Recast Australia’s First Nations Voice as a significant public Event rather than the fairly inconspicuous bureaucratic process envisaged in the 2023 referendum.

Perhaps something akin to the annual State of the Union address by the US President. Or something along the lines of the annual Boyer Lectures (although then the extended time frame would probably dilute the message). It could be an annual Event or a biannual one. In what follows, I shall assume that an address of some sort is either the sole feature or the keynote feature of the Event.

What should be the content of the address? It is the Voice of Australia’s First Nations People, so they should decide what they want to communicate to the rest of Australia on any given occasion. My suggestion is that, in line with the concept of a State of the Union address, it be a dignified and methodical appraisal of the current state of Australia’s First Nations People. It should be both retrospective and prospective. It could include comparison with the situation obtaining at the last Event, as well as comparison with the present situation of other members of Australian society. Brief mention of salient pieces of legislation may not go astray. It should conclude with aspirations for the future and a summary of concrete measures to achieve them. These measures would encompass those that First Nations People themselves intend to implement, as well as suggestions for how Australian society as a whole could assist in improving the lot of its First Nations People.

A main component of the Event, then, would essentially be akin to an audit. Highlighting relevant statistics is more powerful than merely submitting a set of recommendations. The associated suspense (in revealing comparisons with the past) lends to the occasion an element of theater which it would not hurt to exploit. Adoption of a standard format would facilitate comparisons over time. Topics would include demographics, health (including mental health), substance abuse, suicide, education, youth issues, housing, employment, representation in the professions, business enterprises, crime, domestic violence, incarceration, land rights, culture, artistic achievements, discrimination, reconciliation and respect. Both the good and the bad. It may seem invidious to cite so many areas likely to have negative implications, but these are after all the very things we seek to change.

Crucially, the Event is not to be an attack on Government or on Australian society in general. It is mostly an unadorned statement of fact. With the permission of their families, a simple recital of the names of those who died in custody since the last such Event could speak volumes, especially if it were accompanied by photos or videos. This is one example of how an otherwise dry account might be illuminated in a telling sort of way. At every point, though, scrupulous attention should be paid to avoiding the sensational.

The Event should be carefully scripted and managed. It might be around 90 minutes in duration. The script should be very tight. Sentimental verbiage should be avoided. Always there will be a need to explain why Australia’s First Nations People represent a special, and specially deserving, case. But this should be done succinctly and almost as a matter of fact. It could be worth apprising the rest of the Australian population of what’s in it for them if First Nations issues are addressed in the manner proposed.

The delivery should be more that of a statesman than that of a politician. But this does not mean that it has to be dry and boring — much better if it is not! It would be nice to find some way to make the Event appeal to the broader Australian population, so it is eagerly anticipated and observed — but not at the expense of trivializing the main content or diminishing its centrality in the Event. Maybe the Event could get a reputation for the novelty of its graphical or video accompaniments. It could become a vehicle for the development and expression of First Nations creativity. But it is very important that any entertainment component not overshadow or detract from the main message. There should be no opportunity for protesters to interrupt or comment. It might be held in some politically neutral venue, or perhaps on country somewhere, the actual location varying from occasion to occasion. The latter approach admits the possibility of showcasing regional landscapes, culture, successes and issues — similar to the supplementary coverage afforded the host city and nation during the Olympic Games. But again, these adnexa should underline, not overshadow, the main message. The designs of the opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympic Games also illustrate the value of tradition, with certain elements (such as lighting and extinguishing the flame) being mandatory inclusions on each occasion. Continuity being a central theme of the First Nations experience, the Voice Event should likewise contain a set of common core features. Maybe simply the review of pertinent statistics followed by the recommendations, but other elements too may present themselves. The exact treatment of these core features could still vary with each instance of the Event. Importantly, without the constraints imposed by legislation there is room for experimentation over time.

