Voting NO to The Voice

I would read it like this.

The YES vote is a grab by the black bourgeoisie aka the aboriginal industry for a bigger slice of the cake. Although the most disadvantaged people do need some sort of extra support that works I haven’t seen a good argument that the Voice will do the job. The aboriginal industry hasn’t been very successful so far. Why should giving them a permanent fixture in the Constitution improve things? This will certainly end up pissing off a significant section of Australians. I can’t see why one section of the population should have privileged access forever to those who decide things. It implies that disadvantage will never be overcome.

Perhaps the task here should be to develop policies that will “close the gap” and find the people to implement those policies. This is a genuinely hard problem to solve amongst the babel of welfare dependency, grog, black on black violence, self interest, victim mentality, cultural confusion, first language issues, real difficulties of remote delivery of services and historical trauma. Interesting that some of those in the YES camp who appeared to have a good understanding of these issues have now descended to name calling (Marcia Langton, Noel Pearson).

The archaic sentiments in sections of the Uluru statement are not central to the discussion. You can’t imagine Marcia or Noel longing for a return to pre colonial days. My guess is that they represent a compromise to bring the different tribes together and present a united front. But who knows?

The NO vote leaders (Jacinta Price, Warren Mundine, Anthony Dillon) do have some sort of realistic plan (although not always clearly articulated) to improve the lot of the most disadvantaged Australians (remote aboriginals). They argue that commonalities between A&TSI and the rest are more important than differences. And that the disadvantaged A&TSIs need to find the same things that the successful have already found (good education, good job, buy a house etc.). I just think they need to spell out the detail more in order to overcome the litany mentioned above.

There was a booklet called “Beyond Belief” which came out in 2022 outlining several different arguments for the NO vote. Some of it was new to me, especially the prospects of High Court interventions if The Voice advice is not adopted. Anthony Dillon (especially) and Warren Mundine have been publishing their arguments on X (formerly twitter) throughout this year.

Remote Teacher Corp for indigenous students

"Apart from targeted incentive packages, there are two other ways we could lift quality teaching in remote schools... The second is to look at senior teachers at the other end of their careers who could sign up to a Remote Teacher Corps program for a rotational pool of senior and experienced teachers to work in remote schools"

Something in Warren Mundine's book, In Black and White, pp. 301-2 helped me recall and find an article in The Australian from 2014: Making a difference in indigenous education, Andrew Penfold, The Australian, October 18, 2014

Andrew Penfold is the Executive Director of the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation (AIEF) which provides scholarships that enable Indigenous students to attend leading Australian schools and universities.

The section of the article that most interested me is quoted above, the idea of senior and experienced teachers forming a Remote Teacher Corp.

This should have potential. It is actually what I am doing as an individual on my own initiative. But you can't achieve much as an individual. A Remote Teacher Corp is a great idea.