The Voice: Residents look to councillors for leadership
I attended the 5 September public meeting of Mornington Peninsula Shire Council meeting with the expectation that councillors would debate whether they should support a Yes vote in the forthcoming referendum.
I was deeply shocked and disappointed that questions regarding the referendum were dismissed, with the CEO advising that council would not be taking a position on this matter.
Local councils play a pivotal role in representing and reflecting the sentiments of their community. The shire has previously shown its support for Indigenous rights and reconciliation in its Reconciliation Action Plan, so it is both disingenuous and inconsistent for council to abstain from taking a position on a crucial matter like the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
The Indigenous Voice to Parliament is a significant proposal that has potential to reshape how First Nations people interact with the Australian government, ensuring their perspectives and concerns are heard at a national level.
Local councillors are public figures and residents look to them for leadership. It is extraordinary that our elected officials are unwilling to show leadership and accountability by responding to the question: Do they support changing the constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?
Helen Chauhan, Red Hill South
Statement needed
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council appears to be having a bet each way. On the one it has shown its support to listening to First Nations people in its Reconciliation Action Plan; on the other hand, it refuses to show its support for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament that is designed to listen to First Nations people.
Residents need a clear statement from both council and councillors.
Do councillors support changing the constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice? Does council support employees and volunteers and those operating from council-owned facilities showing public support for a Yes vote through wearing badges, t-shirts or displaying signs?
Barbie Wilson, Bittern
Threat over Voice
As a non-Indigenous aged care advocate, I was shocked to receive a death threat after I publicly declared that I would be voting Yes in the referendum on my Aged Care Matters Facebook Group (6000 members). I had simply used the analogy of older people who use aged care services wanting their voices to be heard by governments (federal, state and local councils).
Australian governments, including Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, have a long history of making policies that directly impact the lives of older people without any consultation with older people. Evidence shows that outcomes are improved when governments work in partnership with older people and families.
Likewise, evidence shows that outcomes are improved when governments work in partnership with Indigenous peoples.
An Indigenous Voice to Parliament is needed to end top-down government decision-making. It will enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to provide advice on policies and projects that impact their lives.
Enshrining an Indigenous Voice to Parliament in the constitution provides a way to improve policy and the accountability of future governments. It will make future governments and parliaments accountable to listening to the advice of Indigenous Australians.
The referendum on 14 October proposes an important change to our constitution that will improve the social, health and economic outcomes of Indigenous Australians. I will be voting Yes.
Soon after publicly disclosing my support for changing the constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice statement, I received this message: “You should be ashamed. I wish you were dead.”
Dr Sarah Russell, Mount Martha
Informing voters
I am part of a team wanting to provide information forums on the Voice to Parliament referendum. While I am supporting the Yes campaign, I do believe that however people vote they should be doing it from an informed perspective.
We have written to a number of retirement villages on the Mornington Peninsula offering forums to allow people to have a clear explanation of the referendum question, its background and the implementation process and to ask questions. We have had villages saying no and others simply not responding.
The village managers are obviously happy for their residents to be denied access to factual information and to the opportunity to clarify any questions they have.
This is not democracy, this is censorship.
Marg D’Arcy, Rye
Legitimate questions
I have been following letters in The News about the Voice referendum with bemusement, given that it is not strictly a local issue.
The Yes case seems to be mostly about “the vibe” and saying that anyone who votes No is automatically racist. Hardly compelling.
While some of the No case is very obviously dog whistling, there are legitimate questions and concerns that the Yes campaign has failed to address.
There are high-profile progressive activists – both Indigenous and non-Indigenous – who have raised their heads above the parapet to ask these questions, with little reply.
After spending two weeks in central Australia and learning more about Indigenous history and the impact of European settlement, I have concluded that voting No will cause more harm than voting Yes.
But my Yes vote is certainly not a ringing endorsement of the validity of the Yes argument.
One of the things that impressed me during my time in central Australia was how much of the tourism was wrapped up in Indigenous culture and history.
Also, how much the non-Indigenous locals knew about Indigenous culture – it’s very much side by side in a manner reminiscent of how Maori culture is up front and centre in New Zealand.
Here on the Mornington Peninsula we should be chasing eco-tourism opportunities and the like, rather than continue to be Airbnb party central.
To augment an eco-tourism approach, Mornington Peninsula Shire should work to highlight and incorporate the region’s Indigenous history and culture as a tourist and educational drawcard.
Happy by-products would be locals learning more about local Indigenous history and the two cultures becoming more integrated.
A future in which modern Australia openly acknowledges and embraces its Indigenous roots is what the referendum is really about.
Bianca Felix, Bittern
Making a difference
The Salvation Army is one of the biggest providers of social services in Australia. We are a pragmatic movement, not really into empty gestures or performative virtue signalling. I don’t think in our 140-year history in Australia that we have ever been called “elites”.
But we do support the Voice.
We support the Voice, simply, because we believe it will make a difference.
For 140 years, the Salvos have rolled up their sleeves and helped where we can. We started small by assisting discharged prisoners at the prison gates in Melbourne and now we provide over 2000 services across every state and territory in Australia. We support people experiencing homelessness, family and domestic violence, financial hardship, unemployment, substance use disorders, social isolation and loneliness, and help them recover from natural disasters.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are over-represented in almost every service we deliver – and that’s why we support a Voice.
