The Indigenous Voice to Parliament: isn’t something better than nothing?

Stephen Ransom writes: Nothing that any government has tried has ever worked as advertised (“The Indigenous Voice to Parliament is born out of white appeasement, not Black ambition”). If, as a society, we accept failure and stop trying then we would still be in the Dark Ages.

Of course, claiming failure up-front for the referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament does provide an ego boost for the ones encouraging the failure. However, to be practical, the evidence suggests that (coming from the same source) this referendum (probably) won’t succeed (initially) either. I imagine there will be numerous articles on the infighting from special interest groups — thus “proving” the dysfunctionality of the design. But the difference here is twofold.

One: the advice that does come from the Voice will be public, so while the recipient entity has the power to ignore it (it’s only advice), they will be under pressure to explain the rejection. So the mere existence of the Voice forces a de facto open negotiation.

Two: this is a little trickier. As a systems analyst, what jumped out at me is that the structure of the Voice is set by Parliament (the same group that has always failed) and the Voice can provide input to Parliament. Put those two together and you have a mechanism for the Voice to change itself to eventually become something that does work. So iterative change and maybe, just maybe, after three or four iterations the Voice will evolve into something that actually does work.

Neil Halliday writes: In Benjamin Abbatangelo’s article the framing is wrong. The activist Voice is built on “Black sovereignty” (indeed ambitious, but which doesn’t exist, according to the High Court), while the non-activist Voice is based on hope (not “appeasement”) rather than ambition. The gap can only be closed with a job guarantee — which is why Noel Pearson supported a job guarantee some time back. I’m not sure if that is still the case now that he too is threatening to “withdraw from public life if the referendum fails”.

Maxine Barry writes: Abbatangelo makes points that are patently, evidently and tragically true. Nevertheless, as a descendant of convicts on my father’s side, I cannot but vote Yes.

My convict ancestors ended up with a land grant and became farmers on stolen Lutruwita land, a benefit unimaginable to British lower-class people. So here I sit, a beneficiary of colonisation. As a Yes voter and because I owe, I consider I have a duty to support the Uluru statement in every way I can. This is a new thing, which I hope can move the dial just a bit further in the direction of justice. 

Does Abbatangelo have a notion for an alternative?

Dr Deb Campbell writes: The Voice is a way forward and, contrary to Abbatangelo’s article, is not something conceived as a lefty plot by bleeding heart whitefellas. It was conceived by and requested by many Indigenous people, working to their own measured agenda. Surely it’s worth a shot? 

As someone who has had some direct involvement in the existing process of Indigenous policy development — albeit years ago now — it was easy to see that one-size-fits-all “solutions” coming out of Canberra were not achieving much, if anything. A different way of approaching policy development is required, especially the application of those policies, in specific and particular ways and places. 

This referendum is not an ALP plot. It is an invitation from Indigenous people to us — to all Australians — and surely it is time we listened. Yes, there is more to do — much more. But this is a start. It’s time.  

Colin Smith writes: The Voice was first proposed at Uluru as a means to the end of Makarrata — “a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history”. The Uluru Statement from the Heart invites immigrant Australians to “walk with us … for a better future”. Has there ever been a more noble offer, more nobly expressed?

Richard Flanagan, writing in the current The Monthly, asks a sobering question: “When our brothers and sisters invite us to be one, to share their vast wealth of 60,000 years, why would we spit on the invitation and trample it in the dirt?” And why would some of our First Nations brothers and sisters themselves spit on it — in the manner of Lidia Thorpe and Abbatangelo? Can they not see that we either take this first step towards walking together, or set ourselves on a path of escalating conflict? 

Ann Daly writes: I understand all the points made by Abbatangelo, but why must the perfect be the enemy of better? Decisions coming from predominantly white politicians are not improving Aboriginal outcomes. We need Aboriginal people to come up with the solutions and I know there are individual voices out there already proposing solutions. However, individual voices do not get to speak to Parliament.

When the Voice represents people across Australia, it will have power equal to the lobbyists because the Voice will have the power of numbers, even when it is arguing for the needs of individual communities.
Abbatangelo is correct in saying the Voice has no legislative power, but it will be able to hold the government accountable for listening or not listening to its recommendations. This is why Peter Dutton does not want the Voice — why else would he be against a Voice with no legislative power? Except of course to undermine the government by spreading misinformation.

Like Abbatangelo, I am concerned about the inaction on the age of responsibility, Don Dale and cashless welfare, but I can understand that the government would want input from Aboriginal people about what to put in their place to deal with problems that may arise if these abhorrent issues were suddenly removed with no alternative to build positive outcomes.

No one has said the Voice will immediately provide everything Aboriginal people need and want, but surely it has to be better than what politicians have done to date. Let us hope for a Yes vote and the constructive building of trust and respect. A No vote leaves us all with no hope for a better future.

Anthony Levine writes: The only issue that was not addressed in Abbatangelo’s long article (at least I wasn’t able to find it) was what would he wish to see in its place. Nay-saying achieves absolutely nothing.

Michael Nugent writes: I appreciated Abbatangelo’s articulate and passionate piece — it is always good to hear as many sides of a story as possible.

I worked in Indigenous health for many years, and am deeply invested in trying to do the right thing. I’m a bit confused about what he suggests people like me should do. I take it he thinks we should vote No to the Voice, but isn’t that like the Greens voting against that carbon bill because it didn’t go far enough? Surely something is better than nothing? What is Abbatangelo’s solution to the inherent issues he so eloquently describes?

Dale Ryder writes: I’ve known and worked with many Indigenous people and have nothing but enormous respect for many of them. It really is time to start a new dialogue that deals with the 21st century and what that is likely to deliver for all people in Australia. I doubt the Voice will do that but credit does have to go to Anthony Albanese and Labor for making the effort as part of a commitment. 

Christine Joy Lee writes: I’ll be voting Yes. Our Indigenous brothers and sisters have often been wronged since white occupation, by neglect, misunderstanding or deliberate intent. We need to right those wrongs, not just apologise. We’ve got to do better for Indigenous peoples than we’ve done before and/or are doing now. We’ve all got to continually engage in crucial conversations about Indigenous issues. Indigenous voices must always be heard and genuinely taken into account.

This referendum is a wake-up call to all Australian governments — indeed, to all Australians. Parliament/s should see the proposed constitutional amendments as a starting point to legislate for meaningful improvements for Indigenous citizens (whether it fails or not). Our governments need to actually do constructive and positive things, not just pay lip service. There’s a long way to go to fixing all the issues, but Yes is a small step in the right direction.