Some Thoughts on the Voice to Parliament

MetaSkill specialises in Conflict Leadership and Critical Thinking, so here are some thoughts on The Voice to Parliament. I haven’t been following the debate too closely as I have pretty settled views, but some things have jumped out from social media and headlines that seem to be persuasive and so are worth a considered response. 

Is installing a voice to Parliament divisive?

On the part of the authors of the Uluru Statement, it is hard to imagine a more considered approach. Some years in the making, tackling their issues head-on, listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and then respectfully taking those requests to the parliament, who is taking them to the people in a referendum. There is no reason to think that the Australian people wouldn’t have got behind the statement or that the whole process wouldn’t initiate a unified healing movement between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians.  Hopefully, this can still happen. Additionally, some of the major spokespeople for those who claim the Voice and referendum is divisive have form in stirring up division - think Children Overboard and the referendum for Australia to become a Republic. From a Conflict Leadership point of view, the proponents of the Uluru statement have carefully addressed an issue, followed a transparent and public process, listened carefully and offered to collaborate with the Australian people on a solution. 

More on division

Marcia Langton was attacked for labelling No voters as ignorant and or racist.  This caused a week of massive headlines, a “deplorable” moment, the Yes voters apparently showing their true colours.  In fact she said that when she broke down the No arguments, she found racism or ignorance.  That is a very different thing.  In Conflict Leadership and Critical Thinking, we need to separate out the personal from the issue in question.  Prof Langton did that and made a comment about the arguments being put forward.  The correct response would be to get her to defend that view, to get her to demonstrate the ignorance or the racism behind the arguments. Instead, the reporting attributed to her a personal attack on her opponents.  This was a shocking misrepresentation designed to create division and give licence to anyone who wanted to make a personal attack on Prof Langton.  From a Critical thinking point of view it is dishonest, from a Machiavellian manipulate the conversation point of view,  it was devastatingly effective. 

Is enshrining the Voice in Parliament racist?

This comes up a lot. Locally it took the form of, “Simple question - Do you believe one group in our society should have a special consideration based on its race?” Except that this simple question is deeply misleading as it carries the assumption that a Yes vote for the Voice is designed to confer a benefit on a group of Australians based on their race. But that is not the case.  If we are correcting a historical wrong, the benefit is being conferred on the descendants of the first inhabitants of Australia, benefits that would have been conferred if the early colonisers had followed their own Colonial Office rules.

Can we vote on something that is not defined?

This is a version of the Don’t Know, Vote No” slogan and on the face of it it is pretty reasonable. Personally I don’t think it is much of a problem.  My understanding is that the Voice is quite modestly enshrined  in  the Constitution, and the details will be decided by Parliament, and can be changed by Parliament, and you will get to vote  for its members every election.   Closely defining it in the  Constitution I would see as more problematic as this proposal makes sure that the ultimate authority rests with Parliament, which is as it should be.  Constitutional experts who I respect see it as at least a very acceptable risk given the potential benefits.  And the reality is I couldn’t give you the details of any policy I voted for in recent elections. 

Enshrining the Voice in parliament is some sort of scary precedent so vote No

I struggle to think of any direct effect the Voice would have on me other than feeling a little better about Australia and our collective determination to address a societal imbalance with respect to Indigenous Australians. Some of our tax money will be diverted to fund it, just as it was for nuclear powered submarines,  and yet we managed to get on with our lives.  Seriously - how will our lives change if we are not looking for something to be outraged about.  Disagree, sure, but be outraged about a country trying to do a bit better for probably the worst off group in our community?

It’s not fair

John Rawls,  in A Theory of Justice, developed a theory of justice as fairness, and argued that if we had to decide on the allocation of resources in our society, prior to knowing what our position in that society would be, one of the guiding principles would be that a benefit should only be allowed if it contributed to the bettering of the position of the worst off in that community. Given well-known statistics about the health and incarceration levels of First Australians, I think  The Voice passes this test of fairness. 

A lot of Indigenous Australians are against the Voice

Sure.  I am fortunate in that I have a lot of Aboriginal friends and colleagues and I don’t know any of them not voting for the Voice.  If you are looking for guidance away from the loudest voices, my advice is to find someone who on the basis of their known work and contribution will stand high in your esteem, and take your lead from them, see what they have written look up their public statements.  On this platform, I would check out Dr. Richard Franklin of Deakin University.  I have had the pleasure of working with him years ago.  Amongst other things, he did a lot of the research for the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, he has been making and sharing music forever, he has worked with other indigenous people around the world, he gives up time to help troubled young people….I could go on, but you won’t meet a better bloke - go and see what he has to say. Or find your equivalent amongst those recommending a No vote. 

All the bad things happened so long ago 

And this argument is often accompanied by the statement of “Why should I feel guilty for something that I personally had no part in?”  I agree with that, but I think we have room for a sense of shame, similar to my reaction to recent revelations about the conduct of the SAS in Afghanistan.  And shame is a positive emotion to the extent that it creates an impulse to do something about that for which we feel shame.   I remember an American tourist asking me about the awful plight of many Aboriginal people in Australia.  I went through what we were trying to do, but his parting comment is what stayed with me - at least in Australia, as compared to his home country, it was an issue, it was being discussed and it was on the front pages of the newspapers.  He had little or no information about the plight of Indigenous people in his own country.  Feeling guilty isn’t going to get us anywhere, but if there is any aspect of the condition of Aboriginal Australians that might make us feel a bit of shame, well, with the Uluru statement, they have opened a door to what we might be able to do about it.  It might or might not work, but it is what they, with respect and consideration, have asked for. 

While I normally steer clear of political issues in my professional capacity, in this case, I see it as a positive contribution to public debate which is at the core of the MetaSkill mission of enabling Conflict Leadership and improving the Critical Thinking skills of our clients. 

Thanks to my granddaughters for their awesome YES art installation.