Perspectives on addressing the GAP

In one of my recent discussions on X (Twitter), with Captain Chaos, I commented that the GAP could be addressed in ways that did not require changing the Constitution. I then sent a link to my post Are we perpetuating the GAP? This then led to a range of comments. At this point, I thought I could address this better in a post. So this post provides a bit more clarification on my post as well as addressing Captain Chaos' points. 

So here is a recap of the discussion so far; -

Several points - the $30 billion is not a valid amount for argument's sake, that is known.
As a city based observer, is relatable to 'bureaucracies' and those without knowledge & experience doing what they think is needed as opposed to knowing what is needed.
You overlook the why

— Captain Chaos (@Captain_Chaos_X) October 11, 2023

followed by ; -

Which did suspend the racial discrimination act.
Since that time the insinuation that there is an epidemic of abuse (child) has been left unsubstantiated
In fact, in recent months the unsubstantiated allegation was repeated by both Jacinta Price and Peter Dutton, without evidence

— Captain Chaos (@Captain_Chaos_X) October 11, 2023

and finally, 

 

You have raised a number of points. I would like to respond in my blog. Are you ok with my including your tweets in my response?

— Grappy (@grappysb) October 12, 2023

Captain Chaos did agree with my response in a post. So here goes.

Before addressing Captain Chaos' points, let me re-state my position on a couple of issues. 

My position on the Voice is primarily because the proposed Constitutional change would re-introduce racial discrimination, eliminated in the referendum of 1967, into our foundational document. (More details at Why I am Voting NO on the Voice ). As I noted in that post I do not have a strong issue with legislating the Voice and evaluating if it works. 

However, we have tried multiple bodies representing indigenous Australians all with the objective of being an intermediary between the local communities and all levels of government. For example, if you read the mission statement for the NIAA you will find it aligns closely with the intent of the Voice. So while these bodies have been established in the past the GAP has not been reduced. So we really have to find out why that hasn't worked and consider alternative suggestions. 

With regard to Captain Chaos's points

• As a city based observer, is relatable to 'bureaucracies' and those without knowledge & experience doing what they think is needed as opposed to knowing what is needed.

Yes, I do not claim to know 'what is needed'. Nor do I claim specific knowledge or experience. My suggestions are exactly that, suggestions. 

• You overlook the why. Why is a First Nation's male more likely to go to prison than University? Why are there problems with social cohesion?

I do not overlook the why, but admit I do not go into the specifics. I have not analysed the individual issues that make the difference between indigenous and non-indigenous but rather focused on what is different in the way we govern the two groups. So if we are getting different outcomes then maybe our governing them differently is contributing to the different outcomes.

• Me personally I would not have implied that they are more violent, abusive and truancy inclined. Do you have actual evidence for that?

The statistics on domestic violence, truancy, and incarceration rates speak for themselves.

Some references;-

Indigenous Australians make up almost 30% of hospitalisations due to domestic violence, report finds  - while indigenous people represent ~3% of the population

Attendance rates for Indigenous students remain lower than for non‑Indigenous students (around 82 per cent compared to 92 per cent in 2019).

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prisoners accounted for 32% of all prisoners  again while ATI represented just 3% of the population

• Also note the intervention did suspend the Racial Discrimination Act. Since that time the insinuation that there is an epidemic of abuse (child) has been left unsubstantiated In fact, in recent months the unsubstantiated allegation was repeated by both Jacinta Price and Peter Dutton, without evidence That's been reported in the media & both Jacinta Price and Peter Dutton have failed to make reports of the alleged abuse that they are required to do, by law, to investigating authorities. I could continue, however, I think what I have outlined suffices, check your preconceptions

The 'intervention' was in response to the Little Children are Sacred report published in June 2007, being the findings of an inquiry into child sexual abuse in the NT commissioned by the Northern Territory Government. The report provided shocking evidence of domestic violence and sexual abuse. So it was not without a basis. Also with regard to Jacinta Price, I think she has personal experience through her exposure to indigenous life. You cannot both accept there is a GAP and then dismiss the symptoms that are evidence of the GAP.

Again I do not profess to be anything but an interested observer. If we have invested substantially in closing the GAP over decades, and have seen no results, we should certainly have a good look at what we have been doing, and look to do something else.

I am of course open to further discussion.

"Making Life Even Worse for Us"

 I recently came across the Quadrant Article about Bess Nungarrayi Price dated 5th September 2023 titled "Making Life Even Worse for Us" and felt that every Australian should read it. Seeing I had missed it for a month, perhaps it was worth putting out a post dedicated to it.

