I’m voting ‘No’

My head and heart say ‘Yes’ to supporting Indigenous communities and improving government engagement, but my intellect says ‘No’ to a permanent Indigenous Voice in parliament. A gap in health, education and social cohesion primarily exists in remote communities but a constitutional change for a permanent Voice to improve outcomes raises concerns.

Firstly, permanence assumes perpetual Indigenous disadvantage and victimhood. ‘Yes’ proponents point to poor outcomes, yet progress has been made, with Indigenous representation in every field of human endeavour from the arts to politics and the sciences. A temporary body that invites collaborative solutions leading to lasting improvement, can then be dismantled, allowing us to tackle new challenges.

Secondly, while acknowledging Indigenous heritage, we are the second most diverse nation on Earth. Historical wrongs have occurred within each group and dwelling on them alone hinders progress. We should aspire to equal access for all, rather than embedding a permanent voice for a single group.

Thirdly, the proposed Voice’s functionality is unclear, risking conflicts between its requests and government actions. Conflicting views are human nature and predict regular stand-offs and constitutional issues.

Fourthly, a lack of in-depth analysis hampers progress. We should rigorously assess our current $30b spending on Indigenous programs, reallocating, or expanding resources as needed to achieve the results we desire.

Fifthly, we already have many bodies advising governments on different issues, indigenous and otherwise. They all need to be heard and achieve effective progress. If not – make adjustments. The change is within governments’ control right now.

In conclusion, while the heart desires support for Indigenous communities, my intellect advises against a permanent Indigenous Voice in parliament due to concerns about permanence, diversity, functionality, analysis, and cooperation. We must pursue collaborative, adaptable solutions that benefit all Australians while addressing historical injustice.

Ann Uldridge, Bangalow

Ed Note: 

According to the ABC’s fact-checking: ‘CheckMate has previously clarified and provided crucial context about such claims, which relate to a 2017 Productivity Commission report on federal, state and territory spending.

‘While the report showed that direct government expenditure on Indigenous Australians was $33.4 billion in 2015-16, the vast majority ($27.4 billion) of that was simply the Indigenous share of “mainstream expenditure” — that is, expenditure “provided for all people”, including spending on schools, hospitals, welfare, defence and “public order and safety”.

‘The remainder ($6 billion) was spent on “services and programs… provided to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community specifically”.’

As CheckMate explained, ‘per-person direct expenditure was roughly twice as high for Indigenous than non-Indigenous Australians, but this was largely due to higher levels of disadvantage among First Nations people.’