While there’s one key difference between the Voice to Parliament referendum and a general election — no government will change as a result of the ballot — the parallels between a win for the No campaign and the 2016 election of Donald Trump in the US are many and significant.
The No campaign relies upon, and the Trump campaign drew its strength from, white grievance and the positioning of privileged majority groups as the real victims of far less powerful, dispossessed minorities. Both rely on a conspiracy theory narrative in which progressive elites — corporate, political, media — are oppressing, robbing and taking away the rights of ordinary people, who are urged to vote in defiance of this plot.
In both cases that “elite” conspiracy theory hides that powerful and super-wealthy figures are providing extensive funding for the campaigns.
Both pitch themselves to voters as acts of angry, righteous transgression against an out-of-touch liberal order. Both rely on racist tropes and lies. Both, when caught out engaging in racist rhetoric, insist they’re joking and that censorious critics have no sense of humour. Both have the support of the Murdoch media, and complement the Murdoch business model of inciting and amplifying division.
And both have the support, or neutrality, of sections of the left that regard what’s on offer as insufficiently radical; a business-as-usual tweak to a fundamentally oppressive and unjust system.
While Hillary Clinton’s failure in 2016 was down to her own bad campaign and her failings as a candidate, Trump’s victory was helped by the fact that many American left-wingers either proudly refused to vote for her because she wasn’t left wing enough, or actually voted for Trump, enraged that Clinton was the Democratic candidate instead of Bernie Sanders.
You can ask American women, particularly low-income women in Republican-controlled states, how that’s working out for them, courtesy of Trump’s appointments to the US Supreme Court and the Dobbs abortion decision. You can ask the families of the hundreds of thousands who died of COVID under Trump. Or the families of the people who died in the January 6 insurrection. Democracy isn’t about your ideal candidate or proposal; it’s about what and who are actually on the ballot. That’s why it’s only ever the least worst system of government, not the best.
If the comparison with abortion in the US seems a stretch, it’s because the policy significance of the Voice proposal has been lost in culture warring. Closing the gap of Indigenous disadvantage requires that Indigenous communities help design and implement policies. Even the Morrison government, courtesy of the efforts of Ken Wyatt, recognised that, and set about further building up the capacity of Indigenous community organisations to engage in that process. The Voice is the macro level of what has finally started happening at the micro level, and is a necessary complement.
Capacity building. Policy design. Community engagement. Boring stuff, and how is that going to change the fundamental fact of invasion and dispossession and Australia’s continuing failure to negotiate a treaty with First Peoples? It isn’t — contrary to the wild claims of the No campaign — but it is going to be part of a process that evidence shows leads to improved outcomes like longer, healthier lives, greater economic opportunities, and better educational outcomes for Indigenous peoples.
For No voters — other than the overtly racist, who are content with existing levels of Indigenous disadvantage — where will that leave them after the defeat of the referendum, after they’ve cathartically expressed their anger about a political and economic system they resent, after they’ve chosen the transgressive option and stuck one up the elites, the progressives, the woke? With a constitution that pretends no-one was here when the British invaded, and no hope of rectifying that for a generation. With existing Indigenous disadvantage firmly entrenched. And certainly no closer to a treaty or a recognition of dispossession — if anything, defeat will delay a treaty even further into the future.
That’s the “positive” outcome. The negative one is that a No victory will, as Trump’s victory did in the US, empower, legitimise and amplify racism. While there won’t be a national leader heading the charge with bigotry and hate, racists and their enablers will be able to boast of support from ordinary Australians to articulate white grievance and victimhood and hatred of Indigenous peoples. It’s all there in that No campaign cartoon run, then disowned, by The Australian Financial Review.
In democracies, votes have real effects. There are no consequence-free acts of transgression or trolling in the polling booth. There’s no Fantasy Politics in which your ideal candidate or proposal is on the ballot instead. Lives are affected, and changed, on the ground. Just ask Americans.
What kind of effect is the No campaign having on Australia? Do we need to accept the least worst option or risk setting the country back even further? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
I read the comments below and I wonder at the number of ways in which some commenters have invented to disparage, undermine and damn the fairly anodyne proposal of an Aboriginal Voice to parliament. The defence of the constitution as an unimpeachable document that must not under any circumstances be questioned or altered is simply ludicrous. It’s precisely the same argument as used by those who defend the christian bible as the word of god when, as any theologian or historian will tell you, it was written and rewritten by successive male (and only male) members of an infant religion looking for a regularised doctrine that it could dispense to the masses in return for their devotion.
