[Theme Music Starts]

RUBY:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ruby Jones. this is 7am.

While the push towards a Voice to Parliament continues, decisions are still being made about the lives of Indigenous people.

Mines continue to open on traditional lands, in states around the country the age of criminal responsibility remains as young as 10 years old, and the gap is not closing.

There are plenty of things that governments across the country could be doing right now to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians.

Today, contributor to The Saturday Paper, Ben Abbatangelo, on why governments can’t get away with saying the Voice is the only answer.

It’s Tuesday, June 13.

[Theme Music Ends]

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

“On every measure there is a gap between the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the national average.”

Archival tape – Linda Burney:

“A voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians is the best chance we have.”

Archival tape – Yes Campaign Ad:

“Everyone walked side by side. And that's how we changed this country for the better. How we made history.

RUBY:

So, Ben, as you've been listening to the conversation around the Voice to Parliament, over the past few weeks, what have you been thinking about the ‘Yes’ campaign, and Labor government, and their talking points?

BEN:

Yeah, it's been a mixed messaging from my perspective. At times there's speaking out of the left side of the mouth, and then within a couple of breaths speaking out of the right side of the mouth. And I think what's happening at a grassroots level, as this discourse becomes even more violent, even more nauseating, even more unrelenting — if that's even possible — is that there's indigenous people on the ground that are becoming aware that putting all your eggs in the Voice basket isn't necessarily the road map towards freedom.

In the conversations that I'm having at a micro level, it's more so about what can we do, you know, within our communities, within our regions, how can we revitalise that politics of yesteryear that brought so much significant change and progress? How can we seek to redevelop, revitalise those doctrines? From my vantage point, as I said, it's not about what people are saying, it's more so about what, you know, this government and other state governments that in a pact support the Voice, you know, what they're doing.

And yet when I look at that, I see a violent continuation of 230 odd years of domination. I don't see any ceasefire. I don't see the contempt that this place has for indigenous people being curbed. I just see more of the same.

RUBY:

Okay. Well, let's dig down a bit into that, what it is the Labor government is doing when it comes to policy that affects Indigenous Australians. And I suppose conversely what it isn't doing that could improve lives.

BEN:

Yeah. There's an archive of examples that… and we're not looking back through history. I mean, what I'm looking for in this moment is, you know, within this term of government, you know, over the last couple of months you've seen Tanya Plibersek green light the pediment fertiliser plant on the Burrup Peninsula and sacrifice one of the world's most profound archives, the Murujuga.

Archival tape – Tanya Plibersek:

“You know, it's no surprise that in any group you'll sometimes have divergent views. In this case, I've gone with the views of the group that has been set up for some years now. To be the legal and cultural authority for the area representing the five traditional owner groups.”

BEN:

We’re seeing fracking in the Beetaloo Basin, which goes against the demands, the wishes, the aspirations of traditional owners.

Archival tape – Unknown:

“It is clear that the government has not done a proper job of making sure people understand the huge impact fracking will have on our country.”

BEN:

You've got the petrochemicals plant in the Darwin Harbour, which again, is without the consent or without consultation of Larrakia traditional owners.

Archival tape – News:

“Plans for a taxpayer funded petrochemical precinct on Darwin Harbour could increase the risk of cancer and heart disease in nearby suburbs.”

BEN:

Labor's reform, the cashless debit card back to its original roots, which means that income management is almost an exclusive function for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as they designed.

Archival tape – News:

“Labour went to the recent election pledging to end the card, saying it stigmatised people and failed in its bid to help them off welfare. But locals aren't happy. They've had no say in the matter.”

Archival tape – News:

“They put us on with that, no permission. And now they're gonna take us off again without no permission from us.”

BEN:

There's just so many examples over the last, you know, 12 to 18 months that really stand out, and that's before we even start to touch on, you know, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, which is sitting dormant.

You know, the Bringing Them Home report, which continues to collect dust. There's just a litany of examples that, you know, entirely undermine the entire premise and promise of the Voice.

RUBY:

And when you talk about those kinds of examples, what do you see flowing on from them? What do you see in terms of the very real, kind of, outcomes of those policy decisions that have been made?

BEN:

Yeah, well, I mean, what it is doing is continuing to attack the heart of Indigenous communities. It's continuing to, you know, undermine their aspirations, their sovereignty. And, you know, it's a concerted attempt, and a conscious decision to further strip indigenous peoples of the things that sustain them. I mean, if we think about Murujuga and, you know, the government striking the right balance, as they say, in sacrificing, again, one of the world's oldest living archives that holds, you know, the earliest expressions and creative thoughts, you know, for a 6.5 billion gas guzzling fertiliser plant. Like, what does that do to indigenous peoples of that area? That land is them. They are the land.

So, you know, continuing to dominate those environments is a concerted effort to continue to dominate the people. So, you know, I see these acts and these policies consciously looking to, you know, keep Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people under government control.

RUBY:

But one of the things that the ‘Yes’ campaign claims is that constitutional recognition would lead to real improved outcomes. So, the argument goes that by being able to use a Voice to Parliament, Indigenous people would therefore have a say on the policies that impact them. So policies like some of the ones that you've mentioned- things like income management, policies around justice and imprisonment - and we would therefore, if there was voice, start to see changes and presumably improvements. So what do you make of that case that's made?

