Being part of Oz is lesson from the lost Voice

COMMENT by DON FULLER

The Results from The Voice Referendum could not have been clearer.

Australians returned an overwhelming ‘No’ vote, with all States – and around 60% of the country, saying they did not want an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, enshrined in the Constitution.

Despite this conclusive outcome, some do not seem to want to heed the result.

While there are a number of reasons that have been put forward for this definitive result, some seem to stand out more than others.

Perhaps the first of these is that most Australians do not wish to be divided on the basis of race.

However, given the outcome of The Voice, most Australians still have a deep fondness and respect for Aboriginal people and their diverse, fascinating culture.

Rather, it is the urban activists identifying as Aboriginal, some of whom have questionable and distant attachments to Aboriginal societies and cultures that mainstream Australians continue to be highly suspicious of.

This is because they remain concerned that this group continually compromises the legitimate claims of more marginalised Aboriginal people.

Such activists are often held responsible by wider society, for “capturing” and “cornering” the vast amount of finance and resources that most Australians are happy and willing to pay, for the marginalised, more traditional, and far more deserving Aboriginal people(s) living in remote and regional Australia.

Such goodwill raises the question of why activists wish to further promote racial division and disharmony amongst Australians when far more could be gained by working closely together in business and social affairs.

The principles of self-management and self-determination, introduced with excessive haste by the Whitlam government, over 50 years ago, have proved a complete failure at closing the ever-widening social gap in poverty and health, endured by the many marginalised Aboriginal people(s).

However, activists continue to push the notion of self-determination and self-management as the main way forward. Inevitably such approaches lead to questions as to whether this is because they see this as an effective strategy to lobby governments into even more additional funding.

It is also instructive to note how urban activists find it to their advantage to refer to “our people” and “our nation” as if Aboriginal people consisted of one homogeneous mass.

In fact, it is the diversity and differences in Aboriginal groups and communities in thought and social and cultural behaviours that have been long celebrated by the wider community.

The societies and cultures of theSea Living Peoples, the Stone Peoples of the Escarpment and the Desert Peoples of the Northern Territory for example, could not be more different and diverse.

How is it remotely possible to compare such cultures, either between each other and particularly, with that of urban based peoples with some attachment to Aboriginal people from some region, from some time ago?

The notion of “our people” also provides activists with the means of claiming funding on behalf of all Aboriginal people(s), from simple-minded governments.

Surely, this strategy is similar to referring to people from Europe as one people, which the many culturally diverse groups would resist and find insulting.

Government funding is therefore not provided to one homogenous European people but to easily identifiable different groups of people. That is, people often defined by country, just as Aboriginal people(s) can be comfortably identified.

Two months ago Warren Mundine (at left) made clear: “Australians do not want divisive and ideology-driven solutions or race-based policies. Australians want real improvements in Indigenous lives and policies directed towards need that deliver outcomes.”

Mundine identified four priorities – economic participation, education, safe communities and accountability. He pointed to the need for a decisive break from existing approaches.

In particular, he pointed to the priority need to change the way traditional lands are collectively owned and controlled by Land Councils. He pointed out that a market driven economy, where individuals can own and buy and sell private property, is fundamental to every successful economy.

In turn, a healthy economy is fundamental to social and human development for Aboriginal people.

He argues persuasively, that the current collective ownership of property and land is a model for government sponsored socialism and that it prevents the key building block for a real economy for Aboriginal people and their communities, which is private land ownership.

This he points out, sets up a vicious cycle of poverty of low school attendance, drug dependence, weak business and employment activity and social dysfunction.

To worsen things further, it also facilitates the capture of the vast government resources available for communities that are land rich but dirt poor, by urban based Aboriginals heading up Land Councils, Investment bodies and other Aboriginal organisations, supposedly for the benefit of marginalised Aboriginal people.

A functioning market economy, the proven method of success around the world, is actively discouraged: “Business ownership – the most important foundation of an economy – is almost non-existent,” Mundine explains.

Yet a system with nearly two-thirds of people in remote communities not working is reinforced by vested interests, often without the connections to land that exist with traditional owners in communities.

This sharp divergence of interests often occurs precisely because genuine traditional owners are not comfortable with meeting and business processes adopted by Land Councils and associated bodies, because much of their thinking and behaviour is of a secret and very private nature.

This is not so for urban Aboriginal people who do not have such strong cultural ties and who have often attended primary and secondary schools and higher education institutions in major urban centres. They are therefore noticeably, far more familiar with mainstream culture and behaviours than with traditional Aboriginal cultures.

Mundine further points out that it is very hard to understand why the Federal and NT governments have to pay for housing and other activities and infrastructure on Aboriginal lands when there are billions in Aboriginal land trusts and investment bodies, including from royalty payments and native title payments.

It is little wonder that Janet Albrechtsen in the Australian asks the question as to whether Aboriginal organisations such as Reconciliation Australia, are all “part of a shake-down racket”!

Certainly weak governments have encouraged this approach, to the detriment of more marginalized and deserving Aboriginal people(s).

It is however promising for Australia that the most talented Aboriginal leader of the time, Noel Pearson, has stated: “I cannot help but return to the fact that belonging to Australia is the only way forward for us. After the referendum defeat there are three possible responses.

“One, just capitulate and admit defeat. Two, being bitter, disillusioned and alienated. And the third way – that we keep making the case we belong to Australia, we belong to this nation.

“Our advocacy has got to be about belonging. We are part of the nation. We have nowhere else to go. This is our country and we have to keep making the cause for unity and inclusion.”

It would be beneficial for the nation as a whole if others would heed such wise words.

The very large amount of resources now available for marginalised Aboriginal people needs to be put to urgent, high priority tasks, not invested in some large investment body building wealth for urban Aboriginal managers and some pie in the sky future – far too late for many.

PHOTO at top: Central Land Council in September 2017.