The Australian constitution was written by a bunch of British men who neither understood nor respected Aboriginal culture, nor indeed women, of any race, to give them the right to dictate how the new nation of Australia should function to their advantage and that of their British masters.
It’s also the same narrow view that many Americans have of their own Constitution as a sacred document that supports their passion for guns and gun ownership. It’s a matter of interpretation, upon which the gun industry has built its vile profits and which now fights tooth and nail to defend those profits by deliberate misinterpretation of what the American Constitution actually says.
Further, for all those who decry the elevation of one race over all others that this vote will lead to, should we instead allow that one race to continue to be treated as lesser instead? Don’t forget that until 1967, Indigenous people in Australia were classified as fauna, not human beings, and that until even more recently the state felt it perfectly acceptable to remove Aboriginal children from their parents and extended families in a way that no other ethnic group has ever been treated or would be tolerated by the broader community.
Don’t argue that we shouldn’t treat Indigenous people differently to anyone else when, for more than 200 years we have done precisely that, to the severe detriment of every single Aboriginal individual, whether they personally suffered this indignity or not, and which action has also left a permanent blight on the country that even now we find almost impossible to grapple with.
By this one simple gesture we will open the door to a new way of dealing with each other based on respect and generosity. Of course it won’t change anything for Aboriginal people in the short term, except perhaps for a collective sigh of relief that one more hurdle to equality has been overcome, but it is a meaningful and significant acknowledgement that harm has been done in the past but there remains the possibility of rectification.
Those on the right want you to think that this one simple act is too big, too scary, too dangerous. What they really mean is, we like things the way they are and we don’t want to have to answer to anyone for what we have done to the land and the people who have lived here for millenia, to our massive benefit.
Well, I call those arguments out for the bulldust they are. I say, view this proposal as one small way in which we can repay our collective debt to people who have been mightily wronged.
Be your best self, not your worst, and vote YES.
Terrifically well said. Spot on!
None of that addressed any of the criticisms from the left, though
Rubbish. The current Constitution was not writen by a bunch of British men; it was amended regarding Aboriginals in 1962 and 1967 by US. One of the big lies of the YES case is to pretend 2023 is 1901.
And Aboriginals today are NOT treated as lesser people; they have full citizenship, have an uncounted number of advocacy and service organisations, and receive funding at twice the rate of anyone else. Another YES lie. What we need is a royal commission into the efficacy of that funding, not a referendum that addresses the wrong issue – the correct issue being a bill of rights for all of us.
And the Voice proposal is far from simple; litigation has been flagged by its proponents and has not been ruled out by one lawyer in the land. It has been made perfectly clear that the Voice is the start of further proposals and is not an end in itself.
Successful litigation has been ruled out by most prominent lawyers. More funding ? – try the franking credits, private health insurance subsidy, negative gearing , private school subsidies, superannuation rules re tax, etc etc that a certain set of Australians get access to. Don’t tell me Indigenous people get over subsidised with all these other rorts going on.
The constitution was written by British men whether you like that or not!! Think “we” went to war for King and Country less than two decades later. And I’m not sure the country we were talking about was Australia.
And the Australian constitution is an Act of the British Parliament, just to clear that bit up!!
Another Royal Commission? How many do you need? We’ve managed to ignore the recommendations of any number of related Royal Commissions.
And just to make the point, it was the Liberal Govt who set in motion what became the Uluṟu Statement. Yep, the Libs asked “how can we do this better?” Just they didn’t like the answer!!
So if you think everything is rolling along just fine, and that Indigenous causes will be advanced by voting No, then do just that. But remember, not one person on the No side has proposed what they would do instead. They just feel threatened by the whole concept of a Voice that’s not theirs.
And if you think First Nations people in Australia are treated just the same as everyone else – have a look at history, have a look at life expectancy, incarceration rates, health, education – the list goes on.
First Nations people have requested this as they think it will make a difference. I reckon that Indigenous people might have some expertise in this area and I’ll defer to their view and vote Yes. I’d rather be on the side of hope, and part of the solution, rather voting for the status quo and staying part of the problem.
