The Voice

A Voice for the Well-Heeled

Good luck if you’ve tried to navigate your way around the latest 2021 Census statistics. Opaque doesn’t quite describe the myriad of interrelated series and data bases. Nonetheless, I tried at a superficial level. My quest was information on the state of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander peoples.  Who are they, I pondered, who would have rights greater than mine if the indigenous Voice were to become enshrined in the Constitution.

Incidentally, if you google ‘the Voice’ you are met with an international singing competition, including its Australian version. I mention that for the record. Search engine optimisation is something that the indigenous Voice advocates might next turn their attention to. Back to business.

A first point to make is that a great many more people will be involved in electing and/or appointing representatives to the envisaged third (advisory) chamber of federal parliament than would have been the case some years ago. In the 1971 Census (the first after the 1967 referendum), those identifying as indigenous accounted for around 0.9 percent of Australia’s population. By 2011 this percentage had increased to 2.5 percent, in 2016 to 2.8 percent and in 2021 to 3.2 percent. In 1971, 115,993 people identified as being indigenous; in 2021, 812,728. So, while the population as a whole doubled; the indigenous population (apparently) increased by seven times. Remarkable, you might think, for a cohort suffering discrimination and disadvantage.

Now, putting cynicism aside; to be clear, many indigenous people suffer disadvantage in terms of their everyday circumstances, their health, their life expectancy, their education and employment. There are gaps between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians which call for the application of effective remedies. The problem, over decades of trying, is to discover exactly what those remedies are. How a Voice in the Constitution will help is totally and completely beyond me. But that is by the way.

What isn’t by the way is that while relatively fewer non-indigenous Australians suffer material and onerous disadvantage, many still do. No Voice for them. Relevantly, many Australians who identify as being indigenous are much better off than poor non-indigenous Australians, yet they will be given political leverage not available to their poorer fellow citizens. How is that fair and reasonable, you might ask? Risking the charge of racism.

I wanted to find statistics on employment occupations broken down in a such way as to indicate how many indigenous people occupied well-paid positions in the workforce. I couldn’t find them. However, its clear that universities and public services, as examples, have a fair quota of indigenous people in their employment. It’s hard to see why they would need a third chamber of parliament to voice their interests, or how their lived experience is in any way comparable to disadvantaged Australians of whatever ethnicity. 

On a general level, the census figures show that 51 percent of indigenous people between the ages of 16 and 64 are employed compared with 76 percent of non-indigenous people. An indigenous gap to be sure. At the same time, it’s worth considering the other gap. The gap between all Australians gainfully employed and those who have fallen by the wayside. It’s arguable that there is far more in common between poor indigenous and non-indigenous people, particularly in urban settings, struggling to live, than there is between well-heeled and poor indigenous people.

Take housing. The Census figures report on the numbers occupying “appropriate, affordable housing that is aligned with priorities and need.” Once again there is a gap.

Ninety-three of non-indigenous people occupy such housing, against 79 per cent of indigenous people. Clearly 21 percent of indigenous people need help in this area but, hold on, so do 7 percent of non-indigenous people. Why elevate the needs of one group over another. Why should one group have special representation in parliament and, even more to the point, why should the 79 percent of indigenous Australians in adequate housing have a say denied to the 7 percent of non-indigenous Australians who have inadequate shelter from the blasts of winter? Doesn’t seem right to me.

Don’t want to get tearfully sentimental but my argument comes down to The Seekers song.

We are one
But we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We’ll share a dream
And sing with one voice
I am, you are, we are Australian

Let’s reject this discriminatory Voice, while adopting Tony Abbott’s suggestions of including something in the preamble to the Constitution honouring the first Australians while pursuing practical policies appropriately geared to improving the lot of any disadvantaged Australian, whatever their ethnicity, wherever they’re living. Soberly, keeping in mind that ultimately only so much can be done for those who lack resolve to help themselves. Utopia is not within our reach.