BEN:

It's very speculative, and I don't think it's actually grounded in as much truth as people suggest it is. I mean, all of these examples that I've provided you stem from reports, government initiated reports. Governments know that traditional owners don't want these companies dominating their lands. They're taking them to the courts, like we've been telling governments from every angle what it is that we want. Specifically with those examples that I've provided you, have used every mechanism, every depository. They know exactly what it is, whether it's been told to them from the front of Parliament House, from the top of a cop car, from a young child with a spit hood, you know, sitting in solitary confinement in royal commissions, in other government initiated inquiries and reports. I mean, to suggest that they don't know what we want as is, is a myth. And I think on top of that, the whole theory of change of nothing about us without us doesn't hold as much water as those that are pushing the ‘Yes’ campaign suggests, because the solicitor general's advice was clear that, you know, a Voice to Parliament would not, or Section 129, would not impose any obligations upon the executive government to follow representations of the Voice, or to consult with the Voice prior to developing any policy or making any decision.

Furthermore, Danny Gilbert, who is the co-chair for Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition, said in a submission to the Joint Select Committee, that the provision imposed is not a legally enforceable constitutional obligation to either establish or maintain the Voice. So those two examples from prominent legal minds who, you know, suggest that, you know, the government isn't obliged to listen, to engage, to respond to the Voice once it's established, and particularly when we know that governments consistently ignore the evidence base that is in front of them.

RUBY:

We’ll be back in a moment.

[Advertisement]

RUBY:

Ben, you seem to be saying that there is this dissonance between what the Albanese Government says that it wants to do, which is improve the lives of Indigenous people by introducing a Voice to Parliament, and what it is actually doing, which is to keep, or to enact, policies that do not do that. Given that, where do you ultimately land right now then on the value of having a referendum on a Voice to Parliament?

BEN:

In all honesty and sincerity, there's a significant dissonance, right? I mean, Anthony Albanese, you know, at a press conference, he's quick to tear up when he's flanked by, you know, prominent Aboriginal voices and people. But a month later he's, you know, over in the UK and kissing the crown that dispossessed us of our lands, that like, slaughtered our people, that rounded us up onto missions, that stole our children, you know, and swearing allegiance to that crown. I mean, you know, when Uncle Archie Roach died or even sorry day, which was just over a week ago, there's all of these bold proclamations. I mean, when Yunupingu passes away, it's everyone's quick to co-opt, you know, these moments and push, and nauseatingly and disrespectfully, push the Voice to Parliament. But Yunupingu spoke about recognising our rights, which is a very different equation to recognising us as people. So I think there's a lack of sincerity. I think there's a vulgar kind of cooptation of really important moments, and what people are saying versus what they're doing doesn't stack up.

RUBY:

Right and it sounds like what you’re saying is that you question the sincerity of the intention there?

BEN:

Well, I want to get out of the what, you know, my opinion is, and more so focus on, like what's happening and, you know, objectively with the examples that I've just provided you, it very much is the same empire with a different face. I'm very curious about leaning into the doctrines of what is, you know, just and what is fair, but more importantly, what are indigenous people, you know, here on this continent, and surrounding islands, and other places around the world? What are we deserving of? What are our inherent rights? And, you know, does the Voice enable us to freely determine our political status, and freely pursue our economic, social, and cultural values? And does it give us the autonomy to self-govern? Does it give us the ability to maintain and strengthen our political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions? Like, does it give us the rights to the lands and territories and resources which we were born out of, and been in relationship with for the last 100,000 years? I mean, the Voice does not do that. And, you know, I don't think that we should be looking at the Voice as the be all and end all, that it is one tool and one mechanism, but I can't see it being a step towards any of those things that we are inherently deserving of.

RUBY:

And Ben, how do you grapple with talking about the issues that you're identifying with the Voice to Parliament, in terms of what it actually promises in the context of this bigger debate that's happening in terms of the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns? How difficult is it to position yourself and your critique in this debate, as it becomes more acrimonious?

BEN:

Totally. It's very difficult. And I feel like today is one of the first times that in a public setting that other people will listen to, that I've felt the freedom and need to speak with my chest out. I mean, I've tried to do as much sitting, and listening, and thinking, and not sort of get walked up into this vortex of discourse that is inflammatory, and unhelpful, and violent. But it's ultimately the rest of the population that is going to determine the fate of our futures.

I still think it's, you know, important as more information has been released, and that we have a clearer insight as to not only what's on the table, but more so what this government, right, under the backdrop of the winds of change, like this is a moment where we should have a left leaning government — if you could even call it that — with the referendum as their primary platform, they should be doing things that at least take the boot off of our neck, and not further the stranglehold. So, I think there's just been too much evidence placed in front of me to no longer, I guess, sit on the sidelines and to contribute in an honest and earnest way that doesn't, you know, further inflame the hyperbole that surrounds, you know, a lot of this conversation.

RUBY:

Ben, thank you for your time.

BEN:

Thanks for having me.

[Advertisement]

[Theme Music Starts]

SCOTT:

Also in the news today…

Donald Trump has promised he will stay in the race for president, even if he’s convicted of a felony, saying quote: “I’ll never leave.”

Trump is facing 37 charges over his possession of classified documents – that were stored at his Mar-a-Lago residence. There is nothing in the US constitution to prevent someone running for president from behind bars.

And…

The WA Department of Justice has been accused of bullying staff who could speak out about conditions at the state’s only youth detention centre – Banksia Hill.

One email, obtained by the ABC – includes a threat of jail time for discussing major disturbances at the site with non-custodial personnel.

Conditions for detainees at the centre have previously been found unlawful by the WA supreme court.

I’m Scott Mitchell, filling in for Ruby Jones for the next couple of days. I’ll see you tomorrow.

[Theme Music Ends]