It would be unfair for me to quote it in its entirety as Quadrant has published it and would like you to subscribe ( See Quadrant online).

Nevertheless I include some snippets in order to encourage you to read it in full; - 

This is Bess Nungarrayi Price’s foreword to the new book The Spirit Behind the Voice: The Religious Dimension of the “Voice” Proposal, edited by Gabriël Moens and Augusto Zimmermann and published by Connor Court, retailing for $29.95. Stephen Chavura, Senior Lecturer in History at Campion College in Sydney, says of this book:

“One could be forgiven for thinking that the only Christian response to the Voice to Parliament is Yes, if we went by the pronouncements of prominent churchmen and theologians. But I think these prominent churchmen and theologians are misguided on this issue. It is my conviction that when all things are considered, Christians should vote No to this divisive constitutional change. This book is a unique contribution to the debate in that it takes the question of the Voice to Parliament very seriously from a Christian, Jewish and secular point of view. I urge everyone who is pondering how to vote on this momentous question to carefully read this book and give serious consideration to voting No."

And some snippets from Bess Price from the Foreword to her book; -

"Naturally those who control the national debate are those people of indigenous descent who speak English and are well educated kardiya way. They have access to the media and politicians and are the loudest in their criticism of governments and kardiya (white men) in general. They criticise the old missionaries, but they don’t live by the Old Law and never have. They romanticise it, creating what I call a Disneyland version. They never talk about the down side, the acceptance of violence as a way to settle conflicts, the misogyny and acceptance of violence against women, the forcing of young girls into marriage with old men, the belief in sorcery. These old ways still cause a lot of problems, like continued violence against women, family feuding and the humbugging that forces so many to give their money to addicted kin for grog and gambling. All of these things come from the culture we were taught as children. The so-called First Nations Leaders tell us that all of these things are caused by kardiya, by racism and colonisation. They have made everything worse but all of these problems come from our own culture. The “leaders” call any kardiya racist if they say this and they put great effort into “cancelling” Aboriginal people like me who want the truth to be known."

and,

"My joining the Country Liberal Party has made me anathema to the Labor Party since. They think they own us, and they can’t tolerate our dissenting from their narrative. And they don’t forget.

My family was denied royalties that we were entitled to by the Central Land Council. My father’s role as a senior traditional owner for the country and Dreamings involved were simply denied. When we made a formal complaint we were denied the most basic natural justice. We have witnessed violence at Central Land Council convened meetings. They don’t hesitate to use intimidation and manipulation to achieve their goals. We are at their mercy. I was told to my face by a white Central Land Council staff member, “I am a lawyer. I can tell you that you can’t win.” But I have not given up."

and,

"The Voice advocates are polite and well-mannered in the light of day but many are offensive and aggressive in the shadows. My daughter, Senator Nampijinpa Price, and I have been threatened with death several times. In the Northern Territory we women are used to that. We are routinely vilified in obscene, racist and misogynist terms simply because we disagree with the Left’s narrative. GetUp sends young Aboriginal women, mostly from Down South, to campaign against us in elections in favour of kardiya who have done nothing for us. We have been ignored or defamed by the mainstream media. I was awarded an Australia Medal on Australia Day this year. I was contacted by commercial media from all over the country but I have not been contacted once by the ABC, even in my own town of Alice Springs. The Green/Left wish we didn’t exist. We have a different point of view that they don’t want to be heard."

and finally,

"I will be voting No and I urge all Australians with a conscience, whatever their religion, to do the same. I am sick of burying our children, seeing education denied to them, seeing them incarcerated, living in dire poverty and taken from families that don’t know how to care for them. We want real solutions and decision-makers willing to listen to all of us, whatever our politics and the languages we speak. We need open ears, not a constitutionally embedded, bureaucratised, highly selective Voice set up and run by those who have controlled the narrative and the funds for decades while everything got worse for us."

Some home 'truths' that we do not hear from most of the media. Well worth reading the whole article at "Making Life Even Worse for Us".

The Voice : Consider the Consequences

With but one week to go, we are in the 'home stretch' of this extended Voice referndum. Given the 24/7 media we now know what 'saturation' advertising really means. So no doubt you are getting 'over it'. Despite this if you are still in doubt about your vote, let me add a few words to try to sway you.

Despite the fine words by many a YES advocate downplaying the impact of the Voice, never mind the details, you owe it to our indigenous citizens, it is the moral thing to do, nothing could be further from the truth.

