PHIL JARRATT and the circle of beer swillers put the issues of the day to the Pub Test. This week a woman who grew up surrounded by small town racism, a First Nations man, a migrant and two locals discuss the Albanese government’s proposal to enshrine an Indigenous advisory body in the Constitution. (The Pub Test is an edited transcript of a real conversation.)
Ringleader: Everyone got a coldie? Right, let’s start with the referendum question and the explanatory sentences. What do we think? Is this a good start?
Indigenous voice: I think this is just another one of those touchy feel good things with no power attached to it. I was proud when previously the Indigenous mob knocked this sort of thing on the head.
Ringleader: Did you feel the same way about the Uluru Statement From the Heart?
IV: I was disappointed when I read it. There didn’t seem to be a lot to it. I was proud of the fact that the mob had got together to make a statement, but it just wasn’t done blackfeller’s way. It’s the same for you guys. How representative are your politicians of you? That’s how many of us felt about our mob who’d been put in these positions of power.
Ringleader: So you’d rather there was no statement on the Voice at the Garma Festival last week?
IV: I’m ambiguous about it. I’m not against it being put out there, I just don’t regard it as valid. It won’t change anything. It’ll be like Native Title. All it does is legitimise the people who took the land from you because you’re engaging with them. In a way you’re authorising what’s been done, which is why a lot of Indigenous people have lost interest in Native Title .
Female voice: I’ll vote yes [at the referendum], but I’m a white, privileged woman. I think back to what Paul Keating said in the Redfern Address: “Imagine if these things had happened to you”. That’s what I try to do. I understand what’s just been said, but it’s hard for me to relate to it. I feel sad about the general state of democracy and it seems like we’re barely hanging onto the shards of democracy, but the enshrinement of an Indigenous voice in the Constitution – and again I’m seeing this through white eyes – I feel offers the whole of Australia the opportunity to grow up a bit. Just about every prime minister since Whitlam has said they’ll change the Constitution and it hasn’t happened, but for me, constitutional recognition is the key because how can we leave our First People out of the process of government? I have faith that some people in government are strategising about what comes after this enshrinement, but we can’t get to that point without constitutional change.
Local voice: Let’s not forget the idea of treaties. There’s a lot of work going on in the states, in Victoria and Queensland in particular, but it’s not going to be like New Zealand, where there’s a treaty and it’s in your face, with street signs in language and a common respect for it. It will be a long time before we see that.
FV: No, but I think it is happening, and it’s starting to happen quicker. When I see Albanese at Garma talking in his awkward and confronting language, I think, well at least he’s doing it. At least this Prime Minister is trying.
Ringleader: Let’s not forget Kevin Rudd. He tried.
FV: And what happened after the apology? A big fat nothing.
IV: And that’s the expectation of most Aboriginal people. We’ve watched 250 years of this and we don’t have any positive expectations. When you’ve been in an abusive relationship for that long, sorry just doesn’t cut it. I’m a hugely positive person about real things, I just don’t see this as real. But do I think it should go ahead? Yes, but we need to keep our expectations low. I know that there are good people involved in this, but whether that’s enough remains to be seen.
Migrant voice: I think we need to understand that governments are important and the decisions they make do matter. We also need to understand what it is to be a right-wing conservative. If I was one I’d be listening to what is being said here and think, great, let’s cut funding because our First Nations are not willing to step up and play the game. Tony Abbott would love to hear that you don’t care about having a voice because it validates his position. I think how people respond to this proposal – and I mean all our people – has the potential to have a huge effect on our future.
Ringleader: Let’s talk briefly about what First Nations people have said already. Only one of 11 First Nations representatives in Federal Parliament has come out against it. Along with many other First Nations voices, we have Professor Tom Calma and Noel Pearson both coming out in favour with the proviso that it has to be made to work and be representative. I also thought it was interesting that Pearson said the voice had to be understood as something that had come out of conservatism, not radicalism, which makes it harder to defeat at a referendum.
