CHARLES:

Well, I thought that was the centre of the universe.

The nearest town, as I say in the book, is Broome. That's all I knew until I was about, I don't know, 15, I suppose.

It's about three and a half thousand people. We are on the coast. We've got a jetty, but it's marsh and it's like muddy water and stuff. So the Fitzroy River comes out not far from where Derby is, and it flows out into the ocean. So we've got lots of mangroves, and crabs, so very much an outdoorsy type of town. I was a book nerd, a comic nerd in particular, I still am. So while everyone else went fishing and played sports, I was reading and mostly reading comics. Oh, and I was a baker, I still am a baker. I bake cakes… a lot.

ANGE:

You’re making me hungry.

[Theme Music Starts]

ANGE:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ange McCormack. This is 7am.

In recent days, there has been speculation over whether the government should abandon the referendum – and instead legislate the Voice through parliament.

Campaigners say legislating the Voice — rather than enshrining it in the constitution — would weaken the Voice, and risk repeating mistakes of the past.

Today, business leader, and author of the new book ‘On The Voice to Parliament’, Nyikina man, Charles Prouse, on cutting through the noise of the campaign – and why he still believes in the power of a referendum.

It’s Tuesday, July 25.

[Theme Music Ends]

ANGE:

Charles, can you tell me a bit about the kind of work you've done? You said that you've always been a bookish kind of kid, and an adult, I suppose too. Why were you approached to write on the Voice? What kind of work has led you here?

CHARLES:

It started when I was a kid, through my family, My aunts and uncles have always worked in Indigenous affairs, so when my aunts and uncles finished work and we were at Nana's, they would come home and there would be cups of tea and there would just be talks of Indigenous affairs and politics.

When I went to university, I didn't know where else to go, and I just landed in these government jobs. And then just through those government jobs, I worked in Perth and then Victoria. I went back to the Derby to work in the Kimberley Land Council, and I really got into caring for country programs and sea ranger programs. Then I went to Sydney, and I've been here almost 20 years now, again, Indigenous affairs, always in Indigenous affairs, just in different environments. And then I was approached around this book. I think to be honest, I didn't know what I was signing myself up for. I said yes, and then I said… they said, “Thanks for agreeing, Charles.” And I thought, “Oh, I thought I was just going to introduce you to someone. But apparently I've signed up for a book.”

ANGE:

And so when you started writing the book, you've been approached to do it. Where did you start thinking about, and collecting your thoughts about your position on the Voice, and thinking about all the reasons why you would vote yes?

CHARLES:

Well, I'd actually done some work with the Recognise campaign, so I was familiar with the general campaign, in terms of recognition.

I knew about the Calma-Langton Report, which is this comprehensive report on what a Voice to Parliament model could look like. It was backed with a lot of research and consultation done by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton.

Archival tape – Marcia Langton:

“So we reported to government last October. The government released our report, I think it was on the 9th of January.”

Archival tape – Tom Calma:

“And what we've done now is to work with a whole range of Aboriginal trusted Islander experts and…”

CHARLES:

I knew who the big players were in terms of Warren and Jacinta.

Archival tape – Reporter:

“Former Labour boss Warren Mundine is president of the ‘No’ Campaign. Today, establishing a committee with Northern Territory Senator Jacinta Price, Indigenous business owners, and former MPs. They've launched a new slogan…”

CHARLES:

I basically kind of gathered myself and I thought, “okay, what's in front of me? What do I know? What have I seen?” And I list those things in the book. And I knew I couldn't tackle everything. I know how referendums work, so I knew, you know, the whole thing around smoke and mirrors.

Archival tape – Pundit 1:

“They haven't wanted to explain what the Voice is…”

Archival tape – Pundit 2:

“But how can people know what they're voting for if there's none of the detail on what it might be.”

Archival tape – Pundit 3:

“Particular parts of Australia you've got no way of knowing what a future Parliament, what powers and functions it will give to this Voice…”

CHARLES:

I wanted to cut through the noise.

And I wanted to give some real focus to a truth from my perspective.

And I thought, well, I could write stuff, but, you know, there's a big community voice out there, and I thought maybe I could ask other people to be honest. I thought, “Oh, maybe someone else could. Help me share the load. I don't have to write so much.” But I thought of my mum, you know. I just thought of my mum because, as I say, we've been in Indigenous affairs, my aunt, my mum, and we're from the Kimberley, we're remote, this is going to affect us. So that's where we got to. And I asked my mother and she said yes.

ANGE:

I want to ask a bit more about your mum, because at the beginning of the year you write that she was feeling kind of uncertain about the Voice to Parliament. Can you talk to me a bit more about the conversation that you had with her and what you learnt from that?

CHARLES:

As I say in the book, we do have lots of chats and there was one chat, she said, “Oh Charles, you know, it's all about these people in Canberra.” And I was just like, “Mum, what are you saying?”

