The Uluru Statement
and The Voice:
A Critical Analysis
Introduction
The Uluru Statement from the Heart was a historic moment for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia. The Statement called for a constitutionally enshrined First Nations Voice to Parliament and a Makarrata Commission to supervise agreement-making and truth-telling between governments and Indigenous Australians.
However, there has been a growing concern among some Indigenous people and others that the process of creating The Voice has been dominated by a particular group, shutting down dissenting voices and views.
This paper will critically analyze the issues surrounding The Voice and the process that led to its proposal.
Bad Process
The Uluru Statement was a momentous occasion that signaled the coming together of Indigenous Australians from all over the country. However, there have been concerns that the process that led to the Statement was not entirely inclusive. Some Aboriginal people and now, white supporters have been accused of dominating the agenda and shutting down dissenting views. This trend has continued with The Voice, where some Indigenous voices have been demeaned and accused of being friends of Dutton or racists for expressing their views.
Bad process Creates Bad Culture
The process used to develop The Voice is also being criticized for being a bad culture. The Uluru Statement process already excluded some voices by calling for a Voice. Individual input gets lost in a consensus among a clique, and it becomes power politics rather than truth-seeking. The exclusivity of the process has led some to question how The Voice can represent Aboriginal people if parliament will have full control over its composition. Additionally, the process used at Uluru to decide the Statement was seen as exclusive, and it gives a chance to speak in a colonialist process rather than to be heard, let alone have any power.
The Walkout
The Walkout at Uluru by some Indigenous people is another indication of the frustration with the process of proposing The Voice and creating The Statement. The walkout was a signal that advocates for The Voice had already proved that they have not represented those views, only the views that suit their agenda. The lack of inclusivity and power imbalances in the process are of great concern to some Indigenous Australians and is unknown by others, and it has led to the call for a bigger discussion on Treaty that avoids politics.
Assimilation vs. Sovereignty
One of the most contentious issues surrounding The Voice is its perceived assimilationist nature. Some Indigenous people are concerned that The Voice will turn a culture of timeless discussion and truth-seeking into a culture that lets representatives decide the lowest common denominator to submit for majority rule instead. They argue that The Voice is part of a broader assimilationist agenda that seeks to make Indigenous Australians conform to the dominant culture and processes rather than maintain their sovereignty.
The Uluru Statement and The Voice have brought the issue of Indigenous constitutional recognition to the forefront of Australian political discourse. However, there are concerns that the process of creating The Voice has been dominated by a particular group, shutting down dissenting voices and views. Additionally, there is concern that The Voice is part of a broader assimilationist agenda that seeks to make Indigenous Australians conform to the dominant culture and processes rather than maintain their sovereignty. While the call for Treaty is undoubtedly necessary, it is imperative that the process is inclusive and transparent
_________
The conversation is about the flaws in the current process for Indigenous consultation and decision-making. The Uluru Statement, which asserts Indigenous ownership of Australia, itself a departure from the traditional view of Earth as mother, is mentioned and criticized for being inadequate, not inclusive, and divisive. Some Indigenous people at Uluru objected to the process and the idea of a Voice. There were also dissenters and walkouts during the meeting. The conversation suggests that a new process that is more transparent, inclusive, and accessible to all Indigenous people is needed to make progress.
Technology is mentioned as a possible tool to help facilitate this process. The importance of authenticity and direct input including particularly from those with their feet in the dirt, is emphasized over hierarchy and leadership. The conversation also touches on specific examples of Indigenous activism, such as the Redfern development and Jenny Munro's work.
________
The discussion revolves around the issue of The Voice, which is in fact an attempt to improve the current colonial system of governance by establishing a First Nations Voice to Parliament. There are concerns raised by some community leaders that the Voice may be assimilationist in that way, confirming internal & external hierarchy by election and authority over personal and cultural sovereignty. Some people oppose it for more profound reasons, and there is a call to listen to all voices to avoid self-condemnation. Some people suggest that there is a better way, but that too few of us can think outside the box, so using western hierarchical processes for discussion and decision making will build Business As Usual. It is pointed out that Twitter has been effective beyond mainstream media, and the fact that advice and reply must be written has given Twitter more power. The discussion emphasises the need for such personal accountability and the importance of public awareness and opinion. Some people suggest that platforms that allow direct communicational between politicians and the population could make discussions more inclusive and effective if politicians are expected to engage directly and publicly in reply to public input. The conversation also touches upon the failure of a whole generation of Indigenous leadership, and how the idea of leadership itself is flawed. There is concern that the media has mainly focused on the "Yes" case, with the "No" case being degraded to a "stupid" standing. The discussion emphasizes the need for precision and a better focus on relevant matters. It is said that the Uluru Statement process already excluded some voices by calling for a Voice.
