The Voice

[mullokintyre]

One of seemingly impossible to answer questions over "the Voice"(TM) , is exactly who gets to be classed as a first nations person, and thus be counted as one having a say in the voice.
We have all heard about bruce Pascoe and his claim to aboriginality, despite not having any known direct descendants.
He has claimed at various times. to be a part of the Bunurong Clan, but was rejected by the clan as having no geneaological links. He was also rejected by the Tasmanian Aboriginal folks as being aboriginal. Later, he claimed to be of the Wiradjuri people, but this claim was also rejected by local custodians. His claim to be also part of the Yuin clan still remains unresolved, although the Aborignal Land Council based in Eden has rejected his membership. (see The mandarin for discussion on Pascoe's status).
Actress Tasma Walton, married to TV personality Rove Mcmanus, is another who claims first nations status. She felt that there was something missing in her life, and despite a DNA test showing she was 93% British, and 7% unknown. It is this 7% unknown that she believes shows her first nations ancestry, (see Now to love for her interview ).
The DNA did not back up her story about how her grandmother was taken from her clan and shipped across to WA as part of the stolen generation.
It probably helped her get the gig as a first nations person in the Mystery Road TV series, but its hardly definitive.
She had no cultural connection to first nations people prior to her epiphany, and the DNA results hardly backup her claims.
But who is going to deny her claims?
Mick

 

[orr]

These are cultural imperatives. The question is who are responsible for these?

There's a cultual component; I'd have to see as to how you define imperative?
But more important:
What is being attempted to be addressed is the immediate personal costs which have direct impact on family and community, which expands out into a societal cost in lost attainment and all the mearsures to handle the corrosive disfunction.

So to cut away from all the human cost; at a hard nosed bean counting level it is an attempt at a better result. For me the tax payer.

 

[IFocus]

Agreed.

My view is be guided by experts but don't be afraid to do what's necessary.

Focus on the kids and getting them out of that cycle. Giving them hope and optimism, giving them a proper education, enabling them to succeed in society.

Doing it by force won't work but what I have in mind is something along the lines of leadership from respected persons within the Aboriginal community and with government as the enabler to make it happen.

Ideally fix the family but I'm in no denial that in many cases that isn't going to be possible and that being so, that leadership from Elders is aimed at encouraging those kids to walk away from that situation with government being the enabler physically and financially.

It's brutal but if the kids end up with a proper education and a real future then that beats them ending up like their parents, it breaks the cycle.

It has to be something they want to do though, they have to be convinced it's the right thing. There's a need for strong, positive role models there. Seeing that they too can have a great future, a great life, and here's how they can get that and with government as the enabler to make it happen.

Bearing in mind I'm not saying just do it for ATSI children, I'm saying do it for anyone in bad circumstances. If dud parents are hampering the next generation then as a society we're best to fix that ASAP.

Difference with the Voice is I'm focusing on outcomes not process and it's for all who need it no matter what their ancestry. Plus almost certainly my envisaged timeframes are drastically shorter.

Started a reply to this but was heading down the road of a thesis ?

Long reply short Elders unless the males have done law (initiated) Elders have little sway if there is money involved everyone is an Elder then depending feuding between mobs clan’s family’s they will back the mob anyway.

You have to deal with the families 1st even if to reduce foetal Alcohol syndrome and DV to reduce kids trauma plus a whole lot of other stuff.

Then there is pride go to a NW town and watch a group of Aboriginals shopping you have never seen people as uncomfortable then watch a group of Kiwis night and day

 

[IFocus]