This is a momentous decision that will shape the nation's future. The Voice referendum carries significant implications for the country.

I have already recorded my reasons for voting NO (see Why I am voting NO to the Voice ), however,  that was not an exhaustive list, and in this note want to focus on some of the consequences of a successful YES vote.

One of the commitments Anthony Albanese announced on election night was that he would "implement the Uluṟu statement in full". The authors of this statement have made it clear that the Voice is just the initial step in 3 stage process emblazoned on many a T-Shirt " Voice, Treaty, Truth".

While Albanese has tried repeatedly to divert discussion from Treaty or Truth, preferring to narrowly focus our attention on the 'Vibe', it is nonsensical to simply vote YES and ignore what follows. After all Albo has repeatedly stated that he wants to implement the Uluru statement in full. So, we cannot but conclude that the Treaty and Truth steps are the necessary consequences of a YES vote.

Given the government's refusal to even discuss these steps there is no detail or formal policy position to review. However, we can rely on the authors of the Uluru statement to gauge their thinking. There are some 100 pages of notes recording formal discussions between the authors that are available The full document is printed in full here: Uluru Statement from the Heart. They cover a wide range of topics and these in turn trigger a whole range of questions. Questions like; -

• Questions about Treaty
• How does a country create a treaty with a subset of its own citizens?
• Who signs the treaty when government representatives are indigenous themselves?
• Will there be reparations?
• How much, who will pay and who will receive it?

• Questions about Truth telling and its implications?
• Have we not been telling the truth until now?
• Who determines what is true?
• Will the process build unity or cause more division ?

I will leave you to fill in the possible answers to these, but you should consider Voice, Treaty and Truth as a package. If the referendum passes Treaty and Truth are sure to follow. So if you don't like the possible implications of either of these additional processes and their consequences, you should vote NO.

Are we perpetuating the GAP?

With the upcoming referendum on the Voice and its main goal of bridging the gap in living standards between Indigenous and non-Indigenous citizens, it's the perfect time to ponder why this gap still exists. We've invested substantial funds, approximately $30 billion annually, for decades, in attempts to close this disparity. Yet, here we are, still facing the same problem. So, what's going on? Firstly, throwing money at the issue hasn't been the magic solution. The establishment of semi-government bodies with multiple levels of access, such as ATSIC or the current NIAA with its $4 billion budget, hasn't made the difference we hoped for. As a city-based observer, it's challenging to grasp all the factors contributing to Indigenous disadvantage. However, some things are clear. Geographic isolation plays a significant role. Many remote communities lack essential services, from hospitals to schools and employment opportunities. But there's more to it. Indigenous representatives have passionately fought for the recognition of their cultural identity. While this is essential, it has led to special treatment by law enforcement, social services, and education providers. Domestic violence, child abuse, and truancy are sometimes more readily accepted, and the strict letter of the law is often relaxed. Could it be that this acceptance of different cultural norms, combined with the lack of services in remote communities, perpetuates the gap?

Perhaps the solution lies in providing these communities with the same services as those in larger towns and enforcing, rather than relaxing, the laws that apply to all Australian citizens within Indigenous communities. The Voice referendum, with its bureaucratic approach, would only further separate the treatment of Indigenous Australians from other citizens, and is therefore unlikely to reduce the GAP.

Instead, let's consider something novel: treating all Australians the same.

Why I am voting NO to the Voice.

Like most Australians I am disappointed in the lack of progress in eliminating the gap in living standards between many, mainly outback, indigenous citizens and the average Australian (GAP). It remains shameful that despite multiple attempts over decades and despite significant investment in public funds there still remains a significant GAP. Certainly, past efforts have not worked, and new approaches are justified. The current proposal to change Australia’s Constitution to recognise a new body called a Voice and empower this body to make representations to all levels of executive government is no doubt a genuine effort by many of its proponents to redress past failures.

 However, I believe this proposal is seriously flawed, and, despite the best intentions of its proponents, should be voted down in the upcoming referendum.

 There are many reasons for my rejection of this proposal, but I can summarise them under the following.

•    It is undemocratic and racially discriminatory.

•    It is divisive & dangerous.

•    Constitutional change is NOT required to eliminate the GAP.

Let me elucidate each of these in turn.

It is undemocratic & racially discriminatory.

