court will do is ask for the representations to have been read and considered. Yes, there are outlier First Nation’s people who don’t agree. Every community has outliers. They should be heard too, of course.

5. What about the wording?

As the conservative commentator Chris Kenny reports “What matters is how the proposed wording will withstand any challenges and what the outcomes might be. This has been addressed by no less than former High Court Chief Justice Robert French, who notes the risk of challenges is low but cannot be described as non-existent. French explains that if challenges succeed they could compel executive decision-makers only “to consider a representation”, adding that this is a “far cry from being required to comply with the proposals or advice contained in the representation”.

Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue provided similar advice to parliament, saying the function of “making representations will not fetter or impede the existing powers” of executive government and that there would be no obligation on government to follow any representations, nor any need to consult the voice before making decisions.

6. The biggest risk

Let’s imagine the worst-case scenario. The government will need a mechanism to make sure the Voice’s representations are read, and a record is kept. This is as far as the most extreme court action will be able to enforce. As Kenny observes, “It strikes me that the best conservative argument against the voice is that it adds to the size, reach and complexity of government – the potential for more unwieldy bureaucracy is the risk I wrestled with most before concluding the potential benefits for practical reconciliation greatly outweighed these downsides.”