33 thoughts on “A Voice for the Well-Heeled

  • Alistair says:

    No – Even the vaguest reference to Aborigines in a Preamble recognising prior occupation will be picked up by activist judges and Constitutional lawyers and leveraged into implying defacto recognition that sovereignty still persists, “nations” persist, and there is a need for “treaties” and compensation with each “nation” to resolve the Constitutional situation. The only reason you would go down the Preamble route is if you wanted to resolve this once and for all – But … I warn you that didnt work in the USA where (apparently) some tribes were compensated to “de-tribalise” – only to re-tribalise later and demand compensation all over again.

    • Brian Boru says:

      I agree with Alistair but I would go further and say that indigenous are already mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution where it is stated; “Whereas the people”.
      .
      Vote NO to racism.
      Vote NO to privilege by birth.
      Vote NO to community division.
      Vote NO to apartheid.
      Vote NO to more bureaucracy.

  • Peter OBrien says:

    Good article Peter, but as to your conclusion I agree with Alistair.
    As recently as September 2022, in an interview with Professor David Flint, Tony Abbott, who opposes the Voice, expressed his view that there is one final symbolic act of recognition that will make us complete. And that is the insertion of the following amended wording in the ‘preamble’ of the Constitution:
    “Whereas the people … humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble federal commonwealth under the Crown … to create a nation with an Indigenous heritage, a British foundation, and an immigrant character …”
    In response to a concern expressed by Flint that this would open the door for activist judges to re-interpret the Constitution in imaginative ways, Abbott said that his very simple wording left little for an activist judge to work with.
    In response to that I quote James Allen, Garrick Professor of Law at the University of Queensland, who, in referring in The Spectator to the Thoms and Love cases, observed that:
    “Two years ago, in the Love case, on the question of whether a non-citizen person claiming ­Aboriginal status could be deported, the majority High Court justices used concepts such as “otherness”, “deeper truths”, “connections (to Australia that) are spiritual and metaphysical” and more of the same to claim that judge-made law that purported to speak in the name of the Constitution now recognises “that Indigenous peoples can and do possess certain rights and duties that are not possessed by, and cannot be possessed by non-Indigenous peoples of Australia” and that “different considerations apply … to … a person of Aboriginal descent”.
    They did that with our present Constitution that gives them nothing to work with.”

    And further to that, constitutional law, Professor Greg Craven, a strong proponent of the Voice, said “The constitutional provisions [of the proposed Voice] would be mechanical, not thematic. They would be very like the 1967 referendum insertions, which in 50 years have never excited the court. What would be dangerous in the Constitution are broad, sweeping values. This is where amending the preamble is dangerous.”

    I think Abbott, for all his good intentions, is likely to be proved wrong in both his fundamental assumptions. This generous act would not be immune to judicial activism, and it would certainly not satisfy indigenous activists. It would not be an end to the demands for constitutional recognition.

  • STD says:

    I begin today by not acknowledging the Lords pray.
    I will and must start by acknowledging the first invaders and non legal therefore illegal occupiers of this land ,Australia, the Aboriginal.
    I am increasingly required to PAY my respects to Elders past , present and future, and by way of the irony in paradox ,by acknowledging that very few, if any, have any traditional connection with country (especially those who own or make use of motor vehicles and mobile phones) as is patently evident,by their embrace of Western culture, it’s legal institutions, and civilisation, most notably their use of electricity, and both hot and cold running water.
    Furthermore their embrace of lifestyle diseases as is evidenced in high rates of acquired metabolic diseases that also include diabetes, obesity, kidney ,respiratory ,and coronary heart disease (high blood pressure resulting largely from poor diet and inactivity) including that of sexually transmitted and transmissible diseases.
    It must also be said, that I am in breach of the human rights act, by the mere thought of the mention of indigenous alcoholism and illicit drug abuse as well as high rates of NUANCED HEART DISEASE, that of domesticated violence and suicide
    (as-distinct-from euthanasia).
    However to be fair and balanced I would like, and will acknowledge, the real traditional indigenous (native) custodians of this land, the Wombat, the Kangaroo and the Wallaby, the Bandicoot, the Possum, the Wedged tail eagle, the Cockatoo and the Galah, and last, and well, not least ,the Budgerigar, and will acknowledge the warm hospitality extended especially to the white invaders of British descent (bringing domestication and farming practices) by the elders and descendants of these tribal gatherer’s also from the kingdom of Animalia.
    I would also like to make mention of their traditional and continued connection to country and well and truly pay justice in respect to all, past, present and future- this concludes my homage to the true Australians and from the point of view of nomenclature the Uluṟu ( Ayer’s Rock) statement from the heart is an absurd falsity, and rightly so, and should therefore be reconsidered the Zoological statement from the first invading occupiers – the Aboriginal inhabitants hailing from the sub continent .