One of seemingly impossible to answer questions over "the Voice"(TM) , is exactly who gets to be classed as a first nations person, and thus be counted as one having a say in the voice.
We have all heard about bruce Pascoe and his claim to aboriginality, despite not having any known direct descendants.
He has claimed at various times. to be a part of the Bunurong Clan, but was rejected by the clan as having no geneaological links. He was also rejected by the Tasmanian Aboriginal folks as being aboriginal. Later, he claimed to be of the Wiradjuri people, but this claim was also rejected by local custodians. His claim to be also part of the Yuin clan still remains unresolved, although the Aborignal Land Council based in Eden has rejected his membership. (see The mandarin for discussion on Pascoe's status).
Actress Tasma Walton, married to TV personality Rove Mcmanus, is another who claims first nations status. She felt that there was something missing in her life, and despite a DNA test showing she was 93% British, and 7% unknown. It is this 7% unknown that she believes shows her first nations ancestry, (see Now to love for her interview ).
The DNA did not back up her story about how her grandmother was taken from her clan and shipped across to WA as part of the stolen generation.
It probably helped her get the gig as a first nations person in the Mystery Road TV series, but its hardly definitive.
She had no cultural connection to first nations people prior to her epiphany, and the DNA results hardly backup her claims.
But who is going to deny her claims?
Mick

Answer, so what, the intentions are clear they will have nothing to do with the Voice unless the Coalition change it to benefit their millionaire friends… like the banks eh

 

[IFocus]

A "break the cycle" approach in short. One that's resourced and with clear requirements for rapid progress to be achieved.

There are areas near SP and myself that I would love to see you have a go at they have broken plenty of people trying ?

 

[JohnDe]

The first speech takes the road of the possible radical outcomes that may happen if the Referendum is successful. I think he's a little over the top and taking things to the extreme.

However, with the Yes side calling the No side "liars, clueless, racist...." they have taken the radical route to get their voice in any way possible.

The second orator gives an interesting example.

Institute of Public Affairs’ research has shown that the proposed Indigenous-only Voice to Parliament is risky, uncertain and divisive, with little detail around its consequences.​

There is a large and growing body of domestic and international evidence which demonstrates that the Voice will be more powerful and have a far greater impact on the way Australia is governed the proponents claim.​

​

On 14 June 2023, the IPA held a public forum to discuss the Voice to Parliament proposal. Attendees heard from IPA Director of Legal Rights Program John Storey, IPA Deputy Executive Director Daniel Wild and Nyunggai Warren Mundine AO.​

30-minute mark: Warren Mundine's great grandfather holding his son, which is Warren's father. An interesting talk.

 

[TimeISmoney]

One of seemingly impossible to answer questions over "the Voice"(TM) , is exactly who gets to be classed as a first nations person, and thus be counted as one having a say in the voice.
We have all heard about bruce Pascoe and his claim to aboriginality, despite not having any known direct descendants.
He has claimed at various times. to be a part of the Bunurong Clan, but was rejected by the clan as having no geneaological links. He was also rejected by the Tasmanian Aboriginal folks as being aboriginal. Later, he claimed to be of the Wiradjuri people, but this claim was also rejected by local custodians. His claim to be also part of the Yuin clan still remains unresolved, although the Aborignal Land Council based in Eden has rejected his membership. (see The mandarin for discussion on Pascoe's status).
Actress Tasma Walton, married to TV personality Rove Mcmanus, is another who claims first nations status. She felt that there was something missing in her life, and despite a DNA test showing she was 93% British, and 7% unknown. It is this 7% unknown that she believes shows her first nations ancestry, (see Now to love for her interview ).
The DNA did not back up her story about how her grandmother was taken from her clan and shipped across to WA as part of the stolen generation.
It probably helped her get the gig as a first nations person in the Mystery Road TV series, but its hardly definitive.
She had no cultural connection to first nations people prior to her epiphany, and the DNA results hardly backup her claims.
But who is going to deny her claims?
Mick

Government to challenge High Court ruling that Indigenous people cannot be considered aliens​

The government is now appealing against the Federal Court's decision, arguing it was right to detain Mr Montgomery on the belief he was not Aboriginal.

Lawyers for the Commonwealth will tell the High Court that Mr Montgomery fails to meet a three-part test to prove his Aboriginality because he cannot demonstrate biological descent.

The test was established in the Mabo decision and includes that a person identifies as Indigenous, is recognised by other Indigenous people and has a biological descent.

While the government does not deny that Mr Montgomery identifies as Mununjali and is accepted by the group, it argues his adoption is not enough to claim Indigeneity.

 

[SirRumpole]

Government to challenge High Court ruling that Indigenous people cannot be considered aliens​

The government is now appealing against the Federal Court's decision, arguing it was right to detain Mr Montgomery on the belief he was not Aboriginal.

