Watch right to the end for the punchline!
indigenous politics
The Voice
Vote “No” to The Voice
Why Pastors Cannot Support The Uluru Statement And The Voice
From the Caldron Pool
Reasons Pastors Should Reject the Uluru Statement
“Yes, we must unequivocally condemn racism and oppression—but we must also care enough to listen to the indigenous voices on each side and engage our fellow image-bearers endearingly, not in a one-size-fits-all manner…”
As an Australian-American currently living in Houston—one of the most racially segregated cities in the US—it is disconcerting to see similar racial tensions gain steam in Australia in light of present debates regarding stolen land.
Front and centre in heated discourse is the Uluru Statement from the Heart, a document written by certain indigenous leaders and endorsed by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. The statement itself seeks to bring about “structural reform” and “constitutional change” through a voice to parliament, advocating that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the “first sovereign nations” of Australia.
Even so, religious leaders in Australia have come out in support of the Uluru Statement. But is such support good, wise, or biblical?
Caldron Pool colleague Mark Powell has shared legitimate and compelling reasons for Australians to reject the Uluru Statement in his piece Enshrining Victimhood into the Constitution, reasoning that it will perpetuate the failures of the ATSIC, distort Section 116 of the Australian Constitution, diminish the moral agency of Aboriginal people, promote more racial division, etc. In line with his insights, I shall provide more reasons, for pastors and elders, in particular, to do the same.
The Uluru Statement—both in its wording and intent—must not gain a foothold in Australian churches.
First, from a pastoral perspective, we ought to listen to the voices of ethnic minorities, because all of them are our neighbours and God’s image-bearers. However, I cannot stress enough the importance of employing prudence and impartiality when it comes to gauging the indigenous Australian experience. As is evident, indigenous Australians are divided over issues of race. No doubt many agree with the message of the Uluru Statement, but many indigenous Australians also vehemently disagree.
Pastors and elders, therefore, must not assume that an entire demographic shares a singular experience when it comes to race relations, as the Uluru Statement does. Yes, we must unequivocally condemn racism and oppression—but we must also care enough to listen to the indigenous voices on each side and engage our fellow image-bearers endearingly, not in a one-size-fits-all manner, but pastorally, on the merits of their own experience as Australians.
Moreover, the Uluru Statement is dehumanising because it peddles a white guilt narrative that is rooted in a white saviour complex (i.e., the assumption that indigenous Australians need to be acknowledged and saved by whites in order to live their lives). In relation to this, Jacinta Price has stated, “It is suggesting we need this voice because we are in a position of marginalisation; the way I see it, I would like to see us all as equally taking advantage, having these opportunities, and to live our own lives, which would make us equal to everyone else; and we would not then need to be a stand apart voice…”
Last of all, amid ongoing debates in the church, pastors and elders must be diligent to protect their congregations from the Uluru Statement, because it simply does not comport with the message of the gospel wherein Jesus secured reconciliation between ethnic Jews and Gentiles in his atoning death (Matt. 27:51); and despite being a persecuted Jew himself, Jesus’ message was never “Jewish lives matter” but rather “repent” (Matt. 4:17) and “preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15) because all have “sinned” (Mark 2:17).
As pastors, we are also called to keep the main thing the main thing. If your colleagues or congregants want you to, in a plea for racial unity, express approval for what is in the Uluru Statement, just lovingly explain to them that Jesus has already achieved racial reconciliation on the Cross, which means the unity that people experience within the true body of Christ far transcends any sin allegedly inherited from British ancestors (Eph. 2:11-13).
The Voice: We Don’t Need It
From cis.org.au
A national body can’t speak for Aboriginal people as a group and Aboriginal people won’t recognise it. Any representative ‘voice’ group that isn’t tied to country will have no authority
I was talking to an Aboriginal man at the Garma Festival last weekend, an elder from a community in another state. He said: “What I’ve heard about the Voice to parliament is nothing I haven’t heard before.” Einstein is credited with saying: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
Constitutional recognition of Aboriginal people was first proposed by then Prime Minister John Howard in 2007, passing like a baton through five more PMs before landing with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
Initially about symbolic recognition, since the 2017 Uluru “Statement from the Heart” the campaign has been to enshrine a First Nations “Voice” in the constitution. The campaign is championed by Australia’s elites, including corporate Australia, media figures and Aboriginal academics.
When I speak to Aboriginal people day-to-day I don’t find support, but rather indifference, confusion as to what it’s about or outright opposition. I know why. The Voice, like the representative bodies before it, is not built around Aboriginal cultures and how we look at ourselves.