    The Uluṟu statement from the heart is a petition from the descendants of first invaders to change the Australian constitution. This is wholeheartedly the wish and aspiration of the Greens through the mainstream political conduit, the ALP.

  • STD says:

    Sorry my mistake- the omission of Welfare disease- my apologies.

    • mrsfarley2001 says:

      Excuse me, but the willy wagtails have also done exceptionally well, and daily signal their gratitude in several delightful ways.

      • STD says:

        Oh my God. how forgetful of me , I will text the willy wagtail club immediately and most assuredly seek any clemency offered- surely being willy wagtails they shouldn’t have any problem in turning the other cheek.

  • STJOHNOFGRAFTON says:

    Why do we need to honour who was here first? What is important is who is here now. Australians are here now. And while I’m having my say, isn’t it time to get one national flag that unites all Australians? The current two flag policy is a recurrent and costly schizoid representation of who we are as a nation and, sadly, it is all about who got here first.. For goodness sake let’s have a competition for the design of a simple but unique new flag that represents all of us now and for the future. A kangaroo contrasted on a plain background is my wish for an Australian flag.
    .

    • STD says:

      Surely the present Australian flag is as good as it gets.
      Under that flag resides the kindness of the Australian nature in embracing immigrants, or don’t they benefit or like it?
      Or maybe we should do away with the present Australian flag and the Union Jack and hoist the petard,the letters ALP in the top left hand corner!

      Ps, I just had a email from the Emu Nation lamenting their omission in regard to the above comment- they have implored me to keep it really real

    • STD says:

      And a kangaroo contrasted on a flag would be true recognition of the real fair dinkum Australians and a nicer alternative to the ACP flag (Aboriginal communist Party flag), why do the showman on the left always obliterate the true state of things -why?
      Why is it that the Greens and the ALP greedily hog the microphone when it comes to the voice?

    • lbloveday says:

      “The current two flag policy ”
      .
      So often there are three flags:
      .
      When Albanese took to the podium for his first press conference as Prime Minister at Parliament House, he stood not in front of one flag, not two, but three: The Australian National flag, The Australian Aboriginal flag and The Torres Strait Islander flag.
      .
      There were just 32,000 or so TSIs according to the 2016 Census.

    • pmprociv says:

      STOG: and how can we honour someone we’ll never know? We have no idea of who the first invaders were, and who followed them, no doubt in repeated waves. Does it really matter, when they’ve been dead for so long? As you say, it’s the people living here now who should be considered, with all their varied backgrounds, hopes and beliefs. We all have ancestors who were first invaders of some territory or other, and they all come from completely unbroken lines of genetic and cultural lineages, going back to LUCA, the last universal common ancestor of all living things.

  • DougD says:

    “to be clear, many indigenous people suffer disadvantage in terms of their everyday circumstances, their health, their life expectancy, their education and employment.” Isn’t much of that suffering the consequence of choosing to live “on country”, where there is no work, and making do with welfare payments and government housing?

  • RobyH says:

    Most states have included in their constitutions a preamble acknowledging the Aboriginals. And then they have a clause clearly stating that this does not create any legal liability or right. https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-1902-032

    It really is quite offensive to the rest of us…. The ones that actually created the State and nation.

  • Peter Smith says:

    I take the point made by Alister, Brian Boru, Peter OBrien and RobyH. As you all say or intimate, activist judges will make much out of little. It’s a pity. I favour honouring Aboriginals in some benign way in the Constitution, if it could be done. Simply because they lived here a long time before Captain Phillip and the first settlers arrived in 1788. For better or worse they had their lives and their civilisation at the time turned upside down. But, if nothing can be done to hamstring activist judges, and it probably can’t, then I agree that it’s better to do nothing.

    • STD says:

      “ For better or worse they had their lives and civilisation at the time turned upside down”.

      Yes not unlike the pre 1970s Australian monoculture that was turned on its head with the advent of the Lefts love child of Multiculturalism, which by the way nobody wanted anyway.
      Not unlike the the first invaders we had it forced upon us without will.
      Maybe all Australians should be seeking justice and reparations from the doyens of the left and more lately from what used to the right side of politics.

    • mrsfarley2001 says:

      There was never a “civilisation”. The Aborigines couldn’t boil water.

    • Blair says:

      “I favour honouring Aboriginals in some benign way in the Constitution, if it could be done. Simply because they lived here a long time before Captain Phillip and the first settlers arrived in 1788. ”
      None of the likely Aboriginal members of The Voice lived here a long time before Captain Phillip and the first settlers arrived in 1788. I have lived here longer than most likely members of The Voice. Does that count for anything? I hope not.

  • John Cook says:

    How many generations born in Australia do non-Aboriginals have to have as ancestors before they can be considered as indigenous? 6, 35, or 5,000?

  • Daffy says:

    Please, let’s drop the word ‘indigenous’ in this context. We are talking about Aborigines. Indigenous is a general term for those born in a place. Aboriginal has a more distinct and in fact honourable implication. In fact I saw on a Sky News program an Aboriginal nurse from the bush who insisted that she considered the use of ‘indigenous’ for Aborigines to be insulting. I agree.

    • mrsfarley2001 says:

      Hear, hear. Those Queensland students told to get out of a certain very special computer lab all those years ago might have avoided a great deal of nonsense if they’d simply said that, yes, they were “indigenous”. Unless, of course, they were born elsewhere…

  • IainC says:

    Constitutional recognition for ALL Australians, regardless of origin or race.
    1. This Constitution recognises that: (1) This continent was first settled in time immemorial by Indigenous tribes who developed and maintained their unique cultures for thousands of years; (2) The land was settled and forged into a modern nation-state by British and Celtic settlers, becoming a united nation of Australia in 1901, the founding date of this Constitution; (3) Australia was enlarged and enriched by the acceptance of waves of millions of migrants from all over the globe, to make the diverse and culturally enriched nation we have today.
    2. This Constitution enables the formation of a parliament, elected by all Australian citizens regardless of origin, which shall make laws for the benefit of all Australians, whether of ancient ancestry, a descendent of original settlers, or who was made a citizen yesterday.
    3. The Constitution resolves that no laws be passed which favour one race, culture or ancestry over any other, or seek to exclude anyone from approving or disapproving of such laws through appropriate electoral voices.

  • pmprociv says:

    Well said, Peter — you could have taken the words right out of my mouth. It’s clear that the loudest voices advocating The Voice happen to belong to affluent, well-educated descendants of European invaders. It’s the usual names (Dodson, Pearson, Langton, Davis, Calma, Wyatt etc.), plus their naive, well-intended whitefella supporters. Their motives we can only guess, but I wouldn’t mind betting that every one of them is more affluent than I (e.g. Federal Minister Linda Burney was recently reported to be in possession of a handsome portfolio of rental properties), and no doubt all have flown many more air miles, no doubt in business class (perhaps we should label them PIPs: Privileged Indigenous Persons?). Nothing wrong with that, for no doubt they’ve worked hard. But instead of bleating incessantly about Aboriginal disadvantage, and the legendary “Gap”, wouldn’t it be more useful for them to share their personal secrets to success with their less privileged “brothers and sisters”?
    Were The Voice ever to get up, no marks for guessing who might just happen to sit on it, or to take it over. Were we then to go ahead and become a Republic, who do you think might become our first President?

  • djhadley says:

    Some good suggestions but a waste of time. It, whatever it may be, will never be enough. I wouldn’t cede one millimeter to the Left.

  • Watchman Williams says:

    There is no place in our Constitution for distinctions based on race. Indeed, the 1967 referendum was portrayed as removing race from our Constitution.
    The proponents of the Voice are those who are politically connected and who seek to profit from its enactment. Most are minority aboriginal and have no connection to, or relationship with, the real disadvantaged in the aboriginal community – those living in the tribal communities of remote Australia.
    How will the Voice lessen their disadvantage? Will anyone listen to them? Will anyone represent them?
    Unlikely. Notwithstanding the sincerity of the few, the Voice is a con by politically savvy part aboriginals who already get most of the money committed by governments to aboriginal affairs and who see another opportunity for personal power and profit.
    Don’t mess with our Constitution! In particular, don’t mess with the Preamble!

  • colin.white18 says:

    The Constitution is for governing the country not recording history. Putting something in the preamble to recognise first Australians then should be matched by something to recognise the first settlers, the explorers, the pioneers.
    The Voice has nothing to do with alleviation of Indigenous poverty it is only a step towards Apartheid, a separate nation, and then the superior nation.

  • brandee says:

    Peter, your views as above are always valued so I await your comment on the following:
    We remember that former PM Turnbull was once worried that the Voice might become a third chamber. To push back on the 3rd chamber possibility how effective would be a T-shirt message as follows?
    NO VOICE
    IN OZ FOR A
    HOUSE OF LORDS
    Insertion of the words HEREDITARY BLACK might make it too long!

  • Phillip says:

    I’ve got a problem with a STD…..and NO, I do not need to see a Doctor…
    But my friends Kookaburra, Emu, Dingo and Taipan feel a bit miffed cause they’re not on the list !

    On every employment application form, I am asked if I am aboriginal or a torres strait islander. Why?
    Aren’t we all Australian citizens? Not according to the world of loopiness. In the world of loopiness if a business says it employs a so called aboriginal or a torres strait islander then that loopy segregationist identity is rewarded by federal financial subsidies…?

    Why?
    Aren’t we all Australian citizens?

    PS: and my friends Kookaburra, Emu, Dingo and Taipan also said if parliament and the government spent real money on eradicating the invasive Cane Toad instead of wasting everybody’s time with this BS Voice falsity then the future of all Australians would blossom.

  • Max Rawnsley says:

    Isn’t anyone born in Australia of immigrants indigenous? Yes some ‘arrived’ initially, as we understand.

    However as with the sweep of tribes across Europe so some came here and the British emerged as the primary tribe.The aborigine tribes came from India, didn’t they?

    We evolved to today but now our betters and would be political masters would like to address an alleged wrong. Quietly ignoring that all humans on this continent were as we are accused ‘invaders’ . Why is ‘invader’ so differentiated?

    That the governments state, federal and local have long sought to address a claimed inequity has been commendable; if relatively futile and divisive has escaped being effectively addressed. One political grouping studiously undoes whatever it is the other does, regardless of merit.

    We stand by and pick a side, paving the way for yet another politically motivated squabble. There is no basis for indigeneity to determine singular political treatment. It is the role of parliament within existing legislation not to further glad hand the indigenous industry leaders currently beating the bushes.

  • Max Rawnsley says:

    Isn’t anyone born in Australia of immigrants indigenous? Yes some ‘arrived’ initially, as we understand.

    However as with the sweep of tribes across Europe some came here and the British emerged as the primary tribe.The aborigine tribes came from India, didn’t they?

    We evolved to today but now our betters and would be political masters would like to address an alleged wrong. Quietly ignoring that all humans on this continent were as we are accused ‘invaders’ . Why is ‘invader’ so differentiated?

    That the governments state, federal and local have long sought to address a claimed inequity has been commendable; if relatively futile and divisive has escaped being effectively addressed. One political grouping studiously undoes whatever it is the other does, regardless of merit.

    We stand by and pick a side, paving the way for yet another politically motivated squabble. There is no basis for indigeneity to determine singular political treatment. It is the role of parliament within existing legislation not to further glad hand the indigenous industry leaders currently beating the bushes.

Leave a Reply