Is a voice needed

I wonder why the “Voice to Parliament” proposition needs to be inserted in our Constitution. 

All Australians can petition Ministers and Members of our democratically elected Government on matters of importance to themselves or on behalf of others. 

Currently we can alter Federal Government decisions by electing other Parliamentarians after three years.  

However, if transitory politicians pass a contentious bill in keeping with the agreed provisions of new laws enshrined in the Constitution, it would be more complicated if not impossible to reverse the policy.

Our current Parliament already includes 11 Indigenous politicians which represents a bigger proportion in our Parliament than in the general population. 

As the years go by, the lack of definition of “Aboriginality” is resulting in an increase in those claiming Aboriginal heritage which is selective and out of proportion to their declining biological link. The

Aboriginal Community is very diverse.  It ranges from those who experience sub-standards in housing, medical services and educational opportunities to those who have University qualifications.  

In between, we have artists, musicians, elite sportspeople, entertainers etc  and those who wish to adhere to Tribal customs. 

While all are entitled to respect their cultural roots, just as many migrants have over many decades, it is unrealistic to expect the benefits of modern Australia while retaining practices which make it difficult to integrate and contribute.

This diversity requires a targeted effort to focus on improving the lives of the most disadvantaged Aboriginals without creating an expectation of unearned privilege by others.

Recently, Professor Megan Davis was unable to outline some issues to be advised to Parliament, as they could not be formulated/decided until Aboriginals were given a seat at the Parliamentary table.

This was in order to adhere to Aboriginal cultural practice. 

This absence or withholding of information is unacceptable when the voting public is being asked to support a change to the Australian Constitution.

Slogans such as “always was and always will be Aboriginal land” ignore the facts and contribution of others during past global challenges and would rely on the wit and expertise of others in the future.

I am very concerned about the blind faith being shown toward the ideas of those who have shown no appreciation of the achievements and good will of modern Australia. 

Also, I would rather hear from people who have had firsthand experience and success in assisting Aboriginals to improve their daily lives, than from legalistic theoreticians.  

If our government takes a back seat in negotiations with those seeking to change our current Constitution, the outcome will disenfranchise generations to come without producing a sustainable improvement in the lives of those who need assistance in meeting the challenges of the 21st century.

Rosemary Hutchinson, Inverloch