An Indigenous voice to parliament is not needed if bureaucracy is made accountable

I read with interest the article in The Weekend Australian by Paige Taylor and Rosemary Neill (“Giving voice to those who are silenced”, 22-23/7). These journalists seem to have no trouble in identifying exactly what is needed in practical terms to improve the lot of the people living in Drive-In Camp. The discussion with Norman Frank Jupurrurla bore out what they said, and it is succinct enough to read his comment regarding how government operates: “They say one thing. We say another. They have their own way of doing things. Their policy and they (make things difficult).” I have no doubt he is spot on the money with that comment. There are two significant points I can draw from this article.

First, it is not that difficult to realise what is needed on a practical level to assist First Nations peoples. My question is why do we need a voice to do that? There is an existing organisation – the National Indigenous Australians Agency – with the same stated purpose as the voice. What is the difference between the voice as it is currently proposed and the NIAA? A closer liaison with various governments may be required, and if the voice gets going, what then happens to this organisation? The second point is the problem of achieving outcomes is due to the inefficiencies of governments and their bureaucracies. They are very good at handing out funding to groups along with publicity to gain votes. But they fail miserably in working to KPIs that should be there to ensure delivery of outcomes. There is little management to these KPIs and few repercussions for those that fail. Every few years we get a Senate inquiry, which highlights inadequacies and failures, makes some recommendations and little else. But nothing much changes. Fix those issues and I bet you will be able to solve a lot of the problems in communities quickly, practically, with less cost, and with local consultation.

Peter Connolly, Caboolture, Qld

The voice proposal is about consultation and arose from the Uluru Statement of the Heart, the result of an extensive and significant grassroots consultation with First Nations people. A survey has since shown more than 80 per cent support for the voice by Indigenous Australians. Voting No, because a minority says so, doesn’t add up. It will come across as too unaware, gullible and complacent or fearful to resist the tactics of powerful vested interests intent on disempowering Indigenous communities and other Australians.

Jim Allen, Panorama, SA

Barrister Louise Clegg has provided a fair and helpful analysis (“No pamphlet casts light where Yes prefers shadows”, 22-23/7) of the voice debate so far and of the recently issued Yes and No pamphlets’ content. Clegg concludes that, due to absence of proper process and terrible overreach, this highly important project will run aground. That concluding sentiment may well be a reflection of the view held by most Australians and the concern they feel for our disadvantaged fellow Australians living in remote communities, such as Steven Camfoo, whose plight was brought to light by Paige Taylor and Rosemary Neill.

The disparate views exposed by the voice debate may be irreconcilable and that is to the detriment of the disadvantaged Australians living in remote communities. Yet all is not lost, as Noel Pearson demonstrates in the course of his discussion with Matt Cunningham (“Pearson on voice: Empowering family must be the focus”, 22-23/7). Pearson concedes the progressives must learn that the actual solution on the ground requires a set of policies that No advocates Warren Mundine and Senator Jacinta Price would support. That includes, in Pearson’s words, dismantling a system that has spent billions of dollars trying to address the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, with few tangible outcomes.

Ian Dunlop, Hawks Nest, NSW

Paige Taylor and Rosemary Neill’s article in The Weekend Australian only confirms that much of the past distribution of $35bn annually, supposedly to better our Aboriginal peoples, has been ill-spent. Australia does not need more politicians and bureaucrats to solve the problem of affordable, decent, suitable housing. We do not need to change the Constitution to achieve these aims, just the mindset of those who have been running the show.

Julie Tadman, Caboolture, Qld