Tragic tirade

noel pearson’s broadside AGAINST JACINTA PRICE only serves to HIGHLIGHT THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS OF THE VOICE. BY AMANDA STOKER

There’s something tragic about the tirade unleashed by Noel Pearson on Tuesday.

Faced with a formidable opponent in the debate about whether there should be a constitutionally entrenched Indigenous “Voice” to parliament, he resorted to name-calling and scathing attacks against Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price.

There was little engagement with the substance of the proposal, nor the risk it presents by dividing the rights of Australian citizens so that some races have more rights than others. There was no attempt to comfort those Australians concerned that it would empower judicial activism, nor any explanation of how it might be expected to practically improve the living standards or life outcomes of Indigenous Australians.

Instead, he suggested Senator Price was being manipulated to “punch down on other blacks”. Comparing her to Pauline Hanson and suggesting she is in a “tragic redneck celebrity vortex” undermines the significance of her bravery. It’s proof of the courage it takes to speak up against the power of those at the top of the lobby for the Indigenous industry.

I can hardly think of a more insulting way to describe this smart, capable, Aboriginal woman, who has spoken and acted with consistency and sincerity on this important issue (and many others) since well before she became a senator.

Indeed, it seems like Pearson may be prepared to metaphorically “punch down on other blacks” who disagree with him.

After careful consideration, the Nationals party room decided it would oppose the proposal currently advanced for a vague and general power to establish a “Voice” of unclear size, selection criteria and powers to be entrenched in the Constitution. Understandably, they considered that a blank cheque for courts to fill in the gaps with the kind of activist nonsense it did in Love and Thoms, and the permanent division of this nation’s people into two groups with different civic rights, was not the right way to help Indigenous Australians get ahead.

That was a position reached after much deliberation, including consultation with the membership of their party. Just last weekend, the Queensland Liberal National Party overwhelmingly called upon its representatives to oppose the Voice – not as a slap to Indigenous Australians but as a mark of respect for their deep equality and of the desire to see Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to grow in their influence within the real Australian democracy.

Yet Pearson constructed the Nationals’ view as “completely inconsistent with the history of the National Party members’ respectful engagement with the idea of a voice”. Implicit in his conclusion is the view that one cannot be respectful unless they ultimately agree with him. In truth, the most respectful thing an elected representative can do is engage with the community they represent, consider the views of lobbyists like Pearson, listen to the membership of the party to which they belong, and then, considering that research, make the best policy decision of which their conscience and intellect is capable.

That’s precisely what the Nationals appear to have done. It’s exactly what we ask our democratically elected representatives to do.

And it’s nothing short of petulant to frame that as disrespect.

It’s no exaggeration to describe Pearson as one of the architects of the Voice, and one of the leaders who could be expected to set its tone.

If slurs are the way he deals with the careful, considered disagreement of politicians with his policy views, then that should be all the warning we need of the kind of conduct we could expect from the Voice he is so keen to entrench in this nation’s democratic blueprint.

Indeed, Pearson’s tirade illuminates so much of what is wrong with the policy approach that underpins the Voice.

Support for the Voice rests on a number of false premises.

First, it assumes all Indigenous Australians think alike. That’s not just false, it’s downright racist. As the divergent views of serving Aboriginal politicians Linda Burney, Senator Lidia Thorpe and Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price suggest, Aboriginal people do not have homogenous views about how to help improve the lives of our first Australians. Indeed, the needs and aspirations of Indigenous Australians in our cities are wildly different to those in remote communities.

Second, it assumes that dividing people by race, and elevating one disadvantaged group over another based on past disadvantage, is the recipe for future empowerment. Yet, the entrenchment of a victimhood mentality is shown, across all races and places, to be anything but empowering or elevating. Even if it were, establishing two classes of Australians, with different rights and privileges according to the colour of their skin, would overturn the fundamental principle of human dignity on which our institutions are based: that we are all equal before the law.

Third, no one has yet been able to articulate, beyond a feel-good “vibe”, how exactly this will make Indigenous Australians wealthier, healthier, safer or more educated. To observe that the status quo is unacceptable does not mean that the Voice will be an effective remedy. Indeed, it smacks of the assumption that because some other things haven’t worked, then this must be the answer.

It is entirely consistent with care and respect for Indigenous Australians to oppose this divisive, ineffective proposal.

Amanda Stoker is a former LNP senator for Queensland and a distinguished fellow of the Menzies Research Centre.