On a Voice to Parliament being ‘elitist’
Garry Gibbon writes: Thank you, Cam Wilson, for your thumbnail analysis on Australian political democracy. I certainly hope our First Nations people will be officially recognised in changes to our constitution.
However, in all the discussion regarding a Voice to Parliament, I’ve yet to hear a cogent reason why there should be a such a body created in this welcome era of dramatically increased Indigenous political representation at state and federal level. And this is occurring against the very same democratic framework that Wilson chooses to criticise. (I hasten to add he also makes some salient points.)
Senator Jacinta Price’s “gravy train” comments are obviously warning about installing yet another superfluous, taxpayer-funded, permanent advisory body whose mission statement many may well think will intersect with that of Indigenous politicians anyway. She may be wrong, but I’d like to see a stronger argument offered from Wilson than him claiming the grass roots wants it and charges of “elitism” (when she wasn’t quoted as even using the word) are tired.
Bill Armstrong writes: Thank you for an excellent article. It is important to recognise that this is not Anthony Albanese’s drive for a Voice for Indigenous Australians. It is, as you have so clearly outlined, the thoughtful and respectful request after a democratic process involving an extremely broad range of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Our prime minister and his government have taken this request seriously and are committed to asking the Australian people to do likewise.
It is important to understand that until we as a nation accept and respect the real history of this country and recognise the place and role of the First Nations peoples, efforts to close the gap will fail. Recognition and voice will empower First Nations peoples to close the gaps. The gap all Australians need to close is in our understanding of the past and the incredible culture that enabled this land to be nurtured for thousands of years.
Get Crikey FREE to your inbox every weekday morning with the Crikey Worm.
As Albanese said at Gama: “It’s not a matter of some symbolism as some people would see it. What it is, is a matter of is empowerment. Giving people respect is a first step to overcoming some of the challenges that are there.”
Joanna Mendelssohn writes: One of the main hurdles in getting people to understand why the constitutional change is just a few short sentences is that the overwhelming majority of the population is unfamiliar with the document that is the Australian constitution. So as well as explaining that “may” does not mean “must”, we really need an education campaign so that people know how a few words define our entire system of government (bearing in mind that those words don’t include any mention of political parties, or indeed “prime minister”).
If people don’t know the nature of the document they’re being asked to amend, they can hardly be blamed for refusing to alter it.
Phillip Clancy writes: I accept that First Nations peoples have been very badly mistreated by previous generations of British colonists and their subsequent governments. However, I believe that all Australian citizens are Australians. There is no justification for First Nations peoples to claim they are different from other Australians. As such I cannot accept that there should be a change to our constitution to provide a minority group any rights or influence that exclude other minorities or the whole community.
The Voice to Parliament would set up an unequal system that favours one minority group over the rest of the community. As such I would vote no in a referendum.
On media negativity on the Voice
Carmel Brown writes: Thank goodness for Christopher Warren’s piece. I was feeling uneasy when several ABC journos seemed to be at pains to go on about detail because it seemed as if they were brewing an issue. I totally agree that commitment to conflict seems to underpin public media discussion. And what about the illogical commitment to balance whereby an opposing voice, irrespective of numbers or public credibility, “must” be aired?
Jeremy Clarke writes: I think this article says it all about the left viewpoint on this subject. If anyone has the temerity to disagree they are negative and no doubt a racist bigot. But how could that be when those of us on the left know the truth and what’s right for everyone? Apparently there are non-rednecks out there who believe we are one nation and whether you’re antecedents came here 45,000 years ago or you were naturalised recently no one should be treated differently.
A nasty warning from Warren for any journalist who strays from the accepted mantra.
If something in Crikey has got you fired up, let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Leave a comment
The point that our Constitution is currently racist and we are not all equal seems to be constantly overlooked. e.g.
’51 The Parliament shall.subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, & good government of the Cth with respect to: the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws’
The Howard government in 11996 argued that with respect to the constitution, the above phrase –
“The Parliament shall,subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, & good government of the Cth with respect to: the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws’” did not preclude the government from making laws to the detriment of Aboriginals, only binding them to governance.
One of the most racist and divisive acts of an unworthy government.
“Illogical commitment to balance”. I assume that’s why Sky After Dark on YouTube exists: on this basis it’s full of logical commitment.
So why, I mused, reading what Jeremy Clarke had to say, are conservative voices either trying to shut down debate or warp it with untruths?
Because that is SOP for cons. They can almost never win on truth and facts, so they lie.
To those concerned about discrimination, unequal treatment is a very difficult concept for you when considered explicitly. It has of course been very easy for many to go along with implicit inequality.
To those who consider only the present and are fearful for your wellbeing, fair enough. We must each consider our self interest as we know it and understand it.
I urge everybody to consider that your self-interest lies in a system of governance and knowledge that evolves to meet the challenges of our times.
The recent federal election highlights the belief of many that of a two party system centred increasingly on conflict for its own sake is no longer fit for purpose.
Integrity issues across all state governments show up a system that has become weighed down by a stagnant set of rules that promotes game playing by entrenched interests.
A a voice to parliament represents a a step toward justice, for one key group, those from whom the land was stolen and for whom the benefits of subsequent exploitation of natural resources have not been properly shared.
Fear is at the heart of declaring terra nullius and subsequent installation of British government models of government. Let it not hold us back any longer.
Taking this step paves the way for addressing the original lie, and rotten foundation, upon which our current institutions are based. It paves the way for a stronger future for all.
Those who are concerned for the wellbeing of us who arrived since colonisation worry not. There is great wealth that will be created in the centuries ahead from the coming together of aboriginal and other ways of being. A wealth based on sustainably meeting the essential human needs of belonging and the sustainable and just distribution of resources.
We aren’t all “Australians”. This land was stolen by the British.. massacring the inhabitants, stealing their children and attempting genocide. They didn’t give up this land. Sovereignty hasn’t been ceded and there’s been no treaty.
What needs to happen is a truth telling a treaty and reparations and then we can move united to a republic that we can all belong to, with a flag that doesn’t remind the first nations of the colonial murderers who stole their country.
A Voice to parliament, which spent years on consultations, will provide an avenue to get this process kicked off and expedited.
I’m sick of this bullshit “We’re all Australians”. We aren’t. Some of us are deeply ashamed of our past, living on stolen land. The ones that aren’t demonstrate every day with their racism and ignorance that they are deeply ashamed of it too, and are covering up their shame with a snowstorm of fake outrage.
While I empathise with and have been an advocate for righting the wrongs done to our first peoples, to deny that we are Australians just because we don’t have Koori blood is boorish, stupid and ill-informed.
Do you apply the same standards to the British, or almost every European nation for that matter ?
Are you seeking to overturn the right of those who overturned the occupation in numerous geological areas by Neanderthals, Denisovans etc. ?
The history of the human race is one of dispossession or assimilation of the first occupants, like it or not. Telling lies does not change that fact.
Hi Zeke you are welcome to leave anytime you wish. The rest of us Australians will work together, walk together and heal this country.
I would also argue that since the land was named Australia by Europeans we can all claim to be Australians. Those here before that time can claim to be known by what ever name they choose.