Race must not divide us. G'day, I'm Martyn Iles and this is
The Truth of It. I want to deal with race divisions and
conflicts more generally which I'm going to come to in a
minute, but first I'm actually thinking about it in the
context of a current event which is this indigenous voice
to parliament. The Government is proposing to change the
constitution via a referendum to create this new body and the
constitution as that document which currently establishes
things like the Senate, the House of Representatives, the
Governor General, the High Court, the Cabinet, the public
service, all of the systems and institutions by which we are
governed. It's been largely unchanged since 1901. They
want to add something new in terms of these institutions.
Why? Well to adopt some of their words 'to create a body
made up of indigenous representatives in order to
provide input into laws and policies that affect indigenous
people'. I want to make an observation straight off the
bat as soon as I hear that. I want to make the point that
none of that is lacking in the system as it already exists.
There is a Minister for example, for Indigenous Australians in
the government, in the Parliament, in the cabinet in
fact. So when those highest level cabinet meetings are are
are convened around which these policy decisions of government
are made you have the Minister for Indigenous Australians
right there represented in those high level decision
making processes. There is therefore also a Department of
Indigenous Affairs. An office block full of staff and
billions and billions and billions of dollars to spend on
the advancement of indigenous issues. When laws are
created also parliament is constructed in such a way that
stakeholders get input into the creation of laws. That is why
you hear so much about inquiries and committees and so
on. Input is invited as part of the process. It all gets on the
record and policies are crafted accordingly. There's also
countless indigenous bodies giving input into the laws that
are affecting Australians through those mechanisms and
more. In fact, a number of these bodies are actually funded by
the Department of Indigenous Affairs which we mentioned just
a moment ago and also meanwhile there are no less than 11
politicians elected to the parliament with an indigenous
heritage. That's about 5% of the total which is an
overrepresentation. Now, I am not speaking against any of
those things, okay? But I am making this point. We already
have a very comprehensive system of representing
indigenous concerns into our parliament. Why amend the
constitution and take such a radical step to do something
that is already happening? If there are unresolved problems,
then perhaps these systems need fixing, not adding to. Or
perhaps the problems of problems that the government is
ill-equipped to resolve. Adding yet more of this stuff in a
most radical way actually sounds like they've run out of
ideas. That's my first general objection. Here's my second
general objection. It actually goes to the name 'indigenous
voice'. I want to ask a question just for a second. What is an
indigenous voice? What is the indigenous voice? Exactly. Cause,
I can take a case study of two women, both senators, both
indigenous currently in the Australian Parliament. One is
Jacinta Price. She speaks passionately against wokeness.
She is a conservative. She opposes the voice. She lives in
the Northern Territory. The other is Lidia Thorpe. She
tried to swear her oath of allegiance by calling the Queen
a coloniser and doing a black power salute. She's hard left.
She lives in Victoria. She's in favour of the voice. Someone
tell me. What then is the indigenous voice? Is it not as
absurd as pretending that there's a white voice? Is it
not that people are actually infinitely diverse far in far
more ways than these woke categories of skin colour and
indigeneity and various other things. Is that not simplistic?
Do those categories not actually fail. This infinite diversity is
precisely the reason why we have a parliament that is
deliberately set up from the beginning to governing the
interests of all Australians. That's my second general
objection. Now to the specifics. There are actually
specific words which the Prime Minister has suggested might be
added to the constitution if a referendum was successful.
And they're surprisingly brief. One there shall be a body
called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
Two the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make
representations to parliament and the executive government on
matters relating to Aboriginal and Straight Islander peoples.
Three, the parliament shall subject to this constitution
have power to make laws with respect to the composition
functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander voice. That's it. What would be
the practical effect of that going into the constitution?
The detail is so lacking that the truth is nobody knows and
if they tell you that they don't know they are lying. Um
this term for example executive government. They're to make
representations to the executive government. It has no
obvious meaning. In fact it could entrench a system whereby
the voice is directly influencing the public service
without parliamentary scrutiny. Second, how are the members
appointed? By whom are they appointed? Who has that
authority? Third, how does someone qualify to become a
member and who comes up with the qualifications and how are
they changed? Fourth, what is the force of this body's
recommendations? Can the government, for example, act in
a way that completely contradicts them. Fifth, how
are the recommendations formulated? Is it a voting
body? Is there some kind of unanimous vote or majority
vote? What's the various strength of those two votes or
is it a non-voting body at all. Is it something completely
different? Will there even be votes? Sixth what is the policy
affecting what is a policy affecting indigenous
Australians on which they're supposed to have make
representations. Surely there's a strong argument from a left
perspective that all policies affect indigenous Australians
because this is their nation. Seventh, can a can this voice be
dissolved? Can it be closed down? The answer actually seems
to be relatively clear on that one which is no it can't be.
The extent to which the government is saying, 'Oh just
trust us and trust the system that will create this thing'.
