Whoa! The Voice and Native Title Set to Fight it Out! By James Reed
May the best ideology … lose! Former Keating Labor government minister Gary Johns, has said that native title holders are concerned that the Voice referendum, if it succeeds could interfere with their claims. “They say: ‘We’ve done our deals, we’ve got our contracts, we know our state members, federal members, public servants, and we are getting along fine—[it’s] not as well as we’d like, but we understand our own politics—so who the Hell [is] The Voice?'” Another group of native title holders wrote to the south Australian government: “We do not support and are deeply concerned by certain aspects of the proposed model, in particular the failure to build into the model native title groups and leadership,” the letter stated.
“The proposed model would establish a regional or local Voice with no defined representation, linkages or accountability back to native title groups—to First Nations. How is this a First Nations Voice?”
Oops, forgot about native title in our rush to get this pushed through. Hopefully problems like this will sink the Voice. Oh, sweet irony!
“Native Title holders are concerned that an Indigenous Voice to Parliament could erode their hard-fought gains, says former Keating Labor government minister Gary Johns.
The now-author on Indigenous affairs and committee member of the No Campaign against The Voice says he has spoken to Aboriginal Native Title holders who are worried a new layer of bureaucracy could conflict with their land rights.
“They say: ‘We’ve done our deals, we’ve got our contracts, we know our state members, federal members, public servants, and we are getting along fine—[it’s] not as well as we’d like, but we understand our own politics—so who the Hell [is] The Voice?'” Johns said during the “Recognise a Better Way” launch in Tamworth, New South Wales, on March 31.
Australians will vote in a referendum on The Voice sometime this year. If successful, the proposal will alter the Constitution’s preamble and set up a near-permanent advisory body to the Parliament supposed to represent Indigenous communities.
More Government, More Bureaucracy: Johns
While there are supporters of changing the Constitution, the proposal has its detractors.
“It will work like this, as it always works for everyone in Australia. If you’re unhappy with the deal you got from the government, you appeal to someone else,” said Johns. “Now that’s a recipe for unending conflict.”
“If someone … is unhappy with what they have, they have existing arrangements they can use: the courts, federal members, whatever,” he added.
“Now they’ll be able to go to The Voice, the 24 selected members will become, in effect, a committee that will recreate all the conflict you’ve just worked through. It will be a nightmare.”
Native Title is a legally complicated property right solidified in the 1992 High Court case, Mabo v Queensland.
It recognises historical Aboriginal rights over parcels of Australian land but sets a high bar for interested parties to prove their ownership—a necessity given much land is now owned by different landowners.
Already in January, South Australian Native Title holders wrote to the state’s attorney-general expressing concerns its Voice proposal will impinge on their rights.
“We do not support and are deeply concerned by certain aspects of the proposed model, in particular the failure to build into the model native title groups and leadership,” the letter stated.
“The proposed model would establish a regional or local Voice with no defined representation, linkages or accountability back to native title groups—to First Nations. How is this a First Nations Voice?”
Imagine Trying to Remove ‘The Voice’: Nationals MP
Meanwhile, Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce also spoke at the event, cautioning voters against changing the Constitution.
“We’ve had a multiplicity of bodies dealing with Indigenous issues. We’ve had the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee, the National Aboriginal Congress, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, and the National Indigenous Council … I know there are others,” the member for New England said.
“Each one has been superseded in time because they believed the body was inadequate, wasn’t fit for purpose, and they could do it better,” he added. “But once you put it in the Constitution. That’s it. And the only way you’d ever get it out is to have another referendum.”
“Imagine a referendum to remove The Voice? That would really set the place alight.”
Concerns of Doubling Up on Existing Work
However, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has worked hard to galvanise support for The Voice.
The prime minister has also pledged to fully implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which includes three parts: implement The Voice into the Constitution, set up a commission for treaty-making between Indigenous peoples and local governments, and “truth-telling” about colonial history.
“It is now 2023. It is time to accept the generous invitation in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It is time to listen,” Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus told the Parliament in late March.
Yet Johns said these initiatives were unnecessary because Indigenous people were already assimilating and part of wider Australia.
“How do you have a treaty when 70 percent of Aboriginal people are married to a non-Aboriginal person? When their children are both of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal descent? How do you have a treaty with yourself?” he said.
“A very sad figure is that 20 percent of Aboriginal men have been to jail. That’s shocking,” Johns said. “But the 80 percent of men who did not go to jail are doing about as well as other Australians. They are reconciled, and they are integrated.”
Regarding truth-telling, Johns said numerous commissions and inquiries (many Indigenous-led) had already uncovered “thousands” of stories detailing problems in Aboriginal communities, including child abuse.
“We’ve done the truth-telling; why would we go through it again, get the same stories, and still be left with the problem?”
Comments