Determined to be heard the correct way

ALTHOUGH the idea of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament has only been around for a few years, it is the latest manifestation of a belief that has been popular in Aboriginal affairs for much longer.

This belief is that Aboriginal people are a collective group who are fundamentally different to nonAboriginal people.

This unquestioned belief in fundamental difference results in the idea that only Aboriginal people should be helping Aboriginal people.

It is an idea at the root of all problems facing Aboriginal people today; it results in an us vs them mentality. I have been saying for more than two decades, the commonalities between the two groups far outweigh any differences.

It is for this reason that I believe that the Voice, with its focus on difference, will not succeed in improving the lives of Aboriginal people.

If the Voice does go ahead, then I suspect that the advice given to parliament will be that Aboriginal people are the preferred service providers for Aboriginal people.

This will happen under the banner of ‘self-determination’. But surely self-determination is a good thing? Well it depends on what definition you are using.

It can either be defined at the level of the individual or at the group level. I do believe that self-determination is a good principle at the individual level, but not so good at the group level, which is how it is used in Aboriginal affairs.

At the group or collective level, self-determination can be thought of as members of a group helping each other. So, for example, if an Aboriginal person uses an Aboriginal health service, that is considered selfdetermination.

If the same person uses a nonAboriginal health service, that is not considered self-determination and hence not looked on favourably, given that ‘self-determination’ is one of the great catchphrases in Aboriginal affairs.

While having Indigenous people take care of their own affairs (in the collective sense and not the individual sense) is promoted as selfdetermination, I believe it is actually separatism.

Now, I am not opposed to Aboriginal Australians accessing services that are managed by Aboriginal Australians, if the service providers are competent.

Indeed, I have been privileged to know some outstanding Aboriginal service providers. A distinguishing feature of these service providers’ attitude and work ethic, is that they see oneness and commonalities, not separateness.

In order to help Aboriginal people most effectively, we don’t need the Voice or other parts of the Uluru Statement.

Rather, we need government, the public, media, journalists, leaders and the justice system to recognise that Aboriginal people are Australian citizens with the same fundamental needs and have the same rights as other Australians.