FV: I heard him say that and I thought that he was possibly strategising by shining a light on those people, being very complimentary of Peter Dutton, for example.
Ringleader: Well, that’s the country cop thing. They’ve worked at the coalface, therefore they understand the issues. There may be an element of truth in that, but certainly when you need bipartisan support to win, it’s strategising.
LV: I go back to the point I raised earlier about the states. We’ve seen during Covid how powerful they can be in standing up to the Commonwealth, and I think it’s time now that one of them really stepped up on the these issues. Victoria has already started down that track, but how many decades is it since Yothu Yindi came out with the Treaty song?
FV: But that doesn’t answer the constitutional issue.
LV: No, not directly. It’s just semantics, but I agree it should be in our Constitution as the starting point. I think the sentiment is clear and the average person will support it because it’s fair and right. And then the states should be getting on with the job. Fixing Native Title might be a good place to start.
IV: I’ve seen a lot of people just walk away from that process after beating the crap out of each other for 10 years or more. The lawyers take all the money and you end up with something that’s almost worthless. But to take it back to the voice proposal, yes, we have to let that cynicism go and we should support it because it’s better than nothing.
Ringleader: Does anyone think we’ve opened a can of worms with this? I’m hearing that we’ve had this ongoing process and none of it has worked. Native Title, the Redfern Address, the apology, the statement from the heart and now the voice. People have been working for years to get the words right, but we seem to be saying here that they’re only words. Is the process just going to lead to more fighting?
FV: I’m optimistic because I don’t have anything else. I’ve been arguing politics with my parents since my little kid brain just couldn’t understand the prejudices I saw. I still can’t understand things like the incarceration rate and the low life expectancy and other things that make us the worst in the world. So I just have to be optimistic that in my lifetime we’ll see change, and part of that will be voting for the voice.
LV: I’m optimistic too. Government and governance are about compromise and about having a voice at the table, and it’s not like the whitefellers are going to all leave the country anytime soon, and it’s not likely that this third wave of multiculturalism is going to go away either. So at this point in history I think it’s such a positive and important step to have that voice representing what came before European settlement. It won’t be perfect and it’ll need a lot of work, but it’s getting some momentum at last.
FV: Albanese has called it the healing hand, and I think we are seeing white people slowly coming on board and changing their views. I know that my parents did exactly that and I think there are many of their generation who have done the same.
LV: I actually think it’s more about recognising culture than it is about race.
MV: Words are important and to have this in the constitution is important. I think the Albanese strategy will work because even the person who thinks it will make no difference wouldn’t vote no to the proposition that our First People should have a voice. Yes, it’s just a few words but I think it will make an enormous difference to establishing our identity.
IV: I think this is such a given that you wonder why we’re sitting around talking about it more than half a century after the 1967 referendum decided overwhelmingly that Aboriginal people had rights.
MV: I think this process brings us all closer to being one mob. When people talk about narrowing the gap in relation to First Nations health, I think of the gap as what is happening to us Europeans as we get further removed from the Indigenous view of the world and from ourselves. I’d like to close that gap and develop an Aboriginal understanding of culture, and maybe this voice is going to help us achieve that.
IV: These are the conversations I like to have, because that is the whole purpose of what I do, helping Australians to become more Australian through understanding their story. This is how you win the argument, by talking about the real things. We’re all humans, just seen through different spectrums of light.
LV: I think it’s going to take a long time for the concept of the voice to be understood at any real local level.
Ringleader: Maybe, but the architects of the voice proposal have already pointed out the importance of the fact that it’s not going to work unless it trickles down through all levels of government and community.
IV: I’d rather see it trickle up than trickle down. Have the roots system suck the water up into the tree and allow it to grow. But it’s great we are heading towards voting on the title of a book that’s been 250 years in the making. My mob would say only governments get excited over the titles they write and the headings they intend to add over future election cycles. But I’ll slowly allow my anticipation to build as we find out who are the controlling authors who will drive the plot line.