The government is believed to want The Voice to be the body responsible for presenting a unified view on matters, and assimilated into the hierarchical process it believes is the only efficient way.
Finally, some people suggest that the failure to focus on relevant matters and the use of trickery, politics and media could lead to inadequate opposition to the "Yes" case.
_________
The Indigenous Voice to Parliament, also known as The Voice, is a proposed mechanism for Indigenous Australians to have their voices heard at a federal level.
However, many people, like the author of this input, have reservations about it. The Voice is seen as assimilationist because it reduces Indigenous Australians to one voice via a series of hierarchies of representatives, each level trimming people's input before passing it up for further trimming
The process of choosing representatives is itself also seen as elitist. The representatives will provide a consensus view that excludes those who are not in agreement. One statement cannot represent how each person is affected. Moreover, minority views are systematically and progressively lost at each step of the voting process, up to the National Voice. The final input that reaches the federal parliamentary process is then voted on by the majority. It is not an effective process for representing Indigenous Australians' views. The Voice advocates are already playing politics and not presenting all views fairly.
The author suggests that "reconciliation" can come from respect for cultural differences and sovereignty rather than assimilation. They also point out that many Indigenous Australians want a Treaty rather than a Voice.
The Voice cannot represent all views, nor can it do more than present the lowest common denominator of a minority for a ruling by those who represent the lowest common denominator of a majority. The Voice is a hierarchy of representatives, not for the poorest.
The author believes that the only way forward, other than assimilation, is a Treaty where both sides agree to the terms. If the government needs to change its Constitution to recognise aboriginal people in order to negotiate a Treaty, let it do so. Without a treaty, seeking a Voice rather than all voices risks too much.
Aboriginal senators, bodies, and others have been giving advice to parliament for decades with too little effect. The Voice representatives are elected by a majority to represent the majority view, and urban or assimilationist views for example are disproportionately represented. The current process is not an effective way to represent Indigenous Australians' views, let alone speak for traditional culture.
We can do better …we must do better.
Discussion & decision making on aboriginal matters is not the only critical matter confronting us all and we quite clearly urgently need to do better.
and The Voice:
A Critical Analysis
Introduction
The Uluru Statement from the Heart was a historic moment for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia. The Statement called for a constitutionally enshrined First Nations Voice to Parliament and a Makarrata Commission to supervise agreement-making and truth-telling between governments and Indigenous Australians.
However, there has been a growing concern among some Indigenous people and others that the process of creating The Voice has been dominated by a particular group, shutting down dissenting voices and views.
This paper will critically analyze the issues surrounding The Voice and the process that led to its proposal.
Bad Process
The Uluru Statement was a momentous occasion that signaled the coming together of Indigenous Australians from all over the country. However, there have been concerns that the process that led to the Statement was not entirely inclusive. Some Aboriginal people and now, white supporters have been accused of dominating the agenda and shutting down dissenting views. This trend has continued with The Voice, where some Indigenous voices have been demeaned and accused of being friends of Dutton or racists for expressing their views.
Bad process Creates Bad Culture
The process used to develop The Voice is also being criticized for being a bad culture. The Uluru Statement process already excluded some voices by calling for a Voice. Individual input gets lost in a consensus among a clique, and it becomes power politics rather than truth-seeking. The exclusivity of the process has led some to question how The Voice can represent Aboriginal people if parliament will have full control over its composition. Additionally, the process used at Uluru to decide the Statement was seen as exclusive, and it gives a chance to speak in a colonialist process rather than to be heard, let alone have any power.
The Walkout
The Walkout at Uluru by some Indigenous people is another indication of the frustration with the process of proposing The Voice and creating The Statement. The walkout was a signal that advocates for The Voice had already proved that they have not represented those views, only the views that suit their agenda. The lack of inclusivity and power imbalances in the process are of great concern to some Indigenous Australians and is unknown by others, and it has led to the call for a bigger discussion on Treaty that avoids politics.
Assimilation vs. Sovereignty
One of the most contentious issues surrounding The Voice is its perceived assimilationist nature. Some Indigenous people are concerned that The Voice will turn a culture of timeless discussion and truth-seeking into a culture that lets representatives decide the lowest common denominator to submit for majority rule instead. They argue that The Voice is part of a broader assimilationist agenda that seeks to make Indigenous Australians conform to the dominant culture and processes rather than maintain their sovereignty.
The Uluru Statement and The Voice have brought the issue of Indigenous constitutional recognition to the forefront of Australian political discourse. However, there are concerns that the process of creating The Voice has been dominated by a particular group, shutting down dissenting voices and views. Additionally, there is concern that The Voice is part of a broader assimilationist agenda that seeks to make Indigenous Australians conform to the dominant culture and processes rather than maintain their sovereignty. While the call for Treaty is undoubtedly necessary, it is imperative that the process is inclusive and transparent
_________
The conversation is about the flaws in the current process for Indigenous consultation and decision-making. The Uluru Statement, which asserts Indigenous ownership of Australia, itself a departure from the traditional view of Earth as mother, is mentioned and criticized for being inadequate, not inclusive, and divisive. Some Indigenous people at Uluru objected to the process and the idea of a Voice. There were also dissenters and walkouts during the meeting. The conversation suggests that a new process that is more transparent, inclusive, and accessible to all Indigenous people is needed to make progress.
Technology is mentioned as a possible tool to help facilitate this process. The importance of authenticity and direct input including particularly from those with their feet in the dirt, is emphasized over hierarchy and leadership. The conversation also touches on specific examples of Indigenous activism, such as the Redfern development and Jenny Munro's work.
________
The discussion revolves around the issue of The Voice, which is in fact an attempt to improve the current colonial system of governance by establishing a First Nations Voice to Parliament. There are concerns raised by some community leaders that the Voice may be assimilationist in that way, confirming internal & external hierarchy by election and authority over personal and cultural sovereignty. Some people oppose it for more profound reasons, and there is a call to listen to all voices to avoid self-condemnation. Some people suggest that there is a better way, but that too few of us can think outside the box, so using western hierarchical processes for discussion and decision making will build Business As Usual. It is pointed out that Twitter has been effective beyond mainstream media, and the fact that advice and reply must be written has given Twitter more power. The discussion emphasises the need for such personal accountability and the importance of public awareness and opinion. Some people suggest that platforms that allow direct communicational between politicians and the population could make discussions more inclusive and effective if politicians are expected to engage directly and publicly in reply to public input. The conversation also touches upon the failure of a whole generation of Indigenous leadership, and how the idea of leadership itself is flawed. There is concern that the media has mainly focused on the "Yes" case, with the "No" case being degraded to a "stupid" standing. The discussion emphasizes the need for precision and a better focus on relevant matters. It is said that the Uluru Statement process already excluded some voices by calling for a Voice.
The government is believed to want The Voice to be the body responsible for presenting a unified view on matters, and assimilated into the hierarchical process it believes is the only efficient way.
Finally, some people suggest that the failure to focus on relevant matters and the use of trickery, politics and media could lead to inadequate opposition to the "Yes" case.
_________
The Indigenous Voice to Parliament, also known as The Voice, is a proposed mechanism for Indigenous Australians to have their voices heard at a federal level.
However, many people, like the author of this input, have reservations about it. The Voice is seen as assimilationist because it reduces Indigenous Australians to one voice via a series of hierarchies of representatives, each level trimming people's input before passing it up for further trimming
The process of choosing representatives is itself also seen as elitist. The representatives will provide a consensus view that excludes those who are not in agreement. One statement cannot represent how each person is affected. Moreover, minority views are systematically and progressively lost at each step of the voting process, up to the National Voice. The final input that reaches the federal parliamentary process is then voted on by the majority. It is not an effective process for representing Indigenous Australians' views. The Voice advocates are already playing politics and not presenting all views fairly.
The author suggests that "reconciliation" can come from respect for cultural differences and sovereignty rather than assimilation. They also point out that many Indigenous Australians want a Treaty rather than a Voice.
The Voice cannot represent all views, nor can it do more than present the lowest common denominator of a minority for a ruling by those who represent the lowest common denominator of a majority. The Voice is a hierarchy of representatives, not for the poorest.
The author believes that the only way forward, other than assimilation, is a Treaty where both sides agree to the terms. If the government needs to change its Constitution to recognise aboriginal people in order to negotiate a Treaty, let it do so. Without a treaty, seeking a Voice rather than all voices risks too much.
Aboriginal senators, bodies, and others have been giving advice to parliament for decades with too little effect. The Voice representatives are elected by a majority to represent the majority view, and urban or assimilationist views for example are disproportionately represented. The current process is not an effective way to represent Indigenous Australians' views, let alone speak for traditional culture.
We can do better …we must do better.
Discussion & decision making on aboriginal matters is not the only critical matter confronting us all and we quite clearly urgently need to do better.