Status quo not working

The upcoming referendum on a Voice to Parliament provides for constitutional recognition of our First Nations people in a very practical way. 

So I was pleased that your editorial (23/5/23) observed that nearly everyone wants to see our First Peoples accorded recognition in our founding document.  

But I disagree with your further arguments about the wording to be included in the Constitution, regarding the executive government. 

To draw a parallel between the capacity of the Voice to Parliament giving advice to the executive, and the current situation in Bass Coast, requiring Council and the community to accept one of the four names provided by the Bunurong Land Council, is comparing apples with oranges. 

The Voice’s mandate is to give advice only. 

It has no right of veto. Constitutional lawyers have said no legal action can be taken if government does not heed its advice.  

The situation with Bunurong Land Council is very different. 

They are inundated with requests for naming from all sectors of the community, and it makes sense for them to say that if they do the research to find appropriate language terms, they want one of the choices to be taken up. 

It is a contract and a sign of good faith. 

In years to come, using Aboriginal names will be a respected step and a widely accepted “no-brainer’. Our area names attest to their past widespread use. 

Your suggestion that the Voice should join in the political process at the same time as the politicians, once a bill has come before Parliament, minimises the potential strength of the Voice. 

Surely if you agree with Indigenous recognition, you would want to maximise the probability of legislation actually being well-targeted at the needs of First Nations communities. 

The way to ensure that is for the Voice to bring grounded knowledge and advice to the table as early as possible, so that it is considered and, if accepted, structured into legislation from the start.

Your final argument about ‘adding to an already complex political process’ raises the issue of the alternative, ie the status quo. 

The status quo is not working. 

We have failed policies, wasted resources, under-developed human capital, and disappointed communities that know what they need and how to achieve their goals but are not heard. 

If it’s going to get a bit more complex to actually facilitate ‘closing the gap’ at last, I’m all for it. 

Marg Lynn, Berrys Creek