A leading No campaigner and critic of the proposed Voice to Parliament has compared the fight to protect traditional Aboriginal land to ‘conserving zoo animals’.
Gary Johns gave a speech to the Bennelong Society conference in 2003 where he made controversial comments.
The one-time Labor MP and president of Recognize A Better Way – one of several groups campaigning against the Voice – has faced calls to resign over ‘outdated’ views shared in historic interviews, books and speeches.
Dr Johns said there had been ‘great progress’ in Aboriginal rights over four decades, citing the successful referendum in 1967 which allowed Aboriginal Australians to be counted in the census and to eliminate racial discrimination.
But he said talks on indigenous citizenship were ‘hijacked because the obsession was with land’.
‘It’s like a post-colonial situation where people have regained their land and are struggling to establish a nation.
‘There was an obsession with preserving difference. That’s what you do in a zoo – save things and put them away.’
Dr Johns said there had been ‘great progress’ in Aboriginal rights over four decades, citing the successful 1967 referendum which allowed Aboriginal Australians to be counted in the census and to eliminate racial discrimination.
Dr. Johns rallied against a voice and suggested that Aborigines should undergo a blood test to confirm their heritage before receiving any benefits.
There is always something new in this game of tribal separatism. A new product on the shelf,’ he said in a 2003 speech.
He argued that academics who live outside and are removed from disadvantaged communities have ‘taken power away from those indigenous peoples and created a whole new set of indigenous leaders’.
He said that the new indigenous leaders ‘knew that they would come to power using Western education to represent their people, and would no longer seek equal opportunities, but the right to separate in a very radical way’.
‘The reason is that so much of Aboriginal life has been politicised, and too much Aboriginal life is living in the public domain.’
Dr Johns suggested that government agencies, such as the now-defunct Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) ‘helped many Aboriginal people to keep more Aboriginal people a game of politics, in particular, the support of the public purse’.
Dr. Johns rallied against a voice and suggested that Aborigines should undergo a blood test to confirm their heritage before receiving any benefits.
He argued against the rhetoric that ‘primitive culture must be preserved, and in any way governments can preserve it’.
‘Government cannot protect culture. Aboriginal people own their own culture, and every mother and father in this room knows that you can pass it on, but you can’t be sure that your sons and daughters will want to hear the message you give,’ he said.
‘You just can’t control the next generation.’
His comments sparked outrage among politicians and officials committed to a Yes vote.
Liberal MP Matt Keane demanded Mr Johns stand down from the No campaign, describing his views as ‘extreme’ and ‘beyond the pale’.
Till’s independent MPs Allegra Spender and Monique Ryan have also raised concerns about her role in calling for a No vote.
But Aboriginal Voices critic Warren Mundine, who leads the Fair Australia No campaign, said calls for Dr Johns to resign were absurd.
His comments sparked widespread outrage from politicians and officials committed to a Yes vote. Pictured: People taking part in ‘The Long Walk’ from Melbourne to Canberra to support a Yes vote
He disagrees with Dr. Johns’ comments, but thinks debate and diversity are healthy.
‘That’s why our polls are so good. We speak to every Australian,’ he said.
Thomas Mayo, a Yes campaigner who has historically shared his vision for Australia’s future with a Voice to Parliament, remains part of the government’s advisory body.
Mr Mayo envisioned reparations for Aborigines, ‘rents’ to live on Australian land and the abolition of ‘harmful colonial institutions’.
The vision for a Voice to Parliament directly contradicts Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s hopes for a ‘flexible’ concession to help the country’s most vulnerable.
He lists ‘all the things we imagine when we demand’, including ‘revenge, return of land, abolition of harmful colonial institutions’.
Daily Mail Australia obtained a series of tweets dating back to 2018 and published by Thomas Mayo, an architect of the Voice referendum question and a signatory to the Uluru Statement of the Heart.
In addition, Mr Mayo said his vision was to ‘get all our children out of prison and into care… the integration of our laws and lore, speaking the language, bringing back wages’.
Mr Mayo said a ‘guaranteed representative body’ was needed [to]… properly pursue due rents and abolish the system which harms us’.
Since the comments were made public, Mr Mayo has embarked on a long tour around Australia to promote the Voice alongside politicians and key Yes figures.
He also told Daily Mail Australia that he now understood that a voice would ‘focus on issues important to Aboriginal communities such as better employment outcomes and housing’, admitting that many of his comments were years old.
Daily Mail Australia has contacted Dr Johns for comment.
The prominent ‘Yes’ campaigner has outlined his vision for life with Voice in Parliament – detailing ambitions for reparations for Aboriginal people, paying ‘rent’ to live on Australian land and the dismantling of ‘harmful colonial institutions’.
Here’s what we know about Voice to Parliament so far
Here, Daily Mail Australia looks at some of the key questions about Voice so far and how the government has dealt with them:
What kind of advice can the voice give to parliament and government?
VOICE will advise on issues that are directly related to indigenous peoples.
It will respond to requests made by the government, as well as have the ability to actively engage in issues it believes affect them.
The group will have its own resources to research issues and engage with communities at the grassroots level to ensure it best reflects their needs.
How will the members of the Voice be selected?
VOICE members will be appointed by Aboriginal communities and serve on the committee for a period of time, yet to be determined.
Local communities will agree with the government as part of a ‘post-referendum process’ to ensure cultural legitimacy in the way communities elect their representatives.
Who can be committee members?
Members of the Voice must be Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.
They will be chosen from each state and territory and have balanced gender representation nationally.
The government has also guaranteed that youth will be included in the committee to ensure representation across a wide spectrum of communities.
Will the voice be transparent?
The government said it would be subject to scrutiny and reporting requirements to ensure the Voice remains accountable and transparent.
VOICE members will be held to the standards of the National Anti-Corruption Commission and will be sanctioned or removed from the committee if any misconduct is found.
Will the voice have veto power?
No.
Will the Voice work independently of other government agencies?
The committee must respect the work and role of existing bodies, says the government.
Will Voice manage any funds?
Voice will not directly manage any funds or provide any services to the community.
Its sole role will be to make presentations on improvements to existing government programs and services and advise on new ideas coming through the parties.