Myths about the Voice

 

 are something we need to investigate.

There was a very interesting article in the state newspaper yesterday. It was by aboriginal activist, Warren Mundine. He is opposed to the Voice to Parliament. Those of you who read my witterings will be aware of what the Voice is - a proposed "advisory" group to government which would allow aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be heard.

No, not all aboriginal people are in favour of the Voice. Mundine is one of them. His article yesterday was labelled "Ten myths about the Voice". It needs to be widely read. 

Yes, Mundine is trying to convince people to vote "no" and some will say the article is biased because of that. It does not mean the facts are incorrect. I am going to try and address some of what he says over more than one post at the request of my friend M.... . M... is aboriginal, visibly so. Like Mundine he is opposed to the Voice. He spent some time talking to me last night.

The first "myth" Mundine addresses is the one that "Aboriginal people asked for the Voice in the Uluru statement".  Mundine says this is not correct.  The statement was adopted at Yularu, a four star resort 25km from Uluru. Apparently the Anangu elders are upset that it has been called "the Uluru statement" because Yularu is not even on their land.  

If this is correct then it is a major mistake by those who labelled it "the Uluru statement" and one the Anangu elders would find highly offensive. Yes, Uluru (once known as Ayre's Rock) is a major landmark of great cultural significance but it cannot be used in that way. It doesn't matter if "the Voice" is an issue of national importance. You simply do not use a landmark of great significance in that way. 

"That alone Cat is enough to tell you that this Voice mob don't know what they are talking about," M... told me, "You need to be telling people this. They can't appropriate it like that."

I had wondered but, foolishly, assumed some sort of permission had been granted. 

We have also been given the impression that there was some sort of consensus with respect to the statement. Mundine says there were 250 delegates there. That sounds a good number until you realise that these people were picked rather elected. They were picked from "community dialogues". Those community dialogues were limited too.  People were invited to attend them, a limited number of people.

"I would like to have attended one," M... told me, "But I was never asked and never given the opportunity to even apply to attend one."

M... has spent his life working with aboriginal youths. He would know far more than most. He is the sort of person who should have been there. I would like to know much more about how the attendees at the community dialogues were chosen. Is Mundine correct when he suggests that they were chosen as to ensure consensus? Possibly. Knowing how such things can work it seems quite likely. Certainly it would seem they were chosen for the final convention in a way intended to try and ensure consensus.

That consensus did not happen. Some of the delegates walked out and do not support the Statement.

Yet the present government and many others are trying to tell us that there was consensus, that this is what aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people want. There have been a few voices about "treaty first" but there seems to be some doubt even about support for that.

I am deeply concerned about all this. A referendum to simply acknowledge in the constitution that there were people here before white settlement could have done so much. It might also have been passed by an overwhelming majority. This is simply adding to division instead.