Gail Mabo swings to ‘Yes’ on Indigenous voice to parliament

Gail Mabo, whose father overturned the legal fiction that Australia was empty in 1788, says she’s been convinced to vote ‘Yes’.

‘Megan did a wonderful job of swaying me’: Gail Mabo, daughter of Eddie Mabo, is supporting the ‘Yes” vote. Picture: Zak Simmonds

Gail Mabo, whose father Eddie Koiki Mabo overturned the legal fiction that Australia was an empty land in 1788, says she has been convinced to vote for the ­Indigenous voice to parliament.

Ms Mabo’s position on the proposed constitutional amendment had not been clear in recent years. Her diplomacy on the topic included suggesting last year that the government should sit down inside Parliament House with members of the Aboriginal tent embassy, the radical group whose ambassador Gwenda Stanley ­opposes the voice and wants ­Indigenous people to have their own parliament and their own constitution.

At a media event in Townsville this month to promote the annual Mabo Oration in her ­father’s honour, reporters were told Ms Mabo did not to want to answer questions about the Indigenous voice even though it was the topic of the oration that night by Uluru Dialogue co-chair Megan Davis. This was inter­preted as a sign Ms Mabo was not ready to declare her position.

Eddie Koiki Mabo.

However, Ms Mabo found Professor Davis’ Mabo Oration on June 2 a compelling argument for the practical difference a voice could make to broken and unaccountable bureaucracies. Drawing on examples from her Quarterly Essay to be published on Monday, Professor Davis said Indigenous grandmothers had been ignored when they tried to highlight gross failures in the child protection system.

A voice, she argued, would be able to make representations about such matters that would carry significance because Australians had voted for it.

“Megan did a wonderful job of swaying me to go ‘you know what, I’m going to say yes’,” Ms Mabo said after the oration.

Ms Davis’ speech described her three-year examination of the case files of hundreds of ­removed children in NSW. It showed the grandmothers were correct about what was going on inside the department responsible for child removals and family reunifications. The Indigenous grandmothers claimed case workers were saying things in court that were not true.

“The department provided the children’s board with misleading or untrue evidence in a significant proportion of the case files we reviewed,” Professor Davis said. “The gravity of the ­occurrence varied on a case-by-case basis. And while it is possible that some of the mistakes and omissions could be attributed to human error, in some cases it is difficult to understand how the error could have occurred during the normal course of events.

“Broadly, the files revealed that on many occasions, factually incorrect information was presented to the court.”

Professor Megan Davis. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Martin Ollman

In one example, the department told a magistrate a mother was itinerant and there was a risk her children were exposed to domestic violence. However, Professor Davis’ inquiry found the woman had been in stable ­accommodation for three years and her landlord, the state housing department, said she was not in a violent relationship.

“These false statements can influence the decision to remove, as they did in these cases, and the consequences for children are lifelong,” Professor David said in her Mabo Oration.

“These case files are replete with evidence of caseworkers failing to do the basic social work that is required to avert removal.

“So if the court is not checking the work of the caseworker, ­because it presumes the crown is a model litigant, and the department is not checking the caseworker statement to ensure it is factual and backed up with evidence of the search on the assertions, there is actually no way to be assured that caseworkers have evidence that support their decision-making around child ­removal.”