“It's just. It's just like this, just this Canberra people deciding for us.” I said, “Mum, you sound like what they're saying on the TV.” I said, “Have you looked into it?” She goes “Oh, no I've just this is what I see on TV Charles.” And I said, “Well, okay, so why don't you look at the report?” I said, “This is what's bothering me Mum, people are just spouting the things that they hear on TV and what they're hearing on TV is not the full story.” You know, I ring her up the next week and she surprises me. She says “Charles. I read that report. You know, it's pretty good. You know, I get it now. It's true.” And I’m like “Oh, oh.” She goes, “Oh, yeah, Charles, I read the report. I looked on ABC iView. I was watching it on Q&A, I was like, listening…” I was like, “Oh.” And I hadn't read the report, and I thought, “Oh my God, my mother has read the report and I haven't.” So it forced me to read the report!

So what that demonstrated to me was that Mum is in remote Australia, she is like everybody else, she's watching the TV, she's an Aussie person just getting on with her life. And so, she didn't actively go into finding the information until I, kind of, just asked her and challenged her a bit. And so it's not that she was against it, it was about what is being told out there, what is the information people are getting, and how are they responding? And I thought, well, we've gotta get out there and challenge what's being put out there, because people are genuine, they are interested, or at least they're willing. But there can be such a flood of information, they don't even know where to look. Sometimes I had to look for quite a few of the pieces of this information.

ANGE:

So, Charles, your family and conversations with your community have influenced your opinion, and your position, but your work has always focussed on Indigenous affairs, as you've said, throughout your life. And as a younger man, you worked at ATSIC in the Kimberley. Can you tell me a bit about your work there, and how your experience there shaped your views on the Voice?

CHARLES:

So ATSIC was the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.

Archival tape – Paul Keating:

“ATSIC emerges from the vision of Indigenous self-determination and self-management.”

CHARLES:

Basically, they received funding to help community programs around community infrastructure, and community employment programs along with community social programs.

Archival tape – Paul Keating:

“The vision has already become the reality of almost 800 elected Aboriginal regional councillors and commissioners.”

CHARLES:

It gave us a regional voice.

Archival tape – Paul Keating:

“Determining priorities and developing their own programs. All over Australia..”

CHARLES:

And it gave us a national voice. So when a community person comes in through the door, and they're not sure what question to ask, just like, “Who do I ask, what do I ask, I just need some money for this. Can you help me fill out that form?” You know, the English language is a second language, for some. That human interaction, that friendliness, the ability to answer a question without it being confusing, that's what it taught me. It taught me community.

ANGE:

And in the end, though, AITSIC was abolished by the Howard Government. I'm wondering if you can explain what happened there, and how ATSIC fell apart.

CHARLES:

There were two stories. There were stories of mismanagement of funds, and there were stories of inappropriate behaviour. I found that, actually, there has been a review, but the review was tabled. What normally would happen with the review is a restructure, recommendation and a restructure. And none of that happened. It was simply done away with, and they were saying ATSIC was a failed experiment, and by association Aboriginal people don't know how to manage their funds. That is a lie, and I think you don't do away with the Department of Environment, and Department of Parks, and all the other federal agencies if there's been a little bit of mismanagement of funds or inappropriate behaviour. There are methods in the governance process. For some reason they didn't seem to apply for us. We lost our voice.

My voice was taken away, my aunt’s, my cousin’s, every voice was taken away. When people say, “Oh, you should just legislate this voice as a test, and see how it works.” Well, that's exactly what happened with ATSIC. And then the government of the day, tarred us with the same brush and said, “Oh no, it's a failed experiment. We'll do away with it.” So there's no need to legislate this voice. We've already tried. If we put it in the Constitution, the Voice will always be there. It will mean that we'll have to be forced with a restructure if something goes awry. But we'll always have it.

ANGE:

So you're saying that the approach of legislating the Voice, if we took that approach, it would just be a matter of making the same mistake twice. And having it enshrined in the Constitution is the key part here to protect it from what happened previously.

CHARLES:

Exactly. I mean, the first principle is put in the Constitution and protect it. Leave it there. Fix
It. But don't take it away.

ANGE:

We’ll be back after the break.

[Advertisement]

ANGE:

Charles, I want to talk about some of the arguments put forward by the No camp, and because in your essay, you talk through a lot of them. So I want to go through some of them. One of the arguments put forward is that the Voice itself could be seen as racist. Peter Dutton has said that he thinks it will, quote, “re-racialized Australia because it's elevating one group over the other, which could be divisive.” You've thought about that argument. How do you grapple with it?

