Prominent Australian journalist Kerry O’Brien has delivered a passionate defence of the Indigenous voice to parliament, saying the nation is at an “absolutely pivotal moment” in demonstrating “our ability to learn the lessons of the past”.
O’Brien was speaking at the first day of hearings of the joint select committee on the wording of the voice referendum.
O’Brien, who said he has been “sitting in the box seat of history for more than 50 years” as a journalist and government adviser, said the voice was a “simple and unambitious and unthreatening” proposal that should have the chance “to mature and grow and evolve, just as the parliament of Australia did.”
O’Brien has authored a book with pro-voice campaigner Thomas Mayo, and they were appearing in that capacity before the committee.
O’Brien said he wanted people to understand the history of “institutionalised failure” in Indigenous affairs.
“I would like them to consider when they look at the images coming out of Alice Springs today, not to think that this is some recent phenomenon that has suddenly blown up, but to actually see it as evidence of failure, of institutionalised failure, from generation to generation, from government to government,” O’Brien said. “And when I hear people say, let’s just do more of the same only do it better, I say, ‘for God’s sake, wake up to yourselves.’
“When I hear some Australian politicians and others implying … that somehow Indigenous people, if they’re given responsibility, will abuse it … I think to the many instances I’ve reported on, of abuses of power in our predominantly white parliaments. Institutional corruption … pork barrelling … And I wonder how anyone can possibly dare to take issue with Indigenous people and say they can’t be trusted.”
Earlier, Prof Marcia Langton told the committee there is deep cynicism and despair in Aboriginal communities that any level of government will listen to them about having their essential needs met without being compelled.
Langton, who co-authored a key report commissioned by the previous government on how a voice would operate, said there was “desperation” about a lack of continuity in government services, which a voice to parliament could help address.
“A new bureaucrat comes in, they only last for about two years on average,” Langton said. “And [when] the bureaucrat comes into a region, people said to us, ‘we have to start all over again.’ So again, and again and again they’re raising urgent issues like housing or clinic issues.
“I got the distinct impression everywhere I went, that people want the voice to be enduring. And they believe that the proposal for a constitutional enshrinement of the voice is the right way to go about giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a say in matters that affect them.
“We went into communities where the situation is so dire that the feeling that people have governments have failed them is evident. The evidence is right in front of one’s eyes.”
Earlier, two of the key architects of the Uluru statement from the heart rejected the criticism of a voice to parliament being described as “a Canberra voice”.
Prof Megan Davis and Pat Anderson outlined the years of consultation processes that led to the statement in 2017.
“What they asked for was a voice to Canberra, not a Canberra voice,” Davis said.
“What we heard in the dialogues was that people didn’t want reserved seats and designated parliamentary seats … because people don’t want to be politicians. They want to serve their community.
“So the Canberra voice is just a term that’s deployed to imply that our people want to be politicians in Canberra, when nothing could be further from the truth.”
Davis said Friday’s hearings would result in the 11th report on constitutional recognition, from the eighth process in 12 years.
Constitutional lawyers Louise Clegg and Douglas Drummond KC, who have expressed concerns about the voice referendum wording, including that the voice could spur ongoing court challenges, will appear later on Friday.
The committee chair, Labor senator Nita Green, said the committee was not tasked with weighing up the yes or no case. Instead, it would consider the voice’s legal ramifications.
“We’re not making a decision about the broader referendum,” she said. “That’s a decision the Australian people will make, not politicians.”
Hearings will be held in Orange, Cairns and Perth, to gather views from Indigenous communities and those involved in the processes that led to the voice proposal.
