Indigenous voice would be advisory and powerless
Noel Pearson is right that there is no need to fear the voice (“Pearson voices equality, not fear”, 13/7). It will have no legislative powers, deliver no services, return no land, have no budget to distribute. It cannot override, impede or interfere with parliamentary processes. In fact, it is powerless.
The voice cannot impose any obligations on governments nor create any rights for Aboriginal people. It can only advise.
On the other hand, 250 delegates at Uluru called for a treaty that would return stolen lands and allow Aboriginal people to share in the distribution of power (designated seats) and the nation’s wealth (a percentage of the GDP). Unlike the voice, a treaty can be legislated tomorrow.
Surely now is the time for proponents of the indigenous voice to just get on with it. There are plenty of backers — in particular, the corporates that have signalled their support with expertise and with sponsorship. It’s time for real leadership to show that this can be set up and run without relying on the government or taxpayers. It’s time to show how this initiative can be a real voice for our indigenous people and represent it effectively. It’s time to show how this voice can address indigenous disadvantage. It will then take its place on the national stage with legitimacy, so that it will have to betaken seriously.
Concerning the topic of constitutional recognition of Aborigines, you are right in your editorial to state that the process of seeking consensus for a referendum “must be civil, open and intellectually robust” (“Long and winding road to constitutional recognition”, 12/7). It must also be fairly conducted. Neil Brown (Letters, 12/7) has wittily provided two striking examples of the opposite of that. One Melbourne newspaper also seems to be no-platforming the case against interfering with the Constitution.
Your claim that the government’s push for such interference “is something to be excited about” is more questionable. You have published a large number of comprehensive and penetrating opinion pieces on this issue in recent years, and yet there is no sign that any kind of constitutional recognition has adequate merit, ethically and politically, to be worthy of support. Why not change your tune and back the determination of Scott Morrison and the government to find some other way to give indigenous Australians a voice? They will come under enormous pressure and deserve your encouragement.
As a white fella whose family came to Australia in 1825, I find myself agreeing with most of the Statement from the Heart and have no difficulty in accepting the first Australians as brothers, hoping that they would accept me in the same spirit.
But what bothers me is the use of the word treaty as a central focus of the statement. According to my dictionary, treaty is “a negotiated agreement between states”. Surely we are not still at war with indigenous Australians. And while some indigenous leaders use the term First Nations, I feel sure they do not mean that we are separate states or national entities.
We are, thankfully, all Australians. So perhaps the road to a referendum might be smoother if we stopped talking about a treaty and instead used a term like reconciliation. I would be happy to vote for a constitutional amendment that enshrined reconciliation in some way, but without using a divisive word like treaty.
Why must there be recognition of Aboriginality in the Constitution? The only reason to constitutionally recognise indigenous people is to accord them rights that others do not have. So what special rights do they expect to gain by a change in the Constitution? Any wording in the Constitution that can imply prior ownership of Australia will lead to the High Court deeming all land held by anyone to be the original property of Aboriginals for which there has been no just transfer of title.
To refer to Aborigines as original owners is nonsense. There are no original owners of any territory. Territory is occupied by those who can defend it. If a group of occupiers is displaced, it becomes occupied by the insurgents. No action today can correct any wrongs of yesteryear and adding to past wrongs by creating the evil of another apartheid will help no one.
Alarm bells as China’s AI raises the stakes for Western nations
DeepSeek may have the same deleterious effect on established American AI companies that cheap drones have brought to sophisticated and expensive weaponry in the Ukraine war.
‘Divine blessing’ ominous for a president in full flight
Donald Trump has big plans, including the intimidation of smaller countries, and one hopes it will not lead to the rise of an evil power. Trump claims to be ‘blessed by God’.