The YES case is being run on pure sentiment, but when it comes time for litigation arising, that litigation will be advanced using cold, hard lawyers’ words. Let’s look at the lawyers’ words:
“The suggestion that a consequence of empowering the Voice to make representations to the Executive Government will be to clog up the courts, or to cause government to grind to a halt, ignores the reality that litigation concerning the validity of decisions of the Executive Government is already very common, and that it does not have either of those consequences.”
Note his exact words there: he is NOT ruling out litigation. He has been very careful not to. All he is saying is that he does not envisage that it will “clog the courts” or “grind govt to a halt.” Well guess what? I don’t claim it will and am not aware of any serious person who claims it will. What I do think is that it will give rise to a small number of very specific litigations designed to further empower Aboriginals. And we do not know what specific litigation is planned.
You pointing out that Australia is a land of various funding and tax rackets does not rule out that Aboriginal funding is just another of them. It’s a specious argument. I think we have a right to know why $6bn of annual funding (on 2016 figures – no later ones are available) doesn’t translate into dialysis machines in Katherine.
Do I think everything is rolling along just fine? No I don’t. But what I know for sure is that adding yet another layer of (paid, presumably) Aboriginal bureaucracy on top of the existing masses of it will do nothing for the most disadvantaged Aboriginals.
So, what do I want? A referendum on a bill of rights, please. One that hopefully contains a clause that says no citizen shall live below the poverty line. Would you like to see that? Or does your compassion extend only selectively to Aboriginal people?
The proposal is wrong in principle in that it divides Australians at the very Constitutional level into races. I am astonished that any lawyer supports it.
I’m supposing that lawyers support perhaps, just perhaps , they think it’s the right thing to do.
If there is litigation, it will do what it has always done, define the parameters of the idea or policy – just like it has on any number of constitutional or policy matters. There is nothing new here! Constitutional changes have always been broad in principle and the specifics sorted later and when relevant. Witness the defence parts of the constitution.
A bill of rights? Maybe a good idea. But how long do you think it would take us to agree on what that might cover? It’s not a reason to vote No. And having the right to not live in poverty is brilliant, except that it transfers to nought as we well know. Capitalism relies on poverty so you need more than a bill of rights to sort that.
On the same issue, why don’t we have a crack at sorting Indigenous poverty. Do we have to wait til we can sort everyone’s?
As Keane wrote, if your opposition is because it doesn’t do enough, you’re not helping by doing nothing.
25 million people here have millions of opinions, no doubt. We could spend the next thousand years debating which opinion is best, during which debate several million more opinions would come along. OR we could bow to the combined opinion of a society which has had 65,000+ years to think about this kind of stuff around the campfire. That society is not asking you to sacrifice anything – no freedoms, no money, no property. Simply to rock up and tick the yes box. Not so difficult. By all means start the discussion on a bill of rights which has huge merit, but has nothing to do with the Voice. Neither of the major parties in parliament will ever support a bill of rights so long as big blocks of people vote for them (and God only knows why they do, imo). Starting the ball rolling on the horrible inequities that currently exist, with black kids turning up to school suffering from malnutrition, for example, has to be a good thing. A yes vote may not feed the children of those kids, but a no vote is an insult to them and guarantees the continuation of the downward spiral.
When you get a referendum up on the bill of rights I’ll vote yes for that, and for anyone who looks set to sort out poverty – which shouldn’t be that hard, given serious intent.
I have to disagree that the Voice would further divide Australians – I believe it may heal some grievous divisions we already have, and I’m not saying this from sentiment. For me, the Uluru statement is full of wisdom and generosity and should be enough, but my own experience guarantees a yes from me even without that. I’ve honestly had a gutfull of those who say aboriginals are given everything, and those who say, What about this and What about that. It’s all BS when so much is at stake. I truly know this.
And as for the lawyers… really?
“I think we have a right to know why $6bn of annual funding (on 2016 figures – no later ones are available) doesn’t translate into dialysis machines in Katherine.”
Yes! Yes, we do!
And that is precisely (one of) the benefits an Indigenous voice could bring.
Community consultation. Why are policies not delivering what they set out to do? How can we do this better?
