Maturing ‘Closing the Gap’

Unless you were hiding under a rock, you would be aware that the Australian Independent Senator, Lidia Thorpe, interrupted an official event during the visit to Australia by King Charles III. She did so through spouting rhetoric at the Monarch telling him to “Give us our land back. Give us what you stole from us. Our bones, our skulls, our babies, our people.”

Now, yes, Great Britain, when she was Great, did indeed occupy previously inhabited lands, subjugate the inhabitants, attempt to either ethnically cleanse or breed out those inhabitants, and steal numerous artifacts from them. This is not deniable. However, like much of the Western World, over the last 60 years or so we have collectively tried to make things better and find ways to move forward with the indigenous cultures of these lands; unfortunately, 200 (plus) years of colonial rule is not so easy to unpick and move on from when it has caused such intergenerational trauma. But should we really believe that the aggressive, grandstanding, and attention seeking behaviours of the likes of Lidia Thorpe are going to lead to a path of unification in Australia’s domestic political and social landscape – I can’t think so.

So, how do we move forward? Firstly, I think that in addressing this we should acknowledge the unifying statements and behaviour that elders of the Australian indigenous community exhibited in welcoming, and even sharing a hug with, King Charles. They didn’t back down from the story, they didn’t try and sugar-coat the intergenerational issues they face, but they did it in a calm, collaborative, welcoming manner that allowed the parties to all have emotional space in the conversation. So maybe, the first pavement on the road to closing the gap needs to be removing the grandstanders only allowing calm, considered, and mature voices engage in the dialogue.

Secondly, we need to demonstrate that this argument affects the entire Australian population. As of the 2021 Census, only 3.2% of the population recorded that they identified as being indigenous. Take this against the 51.5% of people who are either first-, or second-generation immigrants to Australia, how does closing the gap affect these people, or the broad 96.8% of the population that aren’t indigenous? Outside of our social conscious and the moral imperative to right wrongs and make sure all of our population are safe, secure, housed, fed, provided medical support and education, and have a future, what is it about closing the gap for indigenous Australian’s that gives them a disproportionate voice in Australia, versus the plight of our first- and second-generation Australians, or the rest of Australia that doesn’t have indigenous claim in Australia? Time alone? Perhaps the second pavement in the road to closing the gap needs to be demonstrating the value proposition that closing the gap for 3.2% of the population offers so the remaining 96.8% can galvanise in their support behind them?

This brings me to the next point – why did the Voice to Parliament Referendum fail? Sure, partisan politics and racism had their part to play but most of the people I know who voted ‘No’ did so as they saw this small percentage of our population having greater voice in our politics than the rest of us. Additionally, Australians generally felt like the Voice to Parliament was going to have an inordinate amount influence and potentially become a process of indigenous progress at the expense of the rest of the population. This may not have been the case, but it definitely looked like that. I have heard it said that if the Referendum was purely about recognition of indigenous ownership of Australia prior to colonisation, the majority of people would have gotten behind it – enshrining the Voice in the Constitution was a bridge too far. So, what can we learn out of this state of affairs? Well, here’s my two observations from my limited understating of the perceptions of Australians:

• A majority of Australians do want to make life better for our indigenous population, but not at the expense of the rest of the population.

• The egalitarian Australian culture of giving everyone a ‘Fair Go’ is in constant balance with our ‘Tall Poppy’ syndrome – what’s good for one, is good for all and don’t get too big for your boots.

So, if these are indeed accurate, what can we do to drive positive change and galvanise Australia’s indigenous and non-indigenous peoples? I have some ideas:

•  If we go back to the start of the cultural conflict, we should take seriously the thought of a Treaty between the Commonwealth of Australia and its indigenous people – the King has no legislative power in this space, despite what Senator Thorpe might have believed. This, in addition to recognising them as the original inhabitants of our broad brown land will go a long way to making them feel collectively seen and heard.

• If we do this, it stands to reason that having Australia Day on the day that the indigenous peoples of Australia were colonised would be inflammatory. Perhaps we should look at changing the date to something more appropriate? Now, the Australian nationhood took effect on 01 January 1901 and maybe this would be a good day, but there’s two big issues with that. Firstly, indigenous people weren’t even recognised as people at the time of our nationhood coming into effect, and, secondly, it’d mean that we’d have to share a public holiday with New Years’ Day, and Aussies won’t give up a public holiday! Maybe, as the artist A.B. Original said in his song “January 26”, March 8 (M8, or Mate) could be a good substitute. Jokes aside, the date of the signing of a Treaty and recognition in the constitution would be a date that would demonstrate our collective desire to move forward?

•  Following on from this, a national flag without indigenous recognition and an anthem written for white folk looking to encourage immigration under the White Australia Policy, probably both need to be looked at again. I have no creative concepts for a flag, but for a new anthem, I’d say Bruce Woodley and Dobe Newton’s “I am Australian” would be my pick!

• Lastly, and likely controversially, I’d say that our indigenous folk would then need to accept some responsibility for their plight. Like I mentioned earlier, Australian culture seeks to provide a ‘Fair Go’ for everyone, but a fair go dictates that you get what you earn for your efforts. Staying on country, in places where there is little- to no-commercial prospects, means that one can only expect so much personal remuneration, or that only so much money can be spent on infrastructure by government. While I acknowledge indigenous connection to their ancestral land of more than 60,000 years, expecting government, either state or federal, to expend inordinate amounts of money on a small portion of the population cannot be realistic. Additionally, for those that live in the cities, they need to take full advantage of the opportunities offered to them in terms of education, employment, health care etc. Exploit these opportunities and capitalise on the future that they can provide.

There’s my two cents – a few ideas for seeking to close the gap for our indigenous Australians; only let the calm people be involved in the conversation; demonstrate how closing the gap is of benefit for the 96.8% of Australia’s population that don’t identify as indigenous; get a Treaty done and enshrine indigenous Australians as the original occupants of the continent in the constitution; change the National Day, National Flag, and National Anthem to other options that are actually inclusive and not divisive; and, our indigenous folk need to take responsibility for their current situation and exploit the opportunities that are on offer in our great country. My experience of Australia’s penchant for positive dialogue and changes suggests that this may still be a pipedream - I hope not.