Will a 'Voice to Parliament' actually get better outcomes for Indigenous Australians?

The Voice is so named as to suggest that without it Indigenous Australians do not have one. It's the kind of debating trick used by high school students. It is a ridiculous proposition. Indigenous people now have a higher representation in federal parliament than ever before.

That we could and should find better ways to improve outcomes for indigenous Australians goes without saying. Better consultation may well be the key to that. The consultation should however be at the ground level with the Indigenous Australians to be affected by a program or legislation. That consultation needs to be by local, state and federal governments.

A select few Indigenous Australians speaking to politicians in Canberra is just not going to deliver the breadth and depth that is required. Indigenous voices should be heard at all levels of government.

How will such a body encapsulate the views of the rich diversity of Indigenous Australians? A person living on an outstation in the Kimberley will have very different needs and views to an Indigenous tradie, doctor or lawyer in the cities.

To whom is the Voice speaking? Will the body advise the government on what they think needs to be done, the Parliament on legislation before it, or the public service on the administration of programs? It's the latter area that might prove most effective. All the billions of dollars that have been spent and will be spent in the future largely go through the public service.

If you say, "well that's a matter for the government of the day" you're left looking as if you don't really care or understand where the need is, you just want to be seen to do something. Conspicuous compassion or pious righteousness will make you look or feel good . It will do zip, zero, well frankly, bugger all for the kids living in remote areas.

Does anyone know an Australian who doesn't want better outcomes for First Australians? Think about that. Everyone I know wants better outcomes. Let's not pretend that the so called "Voice" is an outcome.

The question we want answered is just how it will deliver better outcomes. Without meat on the bones of the idea one simply cannot say.

It's a fair question to ask how will such a body offer better advice than a series of advisory bodies set up by successive governments. It is fair enough to ask how it will be better than the old ATSIC that was tainted with cronyism and corruption.

MORE AMANDA VANSTONE:

One of the hardest questions to answer is what happens when the Voice disagrees with the elected Parliament. Does that negativity hang like a dark putrid cloud over future relationships. Of course there would be disagreements. There are disagreements within and between the major parties so why wouldn't we expect them between the so-called Voice and the Parliament. Both the major parties and the Parliament have mechanisms to resolve or settle differences of opinion. That wouldn't be the case with the Voice. We would be left as time progresses with a growing pile of messages from the Voice with which parliament had disagreed.

It is a nasty scenario when you build up a library of dissatisfaction. That seems to me to be a recipe not for reconciliation but for discontent. In the end you can't avoid the nagging question of to whom the Voice will speak. If it is to be parliament then the advice is public and so you build up the library of discontent. If to avoid that peril the advice is to government and can be confidential then you are talking something not very different from an advisory council such as successive governments have used.

If what Indigenous Australia wants is to elect such a body, I for one would be interested in how you would get a better turn out in voluntary voting than ATSIC achieved. When it came to showing up to vote ATSIC didn't have much support among Indigenous Australia.

We will do Indigenous Australia and Australia as a whole a disservice if we do this and get it wrong. The fact that we mean well is irrelevant. The question is will what is proposed deliver and how will it do that?

Yes we want much better outcomes for Indigenous Australians. Governments want to be seen to be doing things, fixing things. We want governments to fix everything. And we want it now. The plain fact is they can't. Problems emerge out of their control. No single level of government can deliver what we all want for Indigenous Australia.

The simplest example I can use is to remind that there are laws against murder and rape and sex with minors. These things still happen. So the next time someone tells you that "the Parliament has spoken" because some legislation was passed you might ask: who was listening?

The simple point I'm wanting to highlight is that a law passed in Canberra or Sydney or wherever is a long way from the back streets of a laneway in a city where a young woman might find themselves at risk. Laws as statements of intent can only go so far. Ditto any comments made by the so-called Voice.

Holding this referendum and getting a no answer would be blight on our political system. It would say that in the desire to be seen as good and caring we rushed in and messed things up. We want better outcomes. Show us how the so-called Voice will deliver them.