@ Muleskinner
You are taking 2 lawyers’ words of saying that “even if your propositions were true which they are not, then they would have no standing”, to mean that they tacitly agree that such matters could be raised.
Completely false and dishonest argument, because you have twisted the clear and obvious meaning to suit your prejudices rather than discerning the messages.
The two most senior lawyers in the country have not ruled out litigation. If they could rule it out I am sure they would have, because it would settle a lot of argument I invite both those men to rule out the possibility of litigation. They won’t, because everything in the Constitution can be litigated.
As I say, the YES case runs on sentiment; the litigation will be run by lawyers and words.
Sounds like your Bill of Rights idea is sunk, then. Because “maybe litigation”.
Dreyfus apparently said – “The fact that it is possible to pint to possible constitutional litigation I don’t think should deter anyone.” It certainly doesn’t deter me. Why should it? You don’t tell us what Donaghue said. Was it similarly unterrifying? Seems to be about as worrying as the parking tickets argument.
Remember Howard’s warning about land rights – we need “certainty”. How could we ever manage without it? Apparently we could. Litigation? A possible problem – Horrors – Don’t risk it. Vote No.
Yes I did, I quoted this:
“The suggestion that a consequence of empowering the Voice to make
representations to the Executive Government will be to clog up the
courts, or to cause government to grind to a halt, ignores the reality
that litigation concerning the validity of decisions of the Executive
Government is already very common, and that it does not have either of
those consequences.”
So that quote, if true, absolutely negates your professed ‘concerns’ about that issue, doesn’t it ?
Or are you incapable of seeing the truth when it’s staring you in the face because of your own prejudices ?
Yes, but even in the sentences you quote, there are clear statements that in their opinions, any litigation involving the Voice would have no legal standing and therefore would be dismissed.
On the basis of your argument, it could be asserted that you yourself could be subject to legal proceedings on such spurious grounds that the case would be thrown out without being heard.
You should at least be honest and admit that your assertions are merely NOs looking for justification.
Can you not read English? Neither of those two quotes say that litigation would have no legal standing. How on Earth do you draw that conclusion from those two quotes? They specifically state the opposite. Pay particular attention to the SG’s quote: all he is ruling out is “court clogging” or Govt “grinding to a halt.” Can you not see that? Can you not see he is specifically NOT ruling out the possibility of successful litigation? He is a lawyer, using words very very specifically.
Well said. I grew up in Kalgoorlie until I was 32, so know first-hand how things were. I will be voting yes.
I grew up all over the place and see how things are now, I’ll be voting yes. We do not have to have more of the same.
Is that why they’re incarcerated at numbers out of all proportion to their percentage of population?
As part of the colonial government that stole their land, their children and attempted genocide. They should be so grateful.
So, you haven’t counted them then? Why not? You’re trying to make a case.
Still, I don’t see any facts presented. The statistics speak for themselves though. Poor housing, education, and health outcomes.. terrible employment prospects… but keep up the factless rant.
How Trumpian of you
Another one? So that the government can ignore the results of it like all the ones in the past? What we need is a VOICE TO PARLIAMENT so that our First Nations can tell us how these problems can be addressed.
Yes… it should be all about you, not those who have had their land stolen, their children stolen and been forced out to the fringes of society to suffer extreme disadvantage and police harassment.
It really is simple. I suggest you read it and vote YES.
Even better well said. As previously stated, it’s a yes from me, and proudly so.
And how many of those Aboriginals are WRONGLY incarcerated? i.e. wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit?
I haven’t counted the number of organisations because nobody seem to know. At least 80 PEAK organisations here, but I have heard up to 500 organisations:
https://www.coalitionofpeaks.org.au/
Funding for Aboriginals used to be counted by the Productivity Commission here:
https://www.pc.gov.au/ongoing/indigenous-expenditure-report
But was discontinued in 2017. Its replacement, the Closing The Gap Report, no longer tallies spending. So Australians are flying blind into a referendum, with a lack of information.
A bill of rights is not about me, but about all of us.
We know that of the blackfellas incarcerated, at least 547 died needless deaths while supposedly in the “care” of white police.
We also know that they are more than 10 times more likely to be arrested and jailed for minor offences than other ethnic groupings.
Remarkably ignorant…………………
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_13_-_The_Constitution
An extract:
How was the Australian Constitution created?
