News location:

Sunday, November 24, 2024 | Digital Edition | Crossword & Sudoku

Back to basics for Voice debate after colonisation call

Crowds across the country are walking the talk in support of an Indigenous voice to parliament. (Matt Turner/AAP PHOTOS)

By Dominic Giannini and Neve Brissenden in Canberra

CALLS are echoing for the indigenous Voice debate to focus on the referendum question as prominent “no” campaigner Warren Mundine says Australians need to come to terms with the impact of colonisation.

Opposition indigenous affairs spokeswoman Jacinta Nampijinpa Price stirred controversy in a provocative speech, saying British colonisation had not had lasting negative impacts on Aboriginal people.

Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney labelled the comments “simply wrong” and a “betrayal” to the stolen generations’ families.

Mr Mundine said the nation needed to “recognise the good and bad” of colonisation but should not let it continue to capture the national psyche.

“You cannot go on forever saying that colonisation… is going to stop us from doing things, is going to stop us from improving our lives and keep us in poverty,” he told the ABC’s “Insiders” program on Sunday.

“We’ve got to recognise the problems of the past, we’ve got to talk about our history factually.

“But at the same time, we have to move forward, if we do not move forward, then we’re stuck in history.”

Mr Mundine pointed to prominent indigenous Australians such as himself and academic and activist Marcia Langton as examples that indigenous people were able to succeed.

He said the largest gap was not between black and white, but between cities and people living in remote and regional Australia.

“This is where the problems are, we have to stop treating Aboriginal people the same,” he said.

“We need to be focusing on the ones who are struggling and in need of support.”

Mr Mundine also said a “no” vote would pave the path to a treaty with First Nations people as “that’s when the real work starts” instead of having what he calls another layer of bureaucracy with the Voice.

He said a treaty would allow the nation to “move on and… face the reality that there are 26 million other people in this country who have come here and helped build this country”.

He also stood firm in his calls to change the date of Australia Day.

Federal minister Bill Shorten said it was important debate heads back to the basics and that arguments are focused on the changes to the constitution before Australians.

“Everyone’s entitled to their opinion but… we just need to clarify what this is all about,” he told Sky News on Sunday.

“This referendum is about a pretty straightforward proposition, it’s about recognition and listening in order to get better results.

“It’s far less dramatic and far less worrisome to the rest of Australia than some of the ‘no’ case are making out.”

Greens Leader Adam Bandt said he did not agree with Senator Price’s colonisation comments and the referendum was about whether Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be recognised in the constitution and be given a Voice to advise the government.

“Ultimately this referendum is about recognising… that not only they were here, that they were here first, which is obviously something that previously the law didn’t recognise,” he said.

“To that extent, I think the referendum is actually a fairly uncontroversial proposition.”

Voters will head to the ballot box on October 14, when they will be asked whether they want to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by enshrining an indigenous consultative body in the constitution.

Who can be trusted?

In a world of spin and confusion, there’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in Canberra.

If you trust our work online and want to enforce the power of independent voices, I invite you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support is invested back into our journalism to help keep citynews.com.au strong and free.

Become a supporter

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

Australian Associated Press

Australian Associated Press

Share this

3 Responses to Back to basics for Voice debate after colonisation call

cbrapsycho says: 17 September 2023 at 5:10 pm

When I heard about the referendum proposal, I was all for it and didn’t understand why people might vote no. However, listening to Warren Mundine on Insiders this morning, as well as listening to other indigenous people, I can see the realistic concerns for some. There is a lot of nuance worth considering. All perspectives have value, except those based in misinformation, lies and concocted scare tactics.

Reply
David says: 18 September 2023 at 4:34 am

The challenge is that it is often the people claiming misinformation on the other side who are the guilty ones. Simply claiming something is misinformation and lies without providing solid evidence, is a scare campaign.

The Yes campaigns appears to have been caught out trying to claim everything against them is misinformation and lies. This is no longer working with the No campaign having many points the Yes campaign seemingly cannot counter. These include:

Racial discrimination should not be introduced into the Constitution.
Constitutional change is not required for parliament to setup a Voice.

Added to these are concerns about how the voice will operate, a lack of recognition of the positive impacts of colonization (closing the gap is about ensuring Indigenous people get all the benefits) and whether another layer of politics in Canberra will have any significant impact on the disadvantaged in regional areas.

Every time the Yes campaign makes a statement about it being a simple and uncontroversial concept they are probably losing more votes. When you are losing an argument you need to improve what you are saying and actually start listening to what the other side is saying rather than just dismissing it. By dismissing it you may be offending a lot of people you need to win back.

Reply
cbrapsycho says: 21 September 2023 at 10:46 am

The extremes on both side are doing much damage. What we really needed was a discussion before everything got to this point, not two sides pitted against each other accusing each other of lies and isinformation.

The Constitution already has racial discrimination in it, so this won’t be introducing it. It will hopefully be counterbalancing it.

There have been many voices set up, but they can easily be extinguished and have been, yet if it’s in the Constitution it will endure, although it’s form may change according to what Parliament decides. The value of an enduring voice, is that we can build ongoing records of what’s said, rather than disjointed bits of information in many different places.

Personally, I see the value for all Australians of being able to hear indigenous voices on a whole range of things, including the way we manage our land, prevent wildfires, respect our elders (instead of seeing them as old people without value), look after family and community, resolve disputes. Each aboriginal community has something to offer us all, with none of them getting it all right, just as us non-indigenous people don’t get it all right. If we share ideas, we have a much wider intellectual pool of knowledge from which we can dip into, to find new solutions for problems that are not yet resolved.

Currently, we keep using old solutions that have failed, because we lack the ability to call on and use wider knowledge bases to consider innovative ways forward. With issues of disadvantage, we need the voices of disadvantaged people to know how best to help. This is how we get indigenous policy to work, how we get the NDIS to work, how we engage neurodiverse students at school etc. We really need all voices to be heard, yet on matters relating to this particular land, we need the most experienced voices.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Follow us on Instagram @canberracitynews