The founding principle of any democracy is that all citizens have equal rights. However, the Voice proposes to give some additional rights to just some citizens. That is the right to be selected to a new body called the Voice which has the ‘right’ to make representations to all levels of executive government. While proponents of the Voice argue that no special ‘rights’ will be conferred to the Voice, that is clearly not true. The ‘right’ to make representations to all levels of executive government is clearly a right and it is highly valuable, otherwise why would the proponents of the Voice want it. Yet only some citizens will be able to be members of the Voice.

So, the Voice breaks the most fundamental principle of a democracy that all citizens are equal and is therefore undemocratic.

Worse still the citizens entitled to be part of the Voice are selected on the basis of their ancestry, which means that they are all of the one race. This is clearly racially discriminatory.

Proponents of the Voice argue that it is not discrimination because it confers a benefit to the race rather than a disadvantage.

However, Article 1 of the UN Universal declaration of human rights bans all unequal treatment of citizens based on their race, even when the different treatment confers benefits. Article I does allow temporary beneficial discrimination. However, the Voice is being put into the constitution making the benefits of taking part in the Voice permanent and would therefore contravene Article 1.

Far from the opponents of the Voice being racist, as they have been labelled often enough, it is the proponents of the Voice who are proposing to make Australia’s Constitution racist. 

It is divisive & dangerous.

Without doubt the Voice debate has created enormous division in our social discourse. Some of this was to be expected as there are always two sides to any proposition. However, the level of acrimony seems unprecedented. Clearly the opposing sides are passionate about their views, and this is likely to continue sometime after the referendum but would normally die down.

However, by entrenching a racial component to the governance of our country, the Voice would forever cause division.  Wherever the Voice makes representations it would have proponents and opponents. Each of these sides\ would continue to fight for acceptance by the Government, the media, and the electorate. So instead of having just opposing political parties with all the general debate/acrimony that entails, the Voice would introduce another dimension for further social and political division.

But not only would we have a country harder to govern due to increased division on our legislative discourse, the Voice would set a path with multiple potential dangers. Very likely changes not anticipated but impossible to correct once the Constitutional change has been made.

 There is a long history of attempts by many governments at both reconciliation and eliminating the GAP. Each such attempt was accompanied by honied words promising all the benefits that the Voice proponents promise today, ‘bringing the country together’, unity, ‘doing the right thing by our indigenous brothers’, raising living standards. These include native title, multiple bodies such as ATSIC, now disbanded due to corruption, and the currently active NIIA etc, stolen children commissions and ‘sorry day’.

All of these attempts at ‘reconciliation’ and eliminating the GAP have failed to deliver either. But they did generate further demands.

The most recent ‘request’ is the Voice, a substantial Constitutional change that would change the governance of Australia virtually permanently. But that is not the end, the Uluṟu statement gave a road map, first the Voice, then a treaty, and then ‘truth telling’. But many of the proponents of the Voice have also voiced further demands for changing Australia day, some want reparations and even self-governance.

Over the same period that these claims and concessions have occurred, we have seen the emergence of a small but growing number of militant indigenous activists, criticising every aspect of Australian history and social norms. They claim sovereignty over all land, want reparations, declare there is a ‘war’ between white ’colonists’ and indigenous, and accuse Australians of past genocide and even claiming ongoing genocide. These small groups can easily turn violent and can in turn cause the formation of vigilante groups in opposition. We have seen this type of militancy occur in other social movements, civil rights, eco terrorism, etc.

The Voice will only feed the extremists, encouraging further ever more divisive demands. This is dangerous.

It is unnecessary.

Finally, the change to the Constitution, to constitutionally entrench the Voice, is not necessary.

I personally do not accept the claims by proponents that the Voice would reduce the GAP.  After all we have heard that claim before without any change in the GAP. However, my main objection is that changing the Constitution to entrench the Voice would make our Constitution undemocratic and racist.

I do not have a strong issue with legislating the Voice and evaluating if it works.

If it does and makes a significant reduction of the GAP, then obviously putting it in the Constitution is not necessary. And if it doesn’t work then you can change it or close it down.

This approach highlights the inconvenient fact that the only reason the Voice needs to be put into the Constitution is to prevent it from being removed if it fails.

An alternate vision

The Voice proposal encompasses a vision of Australia that permanently separates non-indigenous Australians from Indigenous Australians, with different rights, different flags and different accepted visions of Australia.

 However old fashioned it may be, my vision for Australia is best outlined by the old Seekers song.

“We are one,

But we are many,

And from all the lands of earth we come,

We’ll share a dream.

And sing with one voice.

I am, you are, we are Australian”.

 

Yes, let us all ‘sing with one voice’, lets unite our country, one nation, one flag, one people, all equal.