Before 1901 the present Australian States were separate colonies of the then British Empire. When the colonies decided to join together in a federation, representatives from each colony were elected to attend meetings (called constitutional conventions) to draw up a constitution for the new nation. The draft constitution was later approved by a vote of the people in referendums held in each colony.
The new Australian nation was established on 1 January 1901 following the passing of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act by the United Kingdom Parliament. The purpose of the Act was ‘to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia’. The Constitution drawn up at the conventions was included as part of this Act, which declared that ‘The Constitution of the Commonwealth shall be as follows:—…’.
BRITISH MEN ENOUGH FOR YOU?
If you are going to talk bollocks, try checking first.
The Constitution of 1901 is not the Constitution of 2023. The YES case wants to live in the past.
Bollocks plus………….
More scorn. Is that all you people have?
When you come up with an actual argument, I’ll respond…………
……..in the meantime I’ll treat your comments with the contempt they deserve.
Denial of facts, is that all you people have ? Answer – yes, because the facts shred your arguments.
I’m an old blackfella who used to teach whitefellas black letter law at universities (including constitutional law) before I retired. I grew up in the fifties and sixties when the only thing we got from the guvvie (government) was grief. We were treated as lesser people, my father was a stockman (and a WW11 returned serviceman, my mother a domestic servant). We lived on the fringes of white society, times have changed but I still call out clowns who are racist (much to their chargrin) because there were idiots who, when I was growing up thought it was ok to call us coon, boongs and abos, whose children and grandchildren are probably the believer we blackfellas now get free houses, cars, holidays etc!! I always wanted a BMW because as I say to friends when discussing the madness of the rubbish about blackfellas that do the rounds BMW stands for black man’s wheels)).
Of course, there will be litigation, that’s what constitutional interpretation is about, it’s been going on since the constitution came into being in 1901. Perhaps as an example of litigation you could look back on the Mabo decision 31 years ago and check out how many matters regarding Mabo and the Native Title Act there have been before the high court since then, the point I’m making is has the sky fallen in, has Australia ground to a standstill! noooo.
Blackfellas “may make representation on matters affecting them” May doesn’t mean can, greater legal minds than me have come out and said the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment is legally sound.
The constitution was written (not writen) by men of British descent. I suggest you have a read some of the parliamentary debates regarding the constitution (good ole whitefella names) I often think of the founding father of the Constitution Sir Heny Parkes when questioned as to why there were no Aborigines invited to the constitutional conventions, his response was “and remind them were stole their land”!
The Voice proposal is rather simple, the problem as I see it is that it is not explained well to the average person which allows the scaremongering, lies, dog whistling and deception (Dutton, Mundine, Price et al) to grow and grow and it’s fair to say that those people who do not have a clear understanding of the Voice will probably be more inclined to vote no.
If the no vote does get up and I’m inclined to think it will because there is no bipartisan support and only eight of forty-four referendums have gotten up since the inception of the constitution, we blackfellas will have nothing! And we’ll have nothing for a very long time.
But I hope the goodwill of decent people proves me wrong.
Full of the usual YES tropes: nothing has changed since 1901.
There is no way on Earth you can claim Blackfellas get nothing: $33bn of funding annually, of which $6bn is dedicated to Aboriginals. And these are 2016 figures – we are not allowed to know the current funding because the Productivity Commission no longer tallies (or makes public the tally) the exact annual amount.
https://www.pc.gov.au/ongoing/indigenous-expenditure-report
Have another read of what I said, you haven’t responded to what I’ve written. I’ve got more understanding of the law than you will ever have and I dare say a lot more lived experience. I’m not wasting my time lowering myself to your ignorance.
In paragraph one you say Aboriginal people have historically been subject to racism. I agree.
In paragraph two you say there WILL be litigation. I agree. The difference is you want that and I do not. You also say that, since Mabo, the sky has not fallen in. I agree. But the voice proposal is at the constitutional level and is not the same thing at all.
In paragraph three you say that “may” does not mean “can.” I think it does, actually. What “may” does not mean is “will” or “must.” “May,” in law, means “free do do so if wished.”
In paragraph four you return to the YES case’s favorite trope which assumes the Constitution of 1901 is the same as the Constitution of 2023. It simply is not.
