Voice debate continues

Like Rosemary Hutchinson (Sentinel-Times 18/4/23) I feel debate matters and I note with appreciation the respectful tone she has displayed.  

I am totally aware that changing our constitution is potentially far more consequential than an apology. 

I simply raised it to show that there have been excessive claims in this space before, some of which could be unkindly categorised as crying wolf. 

Australia has much to be grateful for most of which was due to the hard work, loyalty and dedication of our British settlers in 1788 and the later waves of multicultural migrants and all of this contributes to the dynamic and connected community I am proud to call my home. 

Many of our First Nations’ people have indeed thrived under the current system but our own statistics indicate that disproportionately many have not.

I am reminded of my first day at high school.  

My school had grown large enough to have two classes for what was then called Form One.  

The school sorted the students via a test into academic and non-academic cohorts with the academic class learning Italian and advanced math and the non-academic class learning woodwork and a lower math level.

Interestingly the academic class consisted exclusively of native English speakers with no Italian speakers and the so called non-academic class had about two-thirds who were native Italian speakers. 

So, with undoubtedly honourable intentions and oblivious to the fact that it was being unfair, my school had displayed systemic bias.

I am a statistician. 

There is no evidence that native Italian speakers are inherently less academic than English speakers (after all Leonard Da Vinci was Italian) so to get such a skewed result the test must have been culturally biased.

We are surrounded by a culture, it shapes our thinking in many ways, ways which we are largely unconscious of.  

If I behave towards somebody in a way that makes sense in my culture, I may be creating offense or indeed operating in a way that could be considered a micro-aggression in another person’s culture.  

That is why we need to systematically and consciously engage in dialogue to minimise misunderstandings.  

I see the Voice as providing such a negotiating forum for ensuring greater Cultural Safety for First Nations peoples going forward.  

The idea of a Voice comes from the Uluru Statement of the Heart, a body which as I understand, consisted exclusively of people with lived experience of the various aboriginal cultures.

It is now becoming accepted practice in many areas such as for example Health to incorporate lived experience into decision making in order to ensure that services better meet the needs of the cohort served. 

Business does this because it works. Why shouldn’t the Government?

Kevin Walsh RFD