Lawyers for the Commonwealth will tell the High Court that Mr Montgomery fails to meet a three-part test to prove his Aboriginality because he cannot demonstrate biological descent.

The test was established in the Mabo decision and includes that a person identifies as Indigenous, is recognised by other Indigenous people and has a biological descent.

While the government does not deny that Mr Montgomery identifies as Mununjali and is accepted by the group, it argues his adoption is not enough to claim Indigeneity.

I can see court cases coming on proving indigenous credentials similar to the kerfuffles about politicians proving their nationality.

How much will all that cost and who will pay ?

 

[JohnDe]

Legislation is not enshrined, it can be changed. ATSIC was legislated and abolished when it became corrupt or at least it's CEO did.

So legislate The Voice, let it operate for 5 years and see if it makes a difference, if it does, keep it, if not disband it.

 

[Smurf1976]

There are areas near SP and myself that I would love to see you have a go at they have broken plenty of people trying ?

I won't claim to have the answers on the "how" bit but I do know that it requires the individual to make the leap of their own accord, forcing won't work, and that it's unwise to entrench any particular approach without first proving that it works.

Why not take the "try before you buy" approach? Give the Voice concept a go by appointing it for a nominal period after which it's either scrapped or made permanent depending on its success or otherwise.

That approach is pretty widely used with everything from employment to marriages after all. Give it a go, if it works out then and only then go through the formality of making it permanent.

 

[sptrawler]

I won't claim to have the answers on the "how" bit but I do know that it requires the individual to make the leap of their own accord, forcing won't work, and that it's unwise to entrench any particular approach without first proving that it works.

Why not take the "try before you buy" approach? Give the Voice concept a go by appointing it for a nominal period after which it's either scrapped or made permanent depending on its success or otherwise.

That approach is pretty widely used with everything from employment to marriages after all. Give it a go, if it works out then and only then go through the formality of making it permanent.

That would be a novel approach in Australia @Smurf1976 , as you well know, from our personal experiences working with Government.
The real problem is, those who get voted into office, quite often think it is due to their intelligence rather than their ability to talk endless $ht.

As is now being proven with our fabulously trashed education system, after years of being told all that was needed was more money to public schools, now we have a situation where the results are in. FAIL.

All this debacle is going to do, is lower the publics respect for politicians, which is already at an extremely low level. I think many expected things to change under Albo, it will be interesting to watch the fallout, hopefully it isn't too bad.
But a lot of this Voice, is being presented as a " we know best, you just vote as you are told and that is wearing thin IMO".
Australia with social media has changed, from the days of the politician knows best.
Probably the reason many pull the pin on the job, when they hit a high spot in their earnings, then they don't have to wear the consequences of their legacy.

 

[TimeISmoney]

How about they have a royal commission into finding where all the previous funding has disappeared to that was meant to help these communities? I'll bet many people will be running for cover there.

 

[IFocus]

I won't claim to have the answers on the "how" bit but I do know that it requires the individual to make the leap of their own accord, forcing won't work, and that it's unwise to entrench any particular approach without first proving that it works.

Why not take the "try before you buy" approach? Give the Voice concept a go by appointing it for a nominal period after which it's either scrapped or made permanent depending on its success or otherwise.

That approach is pretty widely used with everything from employment to marriages after all. Give it a go, if it works out then and only then go through the formality of making it permanent.

So how did we get here?
Before we start note the whole thing has been unfortunately been politicised so it’s unlikely to fly.

The Voice was drawn up between Aboriginals, bureaucrats and conservatives (note serious conservatives were involved during the whole process) the whole point ending in a massive comprise for the sake of acceptance both to conservatives and the so called left.

It’s as much a political position as a practical one attempting to allow for recognition and being helpful to the ATSI peoples but note the very clear limitations (previous high court chief justices opinion).
That process happened under the Coalition government.

The Nationals and Peter Dutton have run falsehoods left right and centre due to leadership weakness (raw politics)

The reason for not going straight to parliament to legislate is because of the above, weak leadership will abolish it all at the drop of a hat its an easy target.


Whats interesting is how out of touch Australia truly is with our own history, culture and the plight of Aboriginals regardless of the raw facts.