In paragraph five you claim the Voice proposal is simple. Your admission that there WILL be litigation proves that may not be the case. We have a right to be careful with this, and it is not scaremongering to proceed with caution. Remember, none other than Malcolm Turnbull (a YES voter) acknowledges there are legitimate concerns with the proposal:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2022/aug/15/i-will-be-voting-yes-to-establish-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
In paragraph six you think the proposal may fail due to a lack of bi-partisan support, and the general history of referenda in this country. I honestly can not predict which way it will go. You go on to say that if it fails Aboriginals will be left with nothing. As I have previously stated, this is rubbish.
There are plenty of people of goodwill and decency on the NO side. Many of us want a better deal for all Australians from our Constitution, and are not in favour of selective compassion.
There, I have addressed all your points.
People are free to vote Yes or No. If you are voting No, then why are you so concerned about what others think? If you think you are right to vote No, vote No.
When it comes to first peoples, you are not lone in trying to defend an indefensible postion.
How is it that our minds are not satisfied? …What means this whispering in the bottom of our hearts?
https://residentjudge.com/2011/03/08/this-whispering-in-our-hearts-by-henry-reynolds/
Well the country, our country, my country, could be irrevocable changed by this. That is why I argue for NO. What do you want, no debate at all? Only the intellectually feeble want that. Others of us enjoy it.
What debate? All I can see is you trying to convince yourself that voting No is some sort of favour to my, your , the, “country”. Having infered that I am “intellectually feeble”, I take it that you are not “of the people of goodwill and decency on the No side”.
There is no debate to be had. You are either voting Yes to what the majority of indigenous australians want
https://www.unsw.edu.au/news/2023/06/ten-questions-about-the-voice-to-parliament—answered-by-the-ex#:~:text=Second%2C%20polling%20confirms%20the%20Voice,their%20support%20for%20the%20Voice.
or you are voting against the next (tiny & timid) step to true reconciliation of Australia’s racist past.
Once again, this is what the YES case comes down to: yours is the only viewpoint possible. There is no debate to be had. Therefore I suggest we discontinue this “debate” that apparently does not exist.
There you go, taking your bat and going home. Look, how clear can I be? Vote No if you want However, do not seek or expect absolution from those who will vote Yes.
Snort! You sid there is not debate to be had. When I repeat that back to you, you accuse me of taking my bat and going home. I’m in the lions’ den here, but I’m going nowhere. I want all the YES casers here to consider the points I raise. I have tried to raise them as respectfully as I can.
And as for absolution. Ha!
The majority of Indigenous Australians support Voice. End of.
Thanks for addressing all of Wirra’s points and then metaphorically wiping your hands and walking away, as if your points are a complete and irrefutable rebuttal of everything stated above.
You cannot simultaneously claim that consitutional change is a huge step and also claim that it has already been altered to no noticeable earthquakes in our democracy. Why should this alteration be any different?
You also claim Aboriginal people get way too much of the annual budget already. Not, I’m guessing if you add up the value of all the land they have given up, the number of people whose lives have been damaged by government policy, the ways in which they continue to be disadvantaged, etc, etc, etc.
Has there never been any litigation around aspects of the Constitution? When there has been, has your life been significantly affected, or did the matters in dispute have a direct and negative affect on your life? Has the Constitution collapsed, or our reliance on it? Has Australian democracy failed as a consequence? You seem knowledgeable regarding the law. Give an example of when litigation around the Constitution has been under threat due to legal challenges.
As for being in favour, or not, of ‘selective compassion’, what a singularly bleak assessment of what this proposal offers. I also would like a better deal from our Constitution, and indeed from every government policy, not particularly in monetary terms, which seems to be what most people look for, but in terms of equity and justice for everyone. However, ‘selective compassion’ for one group who has been more abused than any other group in Australia just seems to me to be a good place to start a journey to equity and justice for all.
Sorry, Mr Mule, I don’t buy any of your arguments as to why this referendum should fail. On one side is legality and dollars and on the other, as I see it, humanity. Call me sentimental, clueless, lacking in intellectual rigour, or any epithet you and others like you choose.
I will vote YES because my conscience and experience tell me to. I’m sure you will also do whatever you think is best for you.
