Whose Voice are you Listening to?

The title to this was going to be ‘The Voice’: The Referendum, Not the Show’– but I couldn’t be sure all readers would get the reference; given that many of us have missed the fact that Australia have been preparing to vote on whether Indigenous Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities should have a ‘voice’ enshrined in the country’s Constitution.

The proposal from Prime minister Anthony Albanese involves parliament having an advisory body that would speak to and for the specific needs –of this marginalised group. But questions have poured in: From where will these representatives come? Will they be elected and if not who will select them? What is the criteria for selection? Will they be made up of indigenous University professors sat in their ivory towers away from grass-roots, making recommendations on their behalf?

Credit: Getty Images

The age old tension between the coloniser and the colonized, unity v diversity, black and white, nationalism v inter-nationalism is pervasive right across the world. But on Oct 14^th Australians will vote for or against the proposal for ‘The Voice’ being enshrined for good. Yet there are indigenous leaders in both camps for and against.

Here are some of the arguments:

• For: The only way for things to change is by making sure that provision is made permanent via a constitution that will recognise the indigenous people’s of Australia (who have been there for 65,000 years) yet are still marginalised.

• Against: The government are embedding the permanent narrative of victimhood on First Nation people. Therefore, they will forever be ‘other’ than– a people in need in perpetuity.

• For: Once in the Constitution the advisory board will have power to ensure that the needs of the people are taken seriously at a strategic level; where systemic issues can be tackled and changes legislated for.

• Against: The issues in the Indigenous Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are not simply a matter of colonisation, that is just buying into a narrative with an agenda. In fact that’s not the problem; the issues like domestic violence against women in marriage stems from a lack of education. Therefore traditional practices and ideas (that existed before the ‘white fella’ came) are still going unchallenged-without adequate intervention.

• For: “Voting no is voting for the status quo” it’s what we have now

• Against: “If you don’t know then vote no!”

And so the debate has gone on….

I was only turned onto the fact that this historic debate was taking place, because of a connection in Sydney, who brought the issues to my attention. It just wasn’t on my radar. I have not once heard it being discussed in the UK. The timing of my latest articles seemed prophetic my contact said. It’s been a long debate, their equivalent to UK’s Brexit. If the constitution is amended then there will be no turning back. It’s permanent. ‘Out of Many One People’ God’s heart cry for the nations- and yet there’s a real tug of war about how that’s going to happen. If it will happen and whether it should happen at all.

Really whose voice are we listening to? Shouldn’t the people to whom the land originally belonged to have equal footing and a voice? Absolutely! Are they going about it the right way? Well... It’s not for me to say, I’m an observer from the side lines and I came to this party very late.

credit: ipa.org.au

What I can say is that words and narratives have power to loose or bind; to create chaos or bring about order (I know this appears simplistic and dualistic- but the principle about the power of words remains). It’s why so many people are out there trying to manifest (or manufacture) their lives (with the voice). The voice, has power to bring life abundantly or kill steal and destroy - so how are we listening and who to?

Someone has had to use their skill to draw down data, make meaning and form story. We need it. It’s how we communicate our ideas about ourselves as individuals, as a community or as a nation to others. We also tell our stories as cautionary tales for the future. When the indigenous Maori’s from New Zealand signed a treaty with the British, they lost a great deal of their land and rights because words and meaning were lost in translation (including the word sovereign if I remember rightly). Lessons learnt -it has taken them decades to fight for reparations, though it will never bring back those lives taken.

Much suspicion has come about on this debate around language and meaning, what is stated and what remains unsaid. Some of it has arisen from what happens when narratives are committed to paper, when they are administered through legislation, on platforms, in parliament, in media, in spin in the open and behind closed doors. Somehow full the trust goes with it.

By the time I publish this. Australia would have voted and I’ll be waking up on Oct 14th to the results. I hope that whatever the outcome, that the actual voice of the people whom this will impact the most will be heard and that mutual deep listening and learning can finally happen for a country divided.