Poor fella my country

 

[wayneL]

So how did we get here?
Before we start note the whole thing has been unfortunately been politicised so it’s unlikely to fly.

The Voice was drawn up between Aboriginals, bureaucrats and conservatives (note serious conservatives were involved during the whole process) the whole point ending in a massive comprise for the sake of acceptance both to conservatives and the so called left.

It’s as much a political position as a practical one attempting to allow for recognition and being helpful to the ATSI peoples but note the very clear limitations (previous high court chief justices opinion).
That process happened under the Coalition government.

The Nationals and Peter Dutton have run falsehoods left right and centre due to leadership weakness (raw politics)

The reason for not going straight to parliament to legislate is because of the above, weak leadership will abolish it all at the drop of a hat its an easy target.


Whats interesting is how out of touch Australia truly is with our own history, culture and the plight of Aboriginals regardless of the raw facts.

Poor fella my country

What a load of BS. I think most people are well and truly in touch with the history of our country. Where there is difference is in agreeing with a path forward that is to the benefit of all, including the indigenous.

This is where Jacinta price et al have it absolutely nailed. There is little to be achieved by divisive racial politics, creating a two tiered society, and perpetuating distrust and hate.

This is what "the voice" is achieving, division and multiple levels of resentment because of the divisive rhetoric of the left and the yes campaign.

Consider your own writings here, bro; accusing everyone of racism who does not agree with your particular point of view.

Does that help to unite black fella and everybody else? Or does it serve to divide?

I can tell you that because of the arguments of such as you that the division between has never been wider.

Congratulations.

 

[SirRumpole]

Whats interesting is how out of touch Australia truly is with our own history, culture and the plight of Aboriginals regardless of the raw facts.

Well, we can either wear black armbands and live in the past or realise that the world has changed and try and keep up with our competitors in other countries and tailor our education system to achieve that.

 

[wayneL]

WA providing a preview...

 

[IFocus]

Well, we can either wear black armbands and live in the past or realise that the world has changed and try and keep up with our competitors in other countries and tailor our education system to achieve that.

I think its sad Rump you fail to grasp the basics I suspect its a choice as to the motivations only you really know.

Given the wide acceptance of falsehoods put up by the No case its shows a dark side of Australia's mainstream culture.

Poor fella my country sums it up in2023.

 

[Smurf1976]

Before we start note the whole thing has been unfortunately been politicised so it’s unlikely to fly.

Agreed there. As with anything, once it's political that's the end of any chance for a good outcome. What comes next is somewhere between bad and worse.

Real success is achieved behind closed doors. The first the public hears about it, if they hear about it at all, is after the deal's done.

Whats interesting is how out of touch Australia truly is with our own history, culture and the plight of Aboriginals regardless of the raw facts.

A relevant question here is to what extent is the aim to assist Aboriginals to live successfully in what I'll generically describe as a Western lifestyle? And to what extent is the aim to undo the effects of historic actions and enable them to return to successfully living a traditional Aboriginal lifestyle?

To which I'll add that the notion of "closing the gap" does imply that we're talking about them living in the same manner as the rest of society although I strongly suspect not all want to actually do that.

 

[IFocus]

A relevant question here is to what extent is the aim to assist Aboriginals to live successfully in what I'll generically describe as a Western lifestyle? And to what extent is the aim to undo the effects of historic actions and enable them to return to successfully living a traditional Aboriginal lifestyle?

To which I'll add that the notion of "closing the gap" does imply that we're talking about them living in the same manner as the rest of society although I strongly suspect not all want to actually do that.

I don't know I think the answer will be different for all here is a link from a Mundine for an insight to some thinking not saying its for all

https://www.ncca.org.au/natsiec/162-poor-fellow-my-country-ces-talk-2/file

 

[JohnDe]

It's a shame that others on the Yes campaign are not like Phil Saunders who is able to respect the view of others.

