If you are feeling somewhat confused, dismayed, or frightened about what you might be signing up for with the upcoming national referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, you are not alone. The left-leaning mainstream Australian media have done a wonderful job of facilitating the political equivalent of a gag order, that is, a filtered, curated, and opportunistic marketing spin to encourage a successful referendum outcome in their favour. Sadly, there are many leaders and advocates within the Australian Jewish Community that have willingly stepped up to the plate as blind-faith carrier pigeons to deliver this dangerous and divisive message to all and sundry with passion and vigour. “While the past treatment of Indigenous Australians does constitute a dark chapter of history, many of the nation’s leaders now have a heritage in Indigenous culture. Australia continues to be a magnet for immigrants who come here based on our overall successful effort to produce a prosperous and tolerant society. Divisions should be resisted in favour of tolerance, respect, and cooperation.” (Book: Dignity & Prosperity – The Future of Liberal Australia, Edited by David Stevens 2023.)
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Linda Burney and the “Yes Vote” leadership cohort are deliberately misleading the Australian voting public on the issue, as only the Australian Labor Party can. It is language intended not to reveal but to conceal, not to communicate but to obfuscate. Deliberate confusion and concealment by our elected Political leaders, is worrisome and concerning to many on the centre-right of the political spectrum, and for good reason.
The Federal Labor Government have blatantly avoided discussing and debating the main points and resultant outcomes of this referendum on their merit, relating to the enshrining of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament in the Australian Constitution and specifically what this will mean more broadly for our country longer term. I commend the Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and the Liberal Party for working tirelessly throughout this period to uncover, unlock, and demystify the broader implications and ramifications of a successful referendum outcome. As always, the standard vitriol has rushed Dutton’s way from the left in response, being labelled with all the old standards such as being racist, offensive, and insensitive.
If you are wanting tangible evidence of the murky waters ahead, look no further than a recent hour-long interview by 3AW host Neil Mitchell with the Prime Minister on Monday 14th August 2023. In that interview, it was made abundantly clear that the Prime Minister has not read the additional 25 pages attached to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which clearly referred to reparations to Indigenous Australians under a future treaty. “Do you agree with most of what is said in those 25 pages?” Mitchell asked. The Prime Minister responded, saying “I haven’t read it.”
Sky News Host Peta Credlin articulated my concern accurately on her television broadcast that corresponding evening, by placing due accountability on the Prime Minister to be open and transparent with what Australians are being asked to sign up to. “Well how about the fact that as Prime Minister of this country, you’ve said dozens and dozens of times you’re going to implement it in full? Because surely, to sign us up to something you admit you haven’t even bothered to read is madness. How do you even know what it is in full if you’ve just read the cover and not the contents?”
When hearing this startling admission by the Prime Minister at the time, it immediately sent my anxiety levels through the roof, recalling the Prime Minister stating on multiple occasions that he is committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. Yes, in full. If this is the case, there is a lot more for Australian voters to think about than just the wording being proposed for inclusion into the Australian Constitution.
The Western Australia (WA) Local Government Association published a ‘Local Government Supporter Kit’ in October 2022. This document provides numerous important references which I would like to bring to your attention. Pat Anderson AO & Professor Megan Davis, Co-Chairs of the Uluru Dialogue, make it abundantly clear that “the Uluru Statement rejects purely symbolic constitutional recognition in favour of substantive constitutional reform” and that “the roadmap set out in the Uluru Statement is Voice, Treaty and Truth.”
Furthermore, this document clearly states that beyond constitutional enshrinement of a Voice to Parliament, “the second reform is the Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations (Treaty), and truth-telling (Truth). Voice, Treaty and Truth provide a clear and practical path forward for First Nations’ self-determination in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” The two words for you to think about here are ‘treaty’ and ‘truth’ as they represent what the future may represent. Specifically, this process refers to the establishment of a ‘Makaratta Commission’ so that ‘truth-telling’ can occur, with the very real potential for far reaching implications and ramifications for Australia.
Rather than wildly speculating on what this will practically mean from a tangible outcome perspective, I felt it was best to share the wording from this document below. Please have a read and draw your own conclusions as to whether this is something you are comfortable with for the future of our country.
An inconvenient question for the Prime Minister when seeking an honest response from him on truth-telling and treaty activities is compensatory financial implications and who may be forced to pay for any rulings in this regard. “An emerging concern is that the Voice appears to be a tool to achieve ‘reparations’, or ‘compensation’. These are technically separate issues. But, if the Voice pushes for treaty and treaty involves reparations, they are clearly connected. The Australian people are right to ask about what the Voice implies for future policy.” Whether or not this will come to fruition is anyone’s guess. By the Prime Minister squashing any discussion, dialogue, or debate on the question of reparation or compensation only serves to stimulate further uncertainty and anxiety for many Australians already struggling with soaring cost of living pressures in a volatile economic environment.
To calm my nerves from manifesting what this could mean from a practical implication perspective, I considered some broader international examples of where the process of ‘truth-telling’ has played out in earnest, and what the outcomes were for the country at hand. The Canadian experience with truth-telling is an interesting example worth referencing in this context. Unfortunately, this did not provide me with the panacea for my concerns that I was hoping for.
“It is only relatively recently that truth-telling processes have been used as a response to settler colonial violence, most notably via Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission…truth telling is complex, and what it may achieve in the Australian context is not yet clear.”
Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was officially established in 2008, with the purpose of documenting the history and lasting impacts of the Canadian Indian residential school system on Indigenous students and their families. The TRC was designed to provide those directly or indirectly affected by the legacy of the Indian Residential Schools system with an opportunity to share their stories and experiences.
One factor worth noting in the Canadian context when trying to understand what the terms ‘treaty’ and ‘truth’ may result in following the constitutional enshrinement of a Voice to Parliament, is that in March 2023, a Canadian Federal Court judge has approved a $2.8 billion settlement agreement between the Canadian government and plaintiffs representing 325 First Nations Peoples. “Justice Ann Marie McDonald said in her ruling that the settlement is intended to help take steps to reverse the losses of language, culture and heritage”. Make of this what you will in terms of what could play out here in Australia and if an outcome such as this is acceptable to you from a social, moral, economic, and political perspective.
In the absence of the full story from the Albanese Labor Government, it’s somewhat of a gamble to know what the longer-term implications and ramifications will be, following the constitutional enshrinement of a Voice to Parliament. As per the recently established rules in the National Consumer Protection Framework providing the first ever set of nationally consistent messages around the potential harms of online gambling, “Think. Is this a bet you really want to place? Chances are you’re about to lose”.