This week we are told that the proposal will be to add three provisions to the constitution:
1. There shall be a body to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
3. The Parliament shall, subject to this constitution, have powers to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
My first reaction was why amend the constitution at all? The Commonwealth government already has power to create Aboriginal representative bodies and has before including the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee, ATSIC and the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples.
It could legislate tomorrow to create a Voice. No referendum. The previous bodies all made representations to parliament, as do many other Aboriginal bodies and individuals all the time. Recent changes to the Closing the Gap targets were made on advice from Aboriginal community bodies known as the Coalition of the Peaks.
When down in parliament, I’m always tripping over blackfellas there to talk to politicians and public servants. Aboriginal people don’t need constitutional permission to tell government what they think.
The most important thing about the Voice — its composition, functions, powers and procedures — won’t be in the constitution at all but decided by parliament.
The government of the day can make the Voice anything it wants: from a small, hand-picked committee to hundreds of elected members or anything in between. Enshrining the Voice in the constitution doesn’t depoliticise it; quite the opposite.
But the main reason I remain unsupportive is if Aboriginal Australians are to have representative bodies to speak on things that matter to us, those bodies will fail if they conflict with our own identities. There isn’t one Aboriginal group but hundreds, each with their own country, language, kinship system and culture.
A year after the Uluru Statement of the Heart I was in Mutijulu, a small community at the base of Uluru, and a local elder took me aside to tell me that the Uluru Statement of the Heart was not their culture and does not speak for them. What they were talking about is that traditional owners of a particular country are the only people who can speak for that country.
A national body can’t speak for Aboriginal people as a group and Aboriginal people won’t recognise it. Likewise a regional body that spans and has membership of different countries.
Any representative group that isn’t tied to country will have no authority to be anyone’s voice. I predict the Voice will be just another bureaucratic structure that further entrenches government in Aboriginal lives.
Despite the missions and reserves being disbanded since the late 1960s, Aboriginal people are the most over-governed people in Australia. We need less government, not more.
Nyunggai Warren Mundine AO is the Director of the Indigenous Forum, Centre for Independent Studies
Read the full article here
Aboriginal Senator Slams “Welcome to Country”
From the Daily Mail:
Aboriginal senator Jacinta Price slams welcome to country ceremony after Pauline Hanson fled Senate
Indigenous senator says Australia is now ‘saturated’ by welcome to country ceremonies – after donning traditional headdress for maiden speech slamming ‘handouts’ thrown at Aboriginals
- Pauline Hanson stormed out of senate to protest acknowledgement of country
- New Aboriginal senator Jacinta Price has now backed the One Nation leader
- She says profusion of ceremonies has removed their sacred nature
- And she blasted Labor’s proposed indigenous Voice to Parliament proposal
By Kevin Airs and Nic White For Daily Mail Australia
New Aboriginal senator Jacinta Price has slammed welcome to country ceremonies for being token gestures and ‘throwaway lines’ – and backed Pauline Hanson after her walkout from the Senate on Wednesday.
The One Nation leader stormed out as Senate President Sue Lines acknowledged the Indigenous comunity at the opening of Wednesday’s sitting, yelling; ‘No, I won’t and never will’.
Senator Hanson was branded ignorant and racist by Greens senator Lidia Thorpe after the stunt, but she has now won backing from Senator Price who admitted the ceremonies had reached the point of overkill.
‘We’ve just been absolutely saturated with it,’ she said on Thursday. ‘It’s actually removing the sacredness of certain traditional culture and practices.
‘And it’s just become almost like a throwaway line.’New Aboriginal senator Jacinta Price has slammed welcome to country ceremonies for being token gestures and ‘throwaway lines’ after Pauline Hanson’s walkout from the SenateOne Nation leader Pauline Hanson stormed out as Senate President Sue Lines acknowledged the indigenous comunity at Parliament’s opening, yelling; ‘No, I won’t and never will’
The former deputy mayor of Alice Springs was elected Country Liberal Party Senator for the Northern Territory and made her maiden speech in traditional costume on Wednesday.
She used the moment to rail against Labor’s proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament, an elected body of First Nations representatives enshrined in the constitution that would advise the government on issues affecting them.
‘I’ve had my fill of being symbolically recognised,’ she told 2GB’s Ben Fordham on Thursday.
‘I’ve had enough – they’ve done really nothing to improve the lives of really marginalised people.
Read the full article here
New Life Narrabri 
Aboriginal Australians have heard the Voice before