policy & reform
campusreview.com.au
Representation not enough
The voice of First Nations
people must be heard through
dialogue and education.
By Neil Hooley
I
n recognising the constitutional role of
First Nations people in Australian affairs, as
imagined in the Uluru Statement, there is
an opportunity to give full expression to our
philosophical and cultural identity through
the processes that govern the entire nation:
the question is not whether it should be
done, but rather how. A historic shift of
understanding our common humanity,
dignity and purpose is required.
An orthodox structure similar to the
former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Commission (ATSIC) will not only be
inadequate, but will not heal the seemingly
intractable divisions that exist. I cannot
see how a representative structure that
characterises the Westminster system of
government will suffice.
In the first instance, many citizens would
testify that they find it impossible at present
to see their local member of parliament,
let alone having their particular concerns
heard, or informing decisions. Second,
without change, it appears impractical,
unlikely, or indeed inappropriate, that
the First Nations Voice will be brought to
bear on all decision-making at all levels
of government.
Enshrining some type of process in the
Australian constitution would make ‘listening’
to Indigenous viewpoints compulsory, but
not necessarily guarantee the congruent
nature of the decisions that follow. Adopting
an advisory role on policy and legislation
would also not mean that final decisions are
supported by Indigenous peoples.
These problems are similar to what I
personally endure under the Westminster
12
system, where my viewpoint or voice is
certainly not heard on most matters.
I want to suggest a fundamental shift
from this type of deficient representative
government, to one that does not seek to
focus on the decisions that are made, but
on the philosophical understandings that
constitute such decisions. A shift from the
vertical to the horizontal, from adversarial
to dialogical.
What I have in mind here is a focus
on the concept of Indigeneity, or what it
means to be Indigenous, the cultural and
ethical principles that underpin Indigenous
life. We must, of course, ask a similar
set of questions about what it means to
be Australian.
As a person of Irish-Australian heritage,
it is not up to me to identify aspects
that contribute to Indigeneity, but for
discussion, they may include concepts
of origin, relationship with the land,
respect for knowledge and stories of
existence, responsibilities related to families
and communities, place of elders and
knowledge holders and a holistic ethic of
being. In summary, these concepts can
be taken as a list of Indigenous values that
frame ‘ways of knowing and acting’ with
the world.
Taking this list as a protocol for
considering social questions would
enable a process of review and critique to
be undertaken regarding proposals and
procedures at all levels. It is significant
that Ken Wyatt, the minister for Aboriginal
Australians, has emphasised this point, that
voice must be exercised at local, regional,
state and national levels of engagement.
It could also be suggested for practical
reasons that such critique occur once
a year at each level on one major item
of interest.
Let us take a current national issue
that is of concern to both Indigenous
and non-Indigenous peoples at all levels.
Over previous years, a number of national
and international test regimes for school
students have become prominent in many
countries. There is heated debate about
the veracity of such testing and what they
purport to measure. Utilising the above
protocol would enable First Nations people
to review and critique mass testing and to
bring to light contradictions, assumptions
and commentary regarding culture,
language, prior knowledge and the truth of
personal and community experience.
Now for the tricky bit. Once the report
of review and critique has been received
and fully debated by the elected decision-
making group at a particular level, it must be
specified that it will only be rejected under
very particular circumstances. Amendments
that do not change the direction or intent of
the review will be allowed.
This approach, which could be described
as horizontal-dialogical rather than
vertical-representative, presupposes that
the process followed has been extensive
and in accordance with the principles of
openness, honesty and transparency.
At some point in human history, we must
have the courage to learn to live together in
dialogue with compassion and generosity
in our hearts. This is the meaning
contained in the Uluru Statement that is
presented for the powerful to accept: “We
seek constitutional reforms to empower
our people and take a rightful place in our
own country. When we have power over
our destiny, our children will flourish. They
will walk in two worlds and their culture will
be a gift to their country.”
Current formats of representative
government are not enough to realise this
vision, even if the notion of ‘Westminster
democracy’ is used. Mere representation
is not enough. We must chart a new
path, long and arduous though it may
be, to bring what we think will underpin
satisfied, dignified and peaceful life, for
all Australians.
There are philosophical differences
about how we understand the world,
differences that can create aggression,
fear and hate. But look at the protocol
above, where our common humanity and
aspiration surely outweighs disputation
and polarity. ■
Dr Neil Hooley is an honorary fellow
of the College of Arts and Education,
Victoria University, Melbourne.