Indigenous people need leaders who listen, not an Indigenous voice to parliament

“What I believe is dragging the voice debate down is that too often what we see from some leaders on both sides of the debate is little better than the worst on social media,” writes Anthony Dillon.

People with some understanding of what the proposed Indigenous voice to parliament is about – and many do not – seem to be strongly polarised.

That is not necessarily a bad thing, as it can be a sign of conviction. However, social media is an arena where this polarisation has too often resulted in some unnecessarily nasty exchanges.

This is to be expected, given that social media is a place where users can think they are experts and rubbish anyone who disagrees with them.

But what I believe is dragging the voice debate down is that too often what we see from some leaders on both sides of the debate is little better than the worst on social media. Some leaders seem more concerned about beating their opponents and making a name for themselves than they are about arguing the virtues of their own viewpoints.

Certainly, there is nothing wrong with pointing out what they see as errors in an opponent’s arguments, but surely this can be done without demonising them.

People choosing this style of debate are often driven by the need for adulation from a public that US economist Thomas Sowell has described as wanting “villains to hate and heroes to cheer”. Who the villains are and who the heroes are depends, of course, on whether you’re a Yes or a No voter.

I want neither villains nor heroes. Instead, I want reasoned discussion and voters to be able think for themselves about what is best for Indigenous Australians. I want to bring the focus back to Indigenous people and address a concern raised by the Yes camp that I believe has some legitimacy; namely, “clearly, the current approach isn’t working”, as stated in the official Yes and No referendum pamphlets.

I say “some legitimacy”, because while I agree the current approach isn’t working as well as it could, I have not seen evidence from the Yes camp that the voice could fix the current approach, as it suggests in the pamphlet: “The current approach is broken and the voice is our best chance to fix it.”

Noel Pearson

While confident of its claims, the Yes camp offers very little in the way of a clear plan for improving the lives of Indigenous Australians.

The pamphlet states that voting yes means “government getting better advice and delivering better outcomes”, yet no detail is given for how to achieve this. Specifically, how would advice from the voice be any better than the advice from the current multitude of Indigenous and non-Indigenous voices speaking to government?

But if the current approach is broken, then a valid question arises: what is there to lose by voting yes? After all, even if the voice doesn’t result in the hoped-for improvement of the health and wellbeing of Indigenous Australians, then at least they would be recognised in the Constitution.

And surely that is a good thing, right? It certainly is, but I do have reservations about the need for the proposed voice to be enshrined in the Constitution.

Highly respected law professors Nicholas Aroney and Peter Gerangelos gave evidence to the parliamentary inquiry that the voice would be established by an entirely new chapter in the Constitution, and will therefore assume a constitutional status similar to that of the parliament, the executive and the High Court.

This is a very significant point, yet it does not seem to have received the attention it deserves. Instead, the Yes case seeks to play down the magnitude of the proposed change.

Nicholas Aroney

I am no lawyer, but my hunch is that when there is sharp disagreement among the country’s most eminent lawyers, as there has been in relation to the voice, there will be a legal free-for-all for some time. We have a very stable society due in part to our unique Constitution.

Making changes to it when there is such disagreement about the impact is problematic, and I believe we should proceed with caution in these matters.

So, having strong reservations about the Yes case, I will be voting no. However, unless there are substantive changes to how Indigenous issues are dealt with in this country, I do not see a No outcome on referendum day as a success. It’s a start, but not a success.

The changes I’m talking about have been spoken about many times in this newspaper.

Briefly, we need to focus our efforts on where need is greatest, which is often in remote areas where the people frequently lack the services and opportunities most of us take for granted. We must recognise that Indigenous Australians are Australians, thus making Indigenous affairs everyone’s business.

Finally, I agree with Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price that our leaders need ears and not the voice, and would add that they also need some backbone, in order to make some tough and unpopular decisions.

Anthony Dillon is a researcher, academic and prominent Aboriginal affairs commentator.