South Australian senator Kerrynne Liddle.. It irks this Arrernte woman, born and raised in Alice Springs, that these bodies are campaigning publicly for a Yes vote at the upcoming voice referendum, assuming their staff, shareholders and customers are all of the one mind. Do people want political messaging on their morning milk run or while dropping their kid at weekend sport, she wonders.​

​

Would employees or members of these organisations feel comfortable raising doubts or revealing they were inclined to vote No? “It’s a way of silencing people and I don’t like it,” she declares.​

​

Saunders, a Bunganditj, Gunditjmara and Narungga man tells me he doesn’t understand why anyone would actively say no – that the voice is a step in the right direction that should be seen as a unifying moment for Australia. It’s an opportunity, he says, a gift for generations to come.​

​

It’s clear that Liddle and Saunders will agree to disagree as they hug goodbye.​

​

Are these exchanges awkward, I ask Liddle later? “Not at all,” she responds. She has thought long and hard about her position and she’s not afraid to raise it. “People shouldn’t feel embarrassed or ashamed to say what they feel.”​

​

Saunders agrees on this point. “She’s entitled to her opinion. She’s one person in the whole tapestry of this debate,” he says.​

​

“I deeply respect Kerrynne as a woman and a person doing great things. She happens to be an Aboriginal senator, but that’s not the crux of it. I respect her for her views even though I don’t agree with them.”​

Hidden pain of Indigenous senator behind No campaign
Stolen Generations, family violence, child removal - Kerrynne Liddle understands the traumas in Indigenous communities because she has witnessed them first-hand.

South Australian senator Kerrynne Liddle is striding through the streets of Adelaide remarking on the scattering of Yes posters she has noticed springing on businesses and charities, at sporting venues and other public spaces.

It irks this Arrernte woman, born and raised in Alice Springs, that these bodies are campaigning publicly for a Yes vote at the upcoming voice referendum, assuming their staff, shareholders and customers are all of the one mind. Do people want political messaging on their morning milk run or while dropping their kid at weekend sport, she wonders.

Would employees or members of these organisations feel comfortable raising doubts or revealing they were inclined to vote No? “It’s a way of silencing people and I don’t like it,” she declares.

The first-term politician is heading towards Tandanya National Aboriginal Cultural Institute, a body she once chaired, and on the approach Liddle notices Yes signs at the front door before it’s opened by interim chief executive and Yes advocate Phil Saunders.

As we browse the art being catalogued in a stocktake, he proudly tells her the national campaign for Yes23 was officially launched here on a hot February day before a crowd of about 600 people.

Instead of nodding diplomatically and staying shtum, Liddle seizes the moment and says what Saunders already knows. I’m a No, she declares in a way that invites discussion with no expectation that she can be persuaded to change her mind.

Saunders, a Bunganditj, Gunditjmara and Narungga man tells me he doesn’t understand why anyone would actively say no – that the voice is a step in the right direction that should be seen as a unifying moment for Australia. It’s an opportunity, he says, a gift for generations to come.

It’s clear that Liddle and Saunders will agree to disagree as they hug goodbye.

Are these exchanges awkward, I ask Liddle later? “Not at all,” she responds. She has thought long and hard about her position and she’s not afraid to raise it. “People shouldn’t feel embarrassed or ashamed to say what they feel.”

Saunders agrees on this point. “She’s entitled to her opinion. She’s one person in the whole tapestry of this debate,” he says.

“I deeply respect Kerrynne as a woman and a person doing great things. She happens to be an Aboriginal senator, but that’s not the crux of it. I respect her for her views even though I don’t agree with them.”

If only the entire voice debate were conducted in such a cordial fashion.

When Liddle won her Liberal Senate seat at last year’s federal election she had already decided she couldn’t support a constitutionally enshrined voice so it was something of a relief when her party landed on a decision to support recognition but oppose the government’s model for the voice.

Liddle’s professional experience – as a journalist with the ABC and Channel 7, small business owner, board member of various organisations as well as serving on the councils of the University of Adelaide and University of South Australia – is well known. She was also, briefly, a member of the Labor Party (“I worked out pretty quickly it was not the party for me”).

At 183cm tall she has a presence when she walks into a room and fixes people with her direct, confident gaze. People describe the 56-year-old as no nonsense and outcome focused.

Her lived experience, however, is less well known and that’s because she finds it difficult to discuss.

Liddle’s mother was a child of the Stolen Generations, taken from her family because she was fair-skinned. Her older sister was killed in a domestic violence incident. Liddle and her partner, Vince, fostered a child with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. She has witnessed and lived with the issues that Yes proponents say the voice aims to fix. How, then, did Liddle arrive at such a firm position against it?

A pile of photos fans out on the table, the sort of faded, filter-free images that speak to a different time. There’s her mum, Jean, with the Queen and with Prince Charles, or smiling on the day of her marriage to Kerrynne’s dad Geoff, a construction worker whose hard work and sense of fairness permeated the family.

There are her siblings: Jamie, a captain with an international airline; the twins, Leanne, South Australia’s first female Indigenous police officer who went on to work on justice issues in the Northern Territory, and Lynette, an environmental scientist.

From left, Lynette and Leanne, Jenny, Jamie and Kerrynne. Picture supplied

Older sister Jenny appears in one of the photos. She worked in education and Liddle’s voice breaks as she points to her sister and adds that she has passed away.

Tears threaten as she says it’s not something she feels able to discuss. “These things never leave you,” she saying, confirming that her sister was killed in a family violence incident. “The system failed her too.”

It’s the second time during our interview that her adviser has reached for the tissues. Liddle tries to keep emotion out of her delivery but it breaks through when talking about family, and the death of her mother – a nurse and social worker who worked to improve the lives of others in her beloved Arrernte country in central Australia – last year is still raw.

“My mum identified as part of the Stolen Generation but she used to say that experience didn’t define her,” she says.

Jean didn’t like to speak of that time. There are things her daughter doesn’t know, subjects that could not be explored with her mother or grandmother of those terrible times when Jean and her brother were removed from a loving home.

“Her case is quite well recorded, that they took her from her home and from parents who were looking after her very well. Mum and her brother, because they had slightly lighter skin, were taken to an elite boarding school in Melbourne, different boarding schools,” Liddle says.

“When you are separated from your mother under those circumstances it’s never, ever the same. Her mother was really affected by the fact that she had children, and then she had nothing. She didn’t know where her kids had gone.”

I ask how she feels now about what happened to her mother.

“Um, well, those things have a huge effect on … there is an intergenerational effect on that. It was an important part of her life and she dealt with it as best she could.

“She valued the family unit, she was incredibly protective and possessive of her children, and she took no prisoners. She didn’t have a big circle of friends because that’s what happens to people who could lose their friends, lose their family, lose their community, so those things are really important.”

Liddle veers quickly to safer ground, the lessons learnt watching her parents “show up, stand up, speak up time and again with courage and conviction”.

Jean and Geoff Liddle on their wedding day in Alice Springs, 1966.

Parental and individual responsibility, reward for hard work, being the master of your own destiny – Liddle mentioned these in her first speech to the Senate because they are tenets she holds dear too. Hers wasn’t a materially privileged upbringing but she had the benefits of a stable home where education, family, connection to culture and community were paramount.

She pulls out class photos from Alice Spring High School and notes the number of Aboriginal children in her class. “There was a lot of success in educating kids then,” she says.

What has changed?

“I think it’s expectations. When I was growing up it was the norm to go to school and those people I went to school with did pretty well.

“In those days there was a police officer in the school, there was a nurse in the school, and the liaison officer would work with Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal families. My mother was a liaison officer; if your kid wasn’t in the school she’d be knocking on the door to ask why.”

Kerrynne Liddle taking a break during cattle mustering in the Top End.

The family home was busy and it was a haven for other kids who needed safe harbour. So it was natural that as an adult Liddle would open her home to children in need too.

We look at a photo of three children – two are hers and a third is a little boy, “Joe”, an Indigenous child with complex needs including FASD whose parents were unable to care for him.

He had been cycled through various placements in the child protection system when Liddle and her partner Vince took him in, in a type of informal shared care arrangement with a family friend. She helped care for her sister Jenny’s child, too. They’re now terrific adults, she says, noting that Joe completed his certificate 4 in gardening. “That’s a big outcome for a FASD person.” Even when he struggles with poor mental health he has “handrails”, she says: stable people who support him. “That’s what’s important.”

As opposition child protection spokeswoman, how does she feel about the debate on Indigenous foster children and policies that state they should be placed with non-Aboriginal carers only as a last resort?

