20 October 2023

Indigenous colleagues are ‘soaking up the shrapnel’

Indigenous health Political Rural

Rural generalist Dr Louis Peachey had some sobering words after the weekend’s no vote.


Walking into a shop last Monday, Girrimay man Dr Louis Peachey did something he hadn’t done in around 15 years: he consciously took note of the threats, weapons and exits.

Speaking at the 2023 Rural Medicine Australia conference on Friday morning, Dr Peachey led a panel discussion with Indigenous colleagues about the impact of the referendum on an Indigenous voice to parliament and the resulting “no” vote.

One feeling that virtually all panel members addressed was the realisation that some of their peers, patients and colleagues had been among the “no” voters.

“The … irony is that if there’s a group of people who understand what it is to not be heard, it’s sure to be rural Australians,” Dr Peachey said.

“And yet, rural Australians voted exceptionally against letting Indigenous Australians have a voice.”

Dr Peachey said he and members of his close circle had changed their behaviour immediately after the results of the referendum came in, and that there was a pervasive sense of unease.

“There are colleagues of mine who just felt very exposed and very naked in any public circumstance,” he said.

Torres Strait Islander woman Dr Regina Waterhouse, who works in the remote Palm Island region, said she had spent the past week wondering which of her colleagues had voted against the voice.

It was hard to realise “that people you work with – your nurses, your [admin] staff, your other doctors – to think that they think that you shouldn’t have any input into the policies that that will change how things are for your mob … that you don’t deserve to have your voice at that sort of governance level,” Dr Waterhouse said.

Looking to the future, Dr Peachey said moving past the no vote requires non-Indigenous Australians to stand with and support Indigenous colleagues.

“For the last almost 50 years, we’ve had Indigenous people pushing [for progress] with our non-Indigenous brothers and sisters standing behind us in support,” he said.

“But it also meant that we were soaking up the shrapnel at the front.

“And last weekend, we really felt the shrapnel.

“We actually need our brothers and sisters to stand beside us, shoulder to shoulder, and walk with us, shoulder to shoulder.

“I’m not saying that they won’t throw some shrapnel at you either, they’re just less likely to do it.

“And it’s going to give us some protection with if you stand in line with us.”

Dr Peachey also used the opportunity to trace the connections between Indigenous health, data and the justice system.

Take an Aboriginal child in an overcrowded living environment, he said.

“If you’ve got 12 towels sitting on a towel rack that was made for three, then the chance that any of them will ever dry is unlikely,” Dr Peachey said.

“And then you’ll get infections passed from one to the other, so we get skin infections and eye infections and ear infections [passed around].

“Get the pus out of the ears and the eyes and the lungs and the skin and the kid has a chance.”

Around half of primary school aged children in the community of Yarrabah have chronic otitis media.

The nearest hospital with an ear, nose and throat specialist is only 10km away, Dr Peachey said, yet it takes an average of five years for children to get seen there.

A projected 80% of incarcerated Indigenous people are deaf, largely due to untreated chronic ear infections.

“By the time this kid is nine or 10 years of age, they know that they … are cut off from the Australian dream,” he said.

“They’ve got nothing to lose.”

Queensland’s government recently introduced tough new laws targeting youth offenders.

Stealing a car now comes with a maximum penalty of five years detention for juveniles and 10 for adults; the age of criminal responsibility in the state is 10 years.

Keeping a child in prison costs around $2000 per night, meaning that the cost of incarcerating a child for stealing a car quickly outweighs the cost of said car.

“Can we make that money actually do something much, much better?” Dr Peachey said.

“Something which will get a better outcome, which will actually make [the victim] feel like she was heard about her distress of having her car stolen, and give this child have a chance to become a productive member of society?”

This article was updated on 30/10/23: the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Queensland is 10 years old.

Something to say?

Leave a Reply

13 Comments on "Indigenous colleagues are ‘soaking up the shrapnel’"

Please log in in to leave a comment


Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Guest
Guest
Guest
1 month 14 days ago

I would vote YES to remove the ‘races power’ from section 51(xxvi) of the Australian constitution. I abhor ethnic partiality in law.

Peter Bradley
Member
Peter Bradley
1 month 14 days ago

Where, pray, do you find race power in the constitution..? Please quote the complete relevant clause. My understanding, shared by most people, is that there is no race specified in the constitution. Even ‘No’ voters were acknowledging that, as a reason for voting no, because the proposed Voice would mention the first nations people as Aborigine and Torres Strait Islanders. This in my view was a mistake, as it would have been better to just state First Nation People, with no race specified.