Bloke’s argument is basically “oh noes we can’t know exactly what will happen” but his counteroffer is a Bill of Rights, as if that wouldn’t have some unpredictable outcomes.
I have never claimed my points are irrefutable – just worth considering.
Why would this change possibly be different? Because it is a different change, and I do not believe its advocates would go to all this trouble for a change they claim is innocuous. These are the kinds of things that concern me:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2023-07-23/aboriginal-heritage-laws-confusion-among-landholders/102625444
https://news.mongabay.com/2023/02/finlands-debate-over-indigenous-identity-and-rights-turns-ugly/
https://investorintel.com/critical-minerals-rare-earths/first-nations-95-billion-lawsuit-offers-sweeping-implications-for-the-mining-industry/
I have never said Aboriginals get too much of the budget. Never. You put words in my mouth. If I thought that, then I would advocate the removal of the other two race clauses in the Constitution, which would remove all Aboriginal funding. I am not proposing that.
You say that my accusing the Voice of selective compassion is bleak. It is indeed bleak because we are having the wrong referendum. We should be having a referendum on a bill of rights that would provide compassion for all Australians against the predations of government and corporations. Identity politics is killing Socialism.
Wirra may come back at me if he so wishes.
I have to say GoatGirl, Muleskinner hasn’t addressed my points with any intellectual rigor, what he has done is similar to every other response to people who have taken him to task, just cherrypicked what he thinks he needs to respond to. When people raise “all the money spent on Aborigines,” I shouldn’t get annoyed and respond instead I should just continue reading the law amongst other things and tell myself intelligent people on this forum can and have let him know why this is so but he isn’t going to listen.
How about better governance rather than a RC? We don’t have a RC when entitled wealthy white mostly males misuse our money, just look at the Morrison Government.
Well we do have royal commissions into non-Aboriginal malfeasance. But sure, Australia is now a spectacularly corrupt country. Especially over the last 20 years or so I have watched in dismay as institution after institution has failed citizens. The latest is the truly staggering Gobbo case in Victoria, for which nobody will even be charged. Yes, royal commissions are held and their findings ignored. This is just another example of failing institutions. What is the answer? I really do not know. There seems to be no mechanism in Australia by which to hold the powerful to account.
That’s right, the powerful are often never held to account. The powerful have the means (usually $ or influence) to make government listen.
Imagine an Australia where the most disadvantaged group are consulted, an Australia where it ain’t just the owners of material wealth who advise government. Vote Yes to Voice.
That is best reply and prose I’ve seen .. well, ever seen on why we should vote yes. Many thanks, GoatGirl, you’ve said it all.
You said it.
I appreciate the direction of your short essay. Very good. Interpretation, as you have said, is the key – especially when we’re discussing history, and history is to the fore here. I love your passion for our Indigenous sisters and brothers. Yet, the condemning of the christian bible and history is hardly a fair comparison. Christians and Catholics do not claim purity. They are actual, real human beings who claim, in the end and at a fundamental level, and if you will, Faith. Sure, this is faith in a monotheistic God, and that might imply purity and a code of purity. Indeed, the earlier Scriptures which you refer to, the Jewish Scriptures as they are known today, do include some heavy-detailed rules for purity – see the book of Deuteronomy for example. Strangely for some perhaps, what Jesus did in part was to question and simplify a too severe an interpretation of the Pentateuch by some of the Jewish leaders of his day. That was one of the historical reasons he was killed the way he was. What I think is a better approach to these political questions around Indigenous recognition must involve an inclusive dynamic. The church is arguably the most successful multicultural organisation the world has ever witnessed. It is the value of community which in the end drives the church and has seen it’s great, and smaller successes. In fact, appealing to this inherent compassion within Christianity – by the way, the word Catholic actually means universal, ie. including everyone and everything – can see the inclusion of Indigenous Australians as more central to our national and cultural debates through The Voice. In the end, the Yes vote is a vote for compassion and inclusion and agency for, as you say, a massively marginalised group within our wider community.
The best part of you post was half the last-but-one sentence and the last sentence.
The rest was just an apologia for the christian church – like the curate’s egg – good in parts, but bloody atrocious in others. Others see a more nuanced and complex picture than you paint.
Hey Bill, thank you for your analysis though, as you may well guess, I disagree. The sