Piers Akerman: Proposed Aboriginal Voice to parliament will not improve Indigenous lives in remote communities
Supporters of the Voice to parliament proposition are playing lawyers tricks by hiding their planned model or models. None of its principal proponents can define it any more than they can define reconciliation, writes Piers Akerman.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Anthony Albanese says he wants a constitutional referendum on an Aboriginal Voice to parliament in this term. But the question to be put to the nation wouldn’t include specific details in the vain hope that keeping the public in the dark will make success easier.
The globetrotting PM won’t tolerate “a right of veto” to the Coalition either and has equated its passage to the national apology given the so-called Stolen Generations by Kevin Rudd in February, 2008.
It’s worth noting here that just one Aboriginal person, Bruce Trevorrow, ever won a case against any state (South Australia) on the basis of unlawful removal from their family despite the widespread use of the term Stolen Generations.
The view of the majority of the High Court in the 1997 case Kruger v Commonwealth which found removal under the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 was beneficial in intent and had neither the purpose of genocide nor that of restricting the practice of religion has (so far) prevailed.
It should also be stated that the apology has done nothing to reduce the shocking rate of domestic abuse, violence or murder in regional Aboriginal communities.
So as far as a referendum on a Voice to parliament goes, bring it on and see if the public are prepared to stomach more meaningless gestures.
Before doing so however please explain how much the referendum would cost and how much money would Labor provide for both the Yes and the No case to be put before the public? Who and how would the unelected members be chosen, what sort of bureaucratic support would be needed, what actual power would this body have and importantly, how much would it cost to run.
Remember the disastrous ATSIC experiment? For the record, Labor has put up a successful referendum just once and that was in 1946, when it proposed to alter the Constitution to give the Commonwealth the power over a wider range of social services than just invalid and old-age pensions.
In the immediate post-war period, this was passed by a vote of 54.39 per cent in favour to 45.61 per cent opposed.
Supporters of the Voice to parliament proposition are playing lawyers tricks by hiding their planned model or models.
No-one, certainly none of its principal proponents can define it any more than they can define reconciliation though they are all for it.
It’s a bit like the early support for the Black Lives Matter campaign (who doesn’t think that black lives, white lives, well-tanned, albinoid or any other lives don’t matter?) until the BLM went wildly, violently off the rails and activists started murdering, bashing, burning and looting buildings.
The campaign is now history. Many major corporations, led by their human resources teams (always looking for causes and minorities to support) have boasted of their social justice credentials by tying their brands to crusades such as homosexual pride, black pride, transgender pride, and so on ad nauseam.
But proud activism and cause-related activism on behalf of Aboriginals by accounting firms, legal firms, publishing organisations and airlines have done bugger all to change the situation on the ground for those living in remote communities. Those proclaiming their virtue are blind to the obvious fact that life in remote communities is disastrous for most Aboriginals.
If they lived in urban Australia (as most who identify as Aboriginal do) their health and education prospects would be hugely improved because of the better access to schools and doctors available to most Australians.
If this Voice is meant to give better political representation to Indigenous Australians than they currently have and there are 10 in the new parliament – or 4.41 per cent of the 227 parliamentarians – they’re already over-represented.
According to the census figures released this week, those identifying as indigenous make up 3.2 per cent of the population.
Which of the designer-possum cloak wearing MPs is going to resign to make way for a member from an under-represented racial group in the community, perhaps an Indian or Chinese?
As the leading demographer Bernard Salt noted recently “the 2021 Census shows there was a 25 per cent increase in the number of Australians identifying as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander between 2016 and 2021”.
“This compares with aggregate growth for Australia as a whole of less than seven per cent over this time frame.
“These data points suggest that between census years Indigenous Australians were happy and no doubt proud to identify with, and to proclaim, their heritage.”
This turns the hysterical “racist Australia” narrative on its head just as do the number of refugees of all hues seeking to come here and be part of an inclusive Australia as in the song “I am, you are, we are Australian”.
More Coverage
Main complaint from megastar’s Sydney show
Charli XCX had one of the loudest albums of 2024. But the megastar’s Laneway festival performance left most of the crowd saying the same thing.
Weak, juvenile Democrats overwhelmed by Trump
In the first three weeks of Donald Trump’s second term, Democrats seem lost on how to oppose him. Tom Minear assesses their tactics and argues for a simple alternative.