Save articles for later
Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.
Since departing in 2019 from the privilege of hosting mornings on the radio for ABC Melbourne (for what seemed an eternity but was “only” 23 years), I have each weekend offered my thoughts and scribblings through these pages. But after four lively years, this column is my last.
A month ago, I was approached about joining the Museums Board.
This is Jon Faine’s final column for The Age.Credit: Matt Davidson
Although it is a voluntary position, accepting an appointment from any government presents both the perception and the possibility of a conflict of interest. Serving at the pleasure of a minister on a government board is inconsistent with being an independent scrutineer of that same government.
It is not ethically possible to do both.
Surrendering a platform in mainstream media is a perilous step for someone who for so long has been used to amplifying their opinions and wallowing in their self-importance. I expect the application of the “mute” button will be therapeutic.
Having the opportunity to influence what people think has been a rare privilege. The days of a speakers’ corner with mostly crackpot orators delivering a prototype of fake news through actual megaphones – not virtual ones – have long gone, although little has changed except the capacity to reach a larger audience.
The urge to have a voice, to be heard, to know that you are actively participating is no small thing. Blood is shed around our globe for nothing more than that right. We take it for granted – but do so at our peril.
Democracy is a fragile machine. Like all delicate equipment, it requires maintenance, or it will break. Active and well-informed participation by the citizens is the surest lubricant to keep the machinery of our democracy in good working order. Use it or lose it.
Soon we will all be asked to actively participate in considering a tweaking of just one small part of the processes of our democracy. The basic rules of our political game are called the Constitution and we will be asked to approve a slight change to how it works.
After years of preliminary meetings right around the continent, from remote communities as well as small towns and cities, Indigenous Australians have issued an invitation – called the Uluru Statement From the Heart. It pleads for a reset in relations between First Peoples and those of us whose connection to this land is somewhat more recent, no matter how that came about.
The proposal is for Aboriginal Australians to be consulted about how government works with them. “Nothing about us without us” is a phrase refined in the disability sphere to ensure that people living with disabilities are involved in policymaking and service delivery. Surely, the same approach can provide benefits when applied to delivering services to First Nations people across Australia.
We need to progress from “talking to” Aboriginal Australia so instead we “listen to and speak with” First Nations people. Given the parlous state of daily life for many Indigenous Australians, surely a reset is at least worth trying.
We need not reinvent the wheel. As happened years ago in Canada, or New Zealand, and in other former colonies, we need to address the mistakes made in our colonial past. The Voice to parliament is the first step. The Uluru Statement From the Heart calls for Voice, truth and then eventually, one day, treaty; all three measures are long overdue.
Opponents to the referendum argue that somehow race relations would be set back by adopting the Voice.
Does anyone suggest that the status quo, the glaring racial inequality embedded across our nation, is acceptable? It is opposition to the change that is divisive, not the change itself.
We ought to be doing whatever is needed to improve race relations and to “close the gap”. How can respecting and listening to Indigenous voices speaking about Indigenous issues and addressing how services are provided in Indigenous communities be a bad thing in any way?
Distressingly, many of the same type of arguments were used to frustrate and delay the eventual adoption of same-sex marriage. Those threatened by progress catastrophise even the most remote possible consequence in order to sow doubt in the minds of the undecided. As we approach the sixth anniversary of the overwhelming vote in support of same-sex wedlock, has the sky fallen in as some predicted? Of course not.
Similarly, when in 1992 the High Court delivered the historic decision in Eddie Mabo’s challenge to “terra nullius” – an empty land – vested interests made loud and confident predictions that the mining and pastoral industries would shut down, that the national economy would grind to a halt. It was nonsense then and it is nonsense now, yet those same tactics and similar histrionics are revived and being applied to the Voice.
I will miss having my voice in this paper but remain optimistic that we can engage in the contest of ideas and address our many challenges – particularly growing inequality – while retaining the capacity to respectfully disagree.
Now I am heading off to join the other fossils and dinosaurs at the museum.
Jon Faine is a Vice Chancellor’s Fellow at the University of Melbourne. He has hosted some meetings with the Yes23 campaign.
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.
Most Viewed in National
From our partners
Source: Read Full Article