Suzette Finch
Member
Suzette Finch
1 month 12 days ago
Peter, Section 51 xxvi. PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS -> COMMITTEES -> HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEES-> STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS-> CHAPTER 5 INDIGENOUS RECOGNITION AND NATION BUILDING THROUGH A NEW PREAMBLE https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=laca/constitutionalreform/chapter5.htm#:~:text=Section%2051(xxvi)%20enables%20the,necessary%20to%20make%20special%20laws. Section 127 was repealed & I think Section 25 is a dead section – all related to race. Section 51 xxvi was used against Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders in 2007 with the NT Emergency Response Intervention (see https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/social-justice-report-2007-chapter-3-northern-territory-emergency-response-intervention). Sorry, as you are a frequent commentator, I had assumed you would easily make your way around fact-checked internet information. I am surprised you didn’t find this, as all… Read more »
Peter Bradley
Member
Peter Bradley
1 month 12 days ago
Wow, Suzette, such vehemence..! I could almost see literary spittle spraying out onto to hapless ex-pat Kiwi, who readily admits to still, even after living here for over 30 years, being completely confused by the complicated Australian legal and political system, and associated legal documents. NZ does not even have a constitution – it preserves some very useful flexibility this constitution business precludes. I stand corrected as having been mislead like almost everyone else, that without the Voice being added, there was no specific mention of the first nation races by name in said constitution. I have no desire at… Read more »
Peter Bradley
Member
Peter Bradley
1 month 16 days ago
Hi Louis, good to here you are still out there at the coal face. I still look back with fondness to our Division of GP times. I’ve retired these days, but I too was disappointed at the failure of the Voice to get up. Especially among our colleagues, strangely enough. So much misleading and straight up wrong stuff drowned out the positive. So much easier to be negative than positive. The persistent yammering by people like Dutton for more detail was very unhelpful, because the strength in a way of the yes case, was its simplicity. Sure, the Voice would… Read more »
Jane M Atkinson
Guest
Jane M Atkinson
1 month 17 days ago
I think many no voters have made a misinformed mistake, One doctor raised the question of “accountability” of a proposed voice. Being powerless, a voice would not have to account to anyone We could have had a chance to listen, just listen, and hear another view of how best to spend our taxes. So far with all the efforts and money over many years very little progress has been made in First Nations’ peoples chances. WE could hvae done better. A step forward even as insignificant as admitting constitutional existence alone would have been a step in the right direction.… Read more »
Don’t Cancel Me
Guest
Don’t Cancel Me
1 month 16 days ago
I doubt there was even one non-indigenous Australian that would object to having First Nation people recognised in the constitution and I doubt if I could find any persons who don’t want our indigenous brothers and sisters have life, health and happiness in amounts equal to the non-indigenous population but this is not all The Voice wanted. If Labour had precisely set out just admitting constitutional existence the numbers in the No camp would have been easily counted on one hand. But since this referendum was the least explained, and most vague one in Australian history with no details available,… Read more »
Katie
Guest
Katie
1 month 17 days ago

I am happy to stand with indigenous people. I’m just not sure how. I did vote yes. I did talk about it, probably not as much as I should have. However given the people around me feel the same way, there was not much debate, except on the advertising involved.
Please be blunt and give me a suggestion as what else to do. Often I feel I’m overstepping the mark. I do not have any First Nation friends or work colleagues or lived experience. Any advice happily received.

Dr Concerned
Guest
Dr Concerned
1 month 18 days ago
5.2% percent of members of Federal Parliament are Aboriginal, and the Aboriginal population is 3.8% of Australians. Aboriginal people demonstratable already have a parliamentary voice and are proportionally over-represented. Those representatives are subject to a democratic process of election. The Voice as proposed wasn’t accountable at all to the public, so very little oversight, and would have been possible to abolish, because constitutional law. Creating an instruction with power and no oversight just seems like a recipe for corruption. The general public wasn’t asked for a conscience vote on if Aboriginal people have a right to exist, they were asked… Read more »
Suzette Finch
Member
Suzette Finch
1 month 16 days ago
Dr Concerned, I could not ignore your clear request for help with factual information. 1) Lets start with your ‘straw man argument’ or oversimplification. Possibly the Parliamentary Education Office has it wrong but there are 11 of the 227 Federal representatives that identify as having Indigenous heritage, so 4.8%. This doesn’t directly allow them to pass any bills without the support of other representatives. Federal Politicians are paid to represent their electorate in theory but are in reality forced to support their party. We saw this in the rent & the same-sex marriage votes. Even if voting in our Parliament… Read more »
Dr Graham Fleming
Guest
Dr Graham Fleming
1 month 17 days ago

Any referendum that asks for a vote where the specific wording of the legislation change is not included in the vote is going to fail on any subject. A third of Australians live in rural areas and are currently neglected particularly regarding health and it has nothing to do with race. The legislation which could have been used in constitutional change can still be made in federal parliament where will not become a holiday convention for constitutional lawyers. That sums up the No vote in rural areas.

Suzette Finch
Member
Suzette Finch
1 month 15 days ago
1) Again, I will reiterate the obvious. There have been multiple successive Indigenous advisory boards that have come & gone with cycles of Parliamentary power. So your statement is unfortunately true but ONLY HALF the story. Governments can legislate for the development & the DESTRUCTION- as they have done REPEATEDLY – of Indigenous advisory boards. That is why the IDEA or PRINCIPLE of an Indigenous voice needed to be enshrined in the Constitution. This point has been made repeatedly to those with the capacity & willingness to read &/or listen. 2) “Constitutional amendment to provide for the Voice is just… Read more »
Silent Doc
Guest
Silent Doc
1 month 17 days ago
Over-represented in parliament, and yet still having worse outcomes as a group in basically every arena of life? Demonstratably mere statistical representation in the legislative branch of government is not enough. I mean it might possibly make sense if every parliamentarian were there to advocate for their own ethnic and socio-economic group, and nothing else, but thats not how it works – every minister and senator, ATSI included, represent geographical areas and political parties. ATSI people being AT parliament house does not mean that ATSI people, as a group, have a voice IN parliament. The Voice could have changed that.… Read more »
wpDiscuz