The Voice result will be seen as an inflection point for Indigenous policy

 

I am amazed, methinks and lose my way

Among the thorns and dangers of this world.

King John, Act four, scene three.

 

Following the defeat of the Voice referendum, I published a short article in Inside Story (link here) arguing that the referendum will come to be seen as an inflection point in Indigenous policy: no longer will it be tenable to conceptualise the policy domain as involving a single Indigenous interest that must be weighed and factored into the public interest. Instead, policymakers will increasingly deal with Indigenous issues on the basis of particular Indigenous interests, and these will be advocated and articulated against the countervailing pressure of other interests, Indigenous and non-Indigenous.

 

In my view, this is increasingly how public policy is made — the current reality — albeit it has not been widely recognised. Instead, the virtually ubiquitous perspective, including amongst the advocates for the Voice, has been that it remains possible to span the competing Indigenous sub-voices, and conjure up a single national First Nations Voice which represents or speaks on behalf of all Indigenous nations, communities and people on all major issues of concern to First Nations. I too have, until comparatively recently, unthinkingly shared this view.

 

To be clear, while it is possible to argue that the multiplicity of Indigenous views (reflecting different yet cogent perspectives and interests) contributed to the defeat of the referendum, I am not seeking to engage with why the referendum failed. Instead, I am seeking to look forward, and make a hard-headed assessment of how mainstream policymakers will increasingly engage with policy issues involving Indigenous interests into the future.

 

Nor am I seeking to deny the existence and importance of shared histories, shared cultures and shared identity amongst First Nations people. My point is merely that in policy contexts, interests and interest group competition will increasingly come to dominate decision making processes. I am not arguing in favour of this, merely making an assessment that this is what is happening.

 

An aspect not directly addressed in my article, but of increasing significance, are two trends: the first is the inexorable shift by governments to utilise mainstream policies and programs rather than Indigenous specific programs and policies combined with greater policy reliance on, and deference to, the states and territories rather than the Commonwealth, and the second is the trend in mainstream policy and political decision-making forums to give increasing profile and attention to special interests (link here). Both trends reinforce the argument I am making; both can be persuasively criticised, but they are nevertheless happening. One implication is that when interest group influence is pervasive, governments are not as focussed on ensuring that the public interest is protected.

 

The bottom line for First Nations is that if they desire to shape policy, they will increasingly need to engage in the struggle for influence with competing interests, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. See this earlier post on similar development in the US (link here). Of course, there is enormous scope to critique such an outcome, and it is important in democratic polities that such critiques exist. But such critiques (however persuasive) are normative and conceptually distinct from the ways and processes that apply to the of making of policy impacting and affecting First Nations. Reliance on mere rhetoric, or an implicit assumption that democracy (where voters are properly informed) will always deliver just outcomes aligned with the general public interest will not be enough to shape policy. The outcome of the Voice referendum provides a clear cut demonstration of this point.

 

I recommend the Inside Story article to interested readers.