There is no escaping the fact that what we are doing right now, as a nation, is not working.
The Salvos will always do what we can on the ground, but the issues we see are deeper; they are structural and systemic. We believe the only way to practically address the hardship experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is to change how the government makes and carries out policy. We believe the best way to do that is to actually listen to the people affected – to give them a voice.
Not everyone agrees with us on this and that’s okay. We just ask that people respectfully consider, before they decide on 14 October: “Will the Voice make a difference for people who really need help?”
We think the answer is a resounding yes.
Captain Stuart Glover, The Salvation Army Australia
Accepted practice
I am confident that the people who signed the Uluru statement knew what they were doing, and to say otherwise would belittle them. If there had been a problem, it would have been settled long ago.
Look at business letters drafted by the boss or any group, printed and returned for signatures. It is a long-accepted method of ensuring probity. This, indeed, is as it should be.
There can never be a comparison of apartheid between South Africa and Australia. In South African situation, the white people and the white government enacted apartheid from a position of absolute power. That’s where the comparison ends.
The three per cent Indigenous population imposing apartheid on the rest of the 97 per cent of the population is imaginary.
We have everything to gain and nothing to lose if we listen from a position of compromise and respect. What began as an opportunity for reconciliation and acceptance into the referendum has become a battlefield of innuendoes, lies and blatant racism.
Anne Kruger, Rye
Free speech, but …
How disappointing that a letter from an activist in West Perth about the Indigenous Voice to Parliament was published in our local Mornington Peninsula paper (“Sliding doors” Letters 5/9/23).
We all know this is a very sensitive issue.
Occasionally, the current debate is taking our country into some unhealthy dialogue. I agree we all have a right to free speech and do not object to someone presenting their arguments for or against a Yes or No vote. But surely this looks like someone campaigning from Western Australia. Maybe The News could publish local views.
Della Conroy, Mount Martha
Repair environment
It is always heartening to read about the many local groups working on sustainability initiatives, such as the Rye Repair Cafe which is helping community members to repair and reuse items, significantly reducing waste (“Shire money a quick fix for repair cafe” The News 5/9/23).
It is a pity the Albanese government isn’t as proactive in reducing our impact on the environment. Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek’s recent new coal mine approvals go against all scientific advice about environmental and climate protection.
Under Labor, Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions also rose by 0.9 per cent last year. Disappointing.
Recognising how broken our Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is, Plibersek promised environmental law reform over a year ago. Why are we still waiting?
Prioritising sustainability and environmental protection, as so many community groups do, is vital for our collective future.
Amy Hiller, Kew
Tax households
Regional Australia is being asked to make the greatest contribution towards Australia’s decarbonisation (getting off fossil fuels).
It’s vital that proper consultation is undertaken with local communities, so the economic benefits are shared fairly, and modifications of local landscapes and natural environments are minimised.
But there’s another aspect to fair sharing. According to the International Energy Agency, the top 10 per cent of emitters are responsible for almost half of global energy-related CO2 emissions. And given that the carbon footprints of capital city dwellers, especially affluent ones, are typically greater than those in the regions, an environmental tax based on high household emissions should be considered.
In his response to the recent Intergenerational Report, Dr Ken Henry, who led federal Treasury for a decade, said that taxing consumption and carbon emissions could even permit lower personal income tax.
A tax on household emissions would encourage those who live in capital city McMansions and drive Toorak tractors (large 4WDs), to electrify their households, install rooftop solar with a battery, and switch to EVs. Australia’s emissions would fall, rather than rise as they are now. Big emitters would no longer get off scot free.
Money raised from the tax could also be used to support carbon sequestration and biodiversity restoration projects in regional areas managed by Landcare groups and local governments. It could also help low-income households to make their homes more energy efficient. It’s time we evened up the balance.
Ray Peck, Hawthorn
Dementia aware
During this year’s Dementia Action Week (18-24 September) we are encouraging people to learn more about the signs and symptoms of the condition and how to make their communities more accessible to people living with dementia.
There are estimated to be more than 400,000 Australians living with dementia and more than 1.5 million involved in their care – and those numbers are set to rise.
As dementia diagnoses increase, it’s important to learn more about the signs and symptoms and how to make our communities more accessible to people living with dementia. That’s why this year’s theme for Dementia Action Week is Act Now for a Dementia-Friendly Future.
Many people can continue to live well with dementia, but it’s important they feel supported in their community.
Greater awareness helps to create discussion and break down stigma or barriers that could stop people from seeking help.
Increasing our understanding of dementia can make a big difference to the lives of people around us who are impacted.
There are things we can all do to make our communities more dementia friendly. To find out how you can make a difference, please visit dementia.org.au.
Maree McCabe AM, CEO Dementia Australia
Bobby Redman, Dementia Australia Advisory Committee
Letters – 300 words maximum and including full name, address and contact number – can be sent to The News, PO Box 588, Hastings 3915 or emailed to: team@mpnews.com.au