It's actually astounding. Nobody has any clue how this
will play out. But I reckon I can take a guess just on one
aspect of it. Lots of things I couldn't guess. But one aspect
of it I could guess. Whatever it ultimately looks like it
actually won't be an indigenous voice. Because there's no such
thing. It will be a political voice. You take a body for
example like the Human Rights Commission. One of these many
government organisms that are set up oh for this this noble
cause of human rights. No, no a particular political
interpretation of human rights in order to advance a
particular side of politics. That's the truth. And appointees
to this voice that will come from the Canberra set and there
is such a thing or or they will have connections into it and
they'll be chosen for their political perspectives. And it
will become a woke voice to parliament. It will become a
critical race theory voice to parliament. Those with the
approved view of indigenous issues. Hint, it's probably not
going to be the Jacinta Prices of the world. We've all seen
how the politics of race division is gnoring away at the very
social fabric of countries like South Africa and the United
States. And if you have Kiwi friends, ask them too because
it's getting worse there. The activists want to bring that
same strife, that same division, that same tension, that same
resentment, that same social cancer, that same divide and
conquer mechanism here to Australia. That's ultimately
what wokeness is, it's a force to tear down. It's a force to
destroy and division is one of the most powerful ways to do it.
And the power of this thing, the power of this political voice
will be in this, by styling it as an indigenous voice. No
government is going to stand against it for fear of being
called racist. And they won't be able to get rid of it as
we've just established. It's a familiar play from a political
movement that consistently uses minorities as its political
battering ram. Not to help them, but to gain power. Before I
finish the subject I want to make a general point about race
divisions and this fact that race shouldn't divide us. The
truth is this whole idea of this voice comes out of a set
of presuppositions and it is this view that white people and
people of colour are so divided that an institution of general
function like a democratic government cannot act in the
best interests of both. The critical race theorists preach
to us about this conflict which we cannot escape which is part
of our very nature. They say that we cannot presume to speak
for each other. We cannot presume to act in each other's
best interests. You've heard it all before, right? You hear
this in the a notion that men can't speak on things that
affect women, obviously abortion being the key one. A man can't
have an opinion on abortion because he's not a woman, and
it's all about her body. Or that white people can't speak about
black issues and so on and so on and it's embedded in this
indigenous voice notion. The reality is, is that anyone can tell
the truth. Anyone can help anyone, because we're all people
first. And you don't need a particular skin colour to tell
the truth. But they say no. A white politician cannot
represent coloured constituents. A person of colour will not be
fairly treated in a white majority institution like a
university or a court or a parliament. That's why you
need affirmative action stuff. A mixed-race society will
never be an equal society. A white person will never
understand what is necessary for the well-being of a person
of colour. Why do they say this? Well, actually it's because it
comes down to something very post modern. My truth is not
the same as the truth of a coloured person. We do not have
access to the truth, only our truths. That's post modern
thinking. It's left us without an author of truth who is
outside of us in whose truth we live. Objective truth, the
truth. We don't have that. It's only left us with ourselves and our
truths. And my truth as a white person they say is white
supremacy. I'm not joking. I've recently read for example
Robin DiAngelo's white supremacy. That's the point,
that every white person is a white supremacist and that is
the centre of their whole being and they cannot escape it.
That's their truth and of course if that's my truth then
it is profoundly oppressive to the truth of a person of colour.
They are oppressed by my truth and it's an inescapable
conflict and a profound barrier to our shared humanity that
cannot be broken. I'm not exaggerating. This is really
what they say. Under this worldview, racism is a human
condition. It's not about individual acts of racial
prejudice. It's about the whole racist being that
comes from within us, that it is baked into us and we're
imprisoned to it and we're divided by it. But none of this
can be true. It can't be, in terms of the truth. These are
all lies. Why? You know, it comes down to something very
simple, as something which Christianity reveals to us.
Because one God made one man from whom are all races, okay?
What does that mean? First of all, it means that there is one
ultimate race, humans. Second, it means that there is one
ultimate truth, God, the Author. Third, it means that
there is one ultimate good for all, which we can all access,
which we should all pursue, which we can all proclaim no
matter our skin colour, our identity or anything else and
it is in fact to seek God and to obey God. There are no
ultimate barriers. There's no ultimate conflict. There's no
difference of truth. Notice how all of these things come out in
Acts 17:25-28. The apostle Paul writes, 'God himself
gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.' Oh one
God one truth. 'And He made from one man, every nation of mankind
to live on the face of the earth.' Oh, one human race one
humanity. 'He determined the allotted periods
and the boundaries of their dwelling place that they should
seek God.' One ultimate good for all. Okay? There can be a
government for all, seeking the good of all because there's one
ultimate good, that they should seek God and perhaps feel their
way towards Him and find Him. Yet, He is actually not far from
each one of us, for in Him we live and move and have our
being. Oh, same truth. Isn't that great? What a great few
verses. Go rid of yourself. Acts 17:25-28. And I conclude
therefore by saying beware of these ideas. Beware of these
presuppositions. They are sinister ideas. And remember
especially, the government might get this wrong and it might the
beginning of sorrows but certainly remember that those
of us who are Christians, we are colour blind in Christ
because we are all one in Christ Jesus, and that is the
direct context of that particular statement in
Galatians 3:28. I am Martyn Iles
and that was The Truth of It.