I would suggest that a single person delivering a public address from a stage of some sort — where here I use the term “stage” in its broadest connotation — would create far more impact than would a group of (essentially anonymous) people delivering written recommendations to the Parliament of the day. This is partly because the person would be speaking directly to the broader Australian population. But it would also be due to a sense of occasion, coupled with the undivided attention commanded by a suitably chosen speaker. Examples of how effective this can be include the US President giving the State of the Union address, the German President acting as the conscience of the nation, and the repeated, ever-popular appearances of the always reliable Billy Crystal as the host of the Academy Awards presentation ceremonies. (It would be a mistake to think I am being facetious with this last example; it can in fact be quite instructive in the present context.)

An alternative format comprising three speakers is worth considering. Here I would envisage a middle-aged person reporting the statistical summary, followed by an elderly (probably female) Elder expressing First Nations aspirations for the future, and concluding with an engaging intelligent young adult advancing concrete steps towards realizing those aspirations. Even this minimal amount of theater could be quite effective, and indeed this may be the preferred model.

Coverage of the Event by news media should be sought and facilitated. In Australia, non-commercial media at least are presently sympathetic to the cause of Australia’s First Nations People. National Press Club addresses are televised, so scheduling an address to the National Press Club as soon as practicable in the days following the Event could yield dividends. But addressing the National Press Club should not itself constitute the Event. The main Event should not be dependent on the good offices and protocols of any other organization.

Choose the date(s) carefully, to gain maximum publicity. Not on Australia Day, as it’s a public holiday and public attention is elsewhere. Hard to get a serious message heard above the clamor of so many contemporaneous celebratory events. Avoid other public holidays (national or regional) as well. People don’t want to hear confronting or controversial stuff when their main focus is enjoying themselves on a public holiday. Avoid clashes with major sporting events like the Olympic Games. The day before Australia Day might be suitable. “You go ahead and celebrate the European occupation of this country if you must, but please bear in mind the repercussions.” Remember, though, that the Voice Event is intended to enlist the support of the broader Australian population, not alienate it. If some other date is chosen, it’s probably best to make it coincide with a time when the federal Parliament is sitting and politicians aren’t scattered far and wide and not paying attention to the business of government.

Every aspect of the Event should take cognizance of its likely effect on the mind of the audience. Psychology is all-important. The audience should be left with the feeling that they have:–

• current knowledge of the situation of First Nations People
• an appreciation of inequities that persist
• some insights into the underlying causes
• a heightened sense of injustice
• an investment in seeing the suggested remedies implemented.

The substance of the address should be made available on a dedicated Website, perhaps with supporting documentation, graphs, interviews, video footage and the like. An interactive map detailing data, aspirations and plans for each First Nations group in Australia would not only be informative but would also serve to give a Voice to people at a local level and make the whole process more relevant to them. Use of local indigenous language (with English-language subtitles) would corroborate authenticity. These materials could form the basis for educational programs in schools, as well as for discussions within and between various groups in the Australian population. It should go without saying, that ensuring accuracy at every step is paramount.

The Voice Event should be independent of political parties, government bureaucracy, location within Australia (apart, perhaps, from adjunct activities), and other contemporaneous events. “We have a Voice. It is our Voice. We will use it as we see fit. We will not be silenced. We will be heard.”

The Voice Event, then, is to be a periodic pithy reckoning that bespeaks a proud and defiant affirmation of survival thus far, together with an assured determination and plan to thrive into the future.

This scheme does not require a legal framework. In particular, it requires neither an amendment to the Australian Constitution nor a referendum. It does not require the support of a political party. It may be a statement with political implications, but it originates from outside the entrenched political system. It is not beholden to the Government of the day. Being elevated above the political fray, it cannot be viewed as a tool of any particular side of politics and so cannot be attacked or dismissed on that account.

The scheme would require some sort of bureaucracy to collate data. Some data may be accessible from the public service. But it may be that a dedicated network of “social accountants” should be established throughout Australia’s First Nations communities to gather the data required. This need not be an expensive proposition. The statistics themselves will be uncontroversial. So we should have unanimity among First Nations People on that score at least.

It is important that the Voice be authoritative and have a rightful claim to being representative of the entirety of Australia’s First Nations People. It may require some ingenuity to achieve this, but unity is crucial, lest a major flaw in the referendum campaign threaten to undermine this Voice as well. If it proves impossible to achieve such unity, there is at least a fallback position that does not require it; viz, the simple setting-forth of the statistics. This could be done by anyone credible: there need not be an election of any sort. One possibility would be a respected journalist from NITV. You get the idea that it should not be too difficult to present a united front in relating the statistical data, without unseemly precursory bickering.

Perhaps the greatest challenge would be settling on the aspirations to be articulated and the measures proposed to achieve them. But even this may not be too difficult. Consensus on any particular item is unnecessary when a multiplicity of items can be advanced, thus allowing a variety of ideas to be accommodated. On the rare occasion where several mutually exclusive approaches to arriving at some goal compete with one another, resolution might be achieved by devolving the choice to technical experts in (for example) the public service, or by the expedient of conducting trials of the alternatives, either serially or in parallel. In short, it should be possible to arrive at a set of options that satisfies almost everyone.

Implementation of this (or any other) Voice should not be rushed. It needs to be as flawless as possible, to withstand any potential criticism. Accuracy of the data presented is crucial. Recommendations for the future need to be well-considered, practically achievable and clearly enunciated.

One potential difficulty would be the emergence of dissenting Voices from within First Nations Peoples themselves, as happened during the referendum campaign. This eventuality should be anticipated and a strategy devised well in advance for dealing with it. In this particular context I favor the tack of largely ignoring such renegades and not engaging with them. Alternative Voices are likely to be more strident and partisan. Maintenance of a measured, consistent and dignified posture should earn respect and form a sound basis for countering any internecine conflict.

To avoid any of the other problems that beset the referendum, a thorough strategic analysis should be conducted before launch, in order to predict, pre-empt and counter any potential difficulties, from whatever quarter they arise. A searching, unflinching, realistic and comprehensive analysis of what went wrong in the referendum is a prerequisite for success in this, and indeed any other, indigenous enterprise of a political nature.

When compared with that defeated in the referendum, the Voice envisaged here has a number of merits:–

1. Governed entirely by First Nations People themselves, this Voice is more authentic.
2. Adopting a largely informative, non-divisive approach, this Voice is more inclusive.
3. Conceived as a periodic Event of national significance, this Voice is more noteworthy.
4. By publicly and directly addressing the entire Australian population, this Voice is more far-reaching.
5. Presented personally by a small number of clearly identified individuals, this Voice is more engaging.
6. Providing a succinct but comprehensive record of the status of First Nations People in Australian society over time, this Voice is more relevant.
7. Not being constrained by the dictates of legislation, this Voice is more adaptable.
8. Unburdened by a ponderous organizational structure, this Voice is more flexible.
9. Not being subject to the capriciousness of Parliament, this Voice is more sustainable.
10. Distancing itself from the surrounding political fray, this Voice is more credible.
11. Maintaining the dignity to be expected from present and emerging First Nations Elders, this Voice is more powerful.

It must be conceded that the statements and recommendations of this Voice may yet go unheeded by many in the broader Australian population, and in particular by politicians and agencies whose collaboration is sought. But this was the case too with the Voice put forward in the referendum that so many people placed their faith in. However, it is not unreasonable to expect that, in light of the advantages identified above, this proposed new Voice would have a greater chance of being heard and acted upon than that advanced in the referendum.

With the failure to gain the support of the nationwide electorate for a Voice to the federal Parliament, moves are afoot to establish similar mechanisms in more restricted jurisdictions, such as individual States. Such moves are worth supporting, and it is to be hoped they succeed in their aims, but the longevity and the effectiveness of such schemes are by no means guaranteed. The harsh political reality is that they are vulnerable to being ignored, sabotaged or dismantled, so reliance upon them could prove yet another source of disappointment. Removing the potential for such disappointment and any consequential individual and collective psychological trauma in people who have been traumatized enough already was a major motivating factor in the devising of the proposal advanced above.

It should not be forgotten that a Voice of any species is a relatively small part of an umbrella strategy whose aim is to improve the lot of Australia’s First Nations People. The essential thing is Action. A Voice is not a prerequisite for Action. Nevertheless, given its capacity to act as historian, conscience, educator and motivator, a Voice is still worth pursuing.

Australia’s First Nations People deserve a Voice.

This is one way it might be realized.