WAR stands with Lidia Thorpe and opposes Constitutionally entrenched ‘Voice’ MEDIA STATEMENT — JULY 9, 2020 Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance (WAR) stands with incoming Greens Senator, Lidia Thorpe in her stance against Constitutional recognition. WAR opposes the push for a Constitutionally entrenched ‘Voice’ to Parliament, one of the three proposals of the Uluru Statement. This body, as Referendum Council Co-Chair Mark Leibler has admitted, would only have “advisory powers”. Yet another advisory body will fail to enable Aboriginal self-determination in any real or meaningful way. Pakana lawyer Michael Mansell argues that it will in fact entrench Aboriginal people’s position as merely advisors to the Australian parliament about our own affairs. “The advisory body would not have any say over its own composition, its role, functions and powers,” Mansell has said. “These would be matters entirely for the parliament.” ‘The Voice’ is being falsely marketed as a model for reform which came out of a grassroots movement, when in reality it is the brainchild of Noel Pearson and conservative Constitutional lawyers; Pearson proposed the Voice model in 2014. The government-sponsored process by which Aboriginal people supposedly chose the Voice as our preferred reform model has also been represented in very misleading ways. WAR members were first-hand witnesses to this process, from the preliminary meeting held by the Referendum Council in July 2016 in Melbourne, to the Regional Dialogues, and then the National Convention in May 2017. It is our view that the entire process was highly curated and controlled, and that support for the Voice was a predetermined outcome from the get-go. Meetings were by invitation only, and it has even been alleged that the Referendum Council misrepresented the views and decisions of Regional Dialogues, including the Hobart and Dubbo meetings. There was a walkout by a number of delegates at the National Convention, and others have said they felt attendees were rushedly cajoled into supporting the Voice. We believe that the process was deeply flawed, and that the supposed people’s mandate for the Voice was manufactured. It is true that some Aboriginal people support the Voice model, but there are also many who do not. The Voice campaign is feeding our people false hope of the power and potential of a glorified advisory body. For instance, one of the arguments put forward in favour of the Voice is that by entrenching the body in the Constitution, Federal parliament could not abolish the body at its whim like they did with the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). This is simply not true. The Constitutional provision proposed by the main proponents of the Voice would still allow Parliament to dismantle and reassemble the body whenever and however it sees fit; depending on the government of the day, one day it could be something like ATSIC, and the next it could be a handpicked group like Abbott’s Indigenous Advisory Council. Grassroots Aboriginal opposition played a major role in the demise of the multimillion dollar government funded and corporate sponsored Recognise campaign. The Voice campaign has tried to distance itself from Recognise, but it is fundamentally more of the same. WAR believes that the Voice campaign is attempting to piggyback on grassroots Aboriginal activism; we have seen in recent weeks where some have attempted to link their case for a Voice to the Black Lives Matter protests. No one is marching down the streets chanting “What do we want? Another advisory body! When do we want it? When the government feels like holding a referendum!” Furthermore, the fact that mining companies like Rio Tinto and BHP have thrown their weight and money behind the Voice campaign is a clear indication that it is not a grassroots movement. We must always question the motives behind the words and actions of those who’ve taken so much from us, including the likes of multinational mining companies. We are also concerned that the Voice campaign has attempted to shut down debate by falsely portraying Aboriginal opposition to their model as misguided, misinformed, and as lateral violence. WAR maintains our right, and the rights of all Aboriginal people, to speak out against agendas which we believe to be detrimental to Aboriginal interests, and to speak up for models of genuine self-determination. WAR also acknowledges the sources of authority as mandated through original laws of the land that have been upheld and practiced for thousands of years. If the conversation is about models for reform which could deliver real empowerment to Aboriginal people, there are other models that, while far from perfect, would be much more substantial and effective than yet another advisory body. As Mansell and Thorpe have put forward, other models worthy of consideration include a treaty which would hand back all vacant Crown lands, provide for one Aboriginal Senator from each State, be guaranteed 3% of the gross domestic product and a national elected Aboriginal body with law-making powers. This isn’t an endorsement from WAR of these other models, but an acknowledgment that there are better alternatives to a toothless advisory body. — #ResistReviveDecolonize