We had a referendum to decide

on something called a "Voice to Parliament" - a body for indigenous people to have a say over their own affairs. At least that is what the original idea was. 

It ballooned into other demands. There were demands for a "treaty" and for "truth telling" and "reparations" and seats in parliament. During the campaign leading up to the referendum there were wild claims made on all sides. Communities and even individual families were divided over what the intentions were and the outcomes would be.

We have tried this in other ways in the past. It has always failed. This time it was supposed to be different because, eventually, the outcome would have a constitutional base. It would have had to return to yet another referendum to change the constitution. If there was ever a demand to remove it then there would need to be another referendum.

Constitutional change does not come easily in this country. It needs a majority of votes in a majority of the states and a majority overall. Our "founding fathers" knew what they were doing. There has to be a very, very good reason to change our constitution. 

Which is why moves by the states to bring in their own "voices" to state parliaments should be of grave concern. This state has a "voice" to parliament. Only "indigenous" people could vote for the members on it. Voting for them was not compulsory and some of those eventually "elected" did not even reach the quota. Put simply I suppose it can be said many of the indigenous people in this state were not interested enough to vote even though they were given every opportunity to do so. 

My friend M..., an indigenous man, was asked but refused to be involved in the process. He was, and remains, opposed to the idea.

There are multiple reasons for his opposition but, having talked at length to him and some other elders, I can understand their opposition.  These are people with a strong indigenous heritage. Their views are not what I first expected. I thought they would strongly support any such moves but they do not support them. They see such moves as divisive, very divisive. M... has a very strong work ethic. He never received any form of unemployment benefit. He has always worked. His wife worked. His children are still working. His father always worked and ended his working life in a position of some authority. His mother was a remarkable woman who commanded immense respect. Yes, they were unusual perhaps but they worked hard and being "indigenous" was sometimes difficult but it did not prevent them from succeeding. 

This is part of what bothers M...  "They all seem to want something for nothing," he has said more than once. "They seem to think they have some sort of right to it even when some of their own ancestors were the perpetrators of the injustices they are claiming."

I listened to some of the demands being made by a member of the "commission" in a neighbouring state. They want a "voice" there and there were financial demands with it, far more than that state can possibly afford even if it was justified. While any person identifying as "indigenous" could have nominated to be a member of the commission the reality is that the people who were on it were the more outspoken people. They see "injustices" everywhere. Their view of history is very different from the accepted view of my school days. The latter view was skewed but it does not make the former view the "correct" one either. 

I wonder, as does my friend M..., what would happen if people were told there would be no chance at all of any financial compensation and, in order to be considered indigenous, you had to be able to actually show you had (at very least) a great-grandparent who was recognised as "full blood" at the time. The demands being made might be very different.