“The most important thing is that children are in a safe home. That’s the priority. You find a way to keep (cultural) connection. It may not be ideal but you find a way. The central thing is that kids have stable care, a sense of belonging somewhere.”

Early support for struggling families is vital, she says. “Nobody wants to lose their children. Nobody wants to harm their children. Having supports in place early, and people who are not fearful of asking for help, is critical to support children and parents.”

Liddle is careful with her words during our interview and emphasises that she doesn’t like to be defined by race. “I don’t come with an aspect that is just Indigenous,” she says. “I come as a mother, a female, a person who has run a business, a person who has been a Joe Citizen. I fear that there’s too much focus on race and that’s to our detriment.”

She wants to see the lives of Indigenous people improved and the yawning gaps to be closed. But she fundamentally disagrees with a constitutionally enshrined voice because she says it’s not clear how it will work or what it will achieve in a practical sense. She’s worried about permanence, about another layer of bureaucracy.

“I will always recognise these people have special rights and interests based on their areas of responsibility and their identity,” she says, gesturing to a photograph on her wall of three Indigenous elders.

“Let people be engaged on matters that are of interest to them but you don’t need to put that in the Constitution.”

Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney says it is important that the voice is a permanent, consistent body protected by the Constitution, safe from future governments that might abolish it at the stroke of a pen.

It would be focused on making a practical difference for the most disadvantaged people across key areas such as housing, jobs, health and education, and would be chosen by local communities for local communities. To vote Yes is an act of patriotism, she says.

“We need new perspectives to old challenges, perspectives that are connected to communities,” Burney said in her National Press Club address on Wednesday.

“We have everything to gain and nothing to lose by supporting the voice. Because the voice will be a mechanism for government and parliament to listen. It will be like a resource of local knowledge and solutions that can help us make better policies.”

Liddle counters that consultation and advice on matters that affect Indigenous communities already happens through existing forums and frameworks, going on to list the commissioners, ambassadors, advocates, working groups and expert panels tasked with providing input to governments.

“You can’t argue that this isn’t happening already and that it isn’t resourced to happen, and that expert people aren’t embedded in frameworks to continue to provide advice on these things. If we’re not leveraging enough from those groups, then look at the framework in which you get the information and input so it improves.”

She takes aim at government departments but also Aboriginal community-controlled organisations. “Go your hardest if you think that this pushback is racist,” she said in her first speech.

“I’ll continue to call out the double standards and disturbing assumptions and what I call reverse racism.”

If it were in her power to make one big change now for the benefit of Aboriginal people, what would it be? She goes immediately to her experience in business and governance: ensuring that new and existing programs and policies achieve what they are funded to do.

“I’d require all funding agreements to have measurable and integrated targets so they couldn’t operate in silos,” she says.

Responsibility and accountability. She repeats these words often in our interview, and it extends to her own side of politics. She’s critical of former Liberal MP Ken Wyatt, who recently hit out at Nyunggai Warren Mundine and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, saying neither of the prominent No campaigners had been able to deliver meaningful solutions for Indigenous people despite having been in positions of influence in the past.

Kerrynne Liddle and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. Picture: Matt Loxton

“Well hello, you were the minister and then the minister for Indigenous health,” Liddle says of Wyatt. He was a minister in your party during a long stint in government, I point out.

“I know. I don’t care whose party it is, we all need to be accountable.

“I can’t be responsible for (past decisions) but I am responsible for what I do and say, and I will always advocate for greater accountability along the supply chain. It’s in my DNA, it’s what informed me my entire life.”

How does she feel about the way the debate is proceeding?

“It’s terrible.’’ Is she worried about the aftermath of a No vote?

“No, I’m more concerned with us heading towards a referendum when the polls are saying 50 per cent – that’s a nation divided.”

She stops and thinks. “Regardless of result, there will be an expectation on all of us that there needs to be change. There is an expectation that the lives of people will be improved as a result of this process.”

On this, she is in complete agreement with Saunders, the staunch Yes advocate. “Whether it’s a Yes or No vote, there is still plenty to be done,” he says.

CHRISTINE MIDDAP ASSOCIATE EDITOR, CHIEF WRITER