CHARLES:

Why I think it's justice. When people say it's racist, I would like them to actually consider the position Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been in the past 230 years and tell us, you know, none of that was racist. Captain Cook, and you know, Governor Macquarie, and Phillip, came across and we never had a treaty, we never had a discussion. All we're asking for now is something that should have happened 230 years ago. The Constitution ignored us deliberately for 67 years. Now is that racist? Ask Adam Goodes What racism is. Ask Stan Grant what Racism is. Ask the boy who was shot in Yuendumu, or his parents around what racism is. Hold on, no, we know what racism is, we live it. Still, we're asking for justice, so to say to us, that’s racism, I feel there's two things with that. That's a dog whistle, and it's also a gas light.

The other part to racism, is to supposedly instil some kind of fear. Well, what does that mean? Are you saying you have fear that one race is, what, going to be better than you, or he's going to get more than you? And are you afraid that we're going to take your backyard? Well, Native Title tried that little campaign and that clearly was wrong. People were aware they were going to lose their hills hoist in their backyard, that never happened. People were worried with Cathy Freeman flying the flag, that it was going to be divisive.

Archival tape – Reporter 1:

“She is making a late dive at her. Keep going, Cathy. She's won gold for Australia.”

CHARLES:

It never happened.

Archival tape – Reporter 2:

“You’re carrying of both flags was an important reminder of your pride and your heritage as an Aboriginal Australian.”

CHARLES:

It was uniting.

Archival tape – Reporter 3:

“More than any referendum or staged party line, this innocence has somehow united our nation.”

CHARLES:

Again, I don't understand the fear. So when people say it's racist, that's like a little grenade of fear thrown into the general public going, “Oh, this is racist.” Bang, everyone run the other way. You're going to lose something. I'm not sure what you're going to lose. And in fact, there's so much to gain, there’s so much to gain of unity, of humanity, of like, bringing us together.

ANGE:

You mentioned unity there, and I want to know, beyond the practical reasons for supporting the Voice, what would it mean to you on a symbolic, or emotional level if we did vote yes? What kind of moment do you think that could spark for us as a nation?

CHARLES:

I can tell you. For those who remember were around during the apology, have a think about what that meant. I was on the lawns of Parliament House. We'd gotten in a car with my friends from work.

Archival tape – Kevin Rudd:

“It's time to reconcile. It's time to recognise the injustices of the past. It's time to say sorry.”

CHARLES:

Kevin Rudd was about to apologise. We didn't know with the words he was going to say.

Archival tape – Kevin Rudd:

“To the Stolen Generations. I say the following. As Prime Minister of Australia, I am sorry.”

CHARLES:

But when he said them. Tears, streaming tears.

Hundreds, thousands of people on the lawn. And this is just where I was. We were all in tears of joy, of sadness, of release. We were hugging, adults, grown adults in their thousands in public, in broad daylight, just crying, right. It's so sad, and happy, and hugging strangers. That's what it's going to feel like. And this moment of unity of like, you're Australian, I'm Australian, he's Australian, they're Australia. Like, Oh my God, I think we can do it. That's what I hope it will feel like.

ANGE:

Charles, you've gone really deep thinking about the Voice for this essay that you've written. You've read the report, you've had lots of these really deep conversations with your community. What advice do you have for other people who are only just now starting to think about how they're going to vote?

CHARLES:

I would think about what I've just spoken about, think about what it can do, why we should do it, as opposed to why not. And if you really think about why not, think about what is it that you're really, really afraid of? What are you afraid of losing? And let's talk about that, and then go and ask someone around, “Well, is this true? Will I lose this?” But really think about what we will gain.

Think about this country. Think about not having to talk about the deficit of Indigenous affairs. Let's move on as a country. Think about growing up as a nation in the world on the international stage, thinking about having Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander neighbours who are happy, you're happy. You know, it's a scar on our country's history, but it's a scar that's being healed, and we can move on as a healthy modern nation in the world. There's just so much we can do together. But don't think about what we can't do, and why we can't do it. That's so negative. Y’know look at the glass half full rather than glass half empty.

ANGE:

Charles, thank you so much for talking with me today.

CHARLES:

My pleasure.

[Advertisement]

[Theme Music Starts]

ANGE:

Also in the news today,

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has revealed the estimated budget surplus will grow to a total of over $20 billion, thanks to increasing commodity prices, and tax receipts.

Despite the surplus having grown since he handed down the budget in May, Chalmers rejected calls for spending any of it on more cost-of-living relief, instead saying the government was focused on delivering what has already been promised.

And…

Stan Grant has announced he will permanently leave the ABC television show Q&A.

Grant temporarily stepped away from hosting the program over racist abuse, and a belief he was not adequately defended by ABC management.

RN Breakfast host Patricia Karvelas has been announced as the new host, at least until the end of this year.

I’m Ange McCormack, this is 7am, we’ll be back tomorrow.

[Theme Music Ends]