Giving voice to the ‘final step’, 29 years after Mabo

Hopes were high in June 1992 that the historic Mabo decision by the High Court would lead to better lives for Australia’s Indigenous people. The decision ushered in native title for Indigenous Australians based on the recognition that terra nullius was a legal fiction. Achieving a better deal for Indigenous people is still unfinished business, however, and will remain so while they continue to trail the rest of the nation on vital benchmarks such as health, education, housing, employment and family wellbeing.

In her Mabo Oration on Thursday, University of NSW constitutional law scholar and Indigenous leader Megan Davis made the case that an Indigenous voice should be the final part of the unfinished political settlement that followed the Mabo decision 29 years ago. A voice would facilitate Indigenous input into policy and legislation that affects Aboriginal communities. The question of whether it should be legislated or enshrined in the Constitution, as the Uluru Statement from the Heart recommends, remains open. A change to the Constitution would require the support of a majority of voters in a majority of states in a referendum. Given the historical reluctance of Australians to amend the Constitution, it would represent a significant shift in public opinion. In some quarters that has already emerged.

Apprehension was widespread after the Mabo decision about what it could mean for mining, jobs and business enterprises. Now, almost 30 years on, businesses recognise the compelling need to close the gap and acknowledge the importance of an Indigenous voice in doing so. And they are increasingly willing to fund an education campaign to convince the public about why they think it matters.

It is reasonable that all levels of government should listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people about the decisions and policies that affect them. As Professor Davis said, while Indigenous people are held accountable and responsible for what happens in Indigenous affairs, they have little say about it at present. “In the Uluru statement, we are saying give us the reins, give us control and we are happy to be fully accountable.” That makes sense for two reasons. First, in our free and democratic society, all sections of the community should be entitled to make their own decisions about how they live, within the law. Indigenous people should not be any different. Second, and most important, the top-down policy approach has a poor record of serving Indigenous people on the ground, especially in remote communities, even when backed with generous taxpayer funding. Writing in this newspaper earlier in the year, Indigenous voice senior advisory group co-chairs Marcia Langton and Tom Calma said the voice would be made up of local and regional voices and a national voice. Local and regional voices would be designed and led by communities.

Nobody should pretend an Indigenous voice would make some of the dilemmas facing policymakers easier. The fraught issue of child protection is a case in point. Last month, we reported that nearly one in six Indigenous children accessed child protection ser­vices last year. That was eight times the rate of non-Indigenous Australian children. Rectifying problems that necessitate such drastic action and deciding when children should be taken into care or left with their families will always be challenging for decision-makers, Indigenous or not. The prospect of a voice, however, offers hope that government will receive better policy advice that will improve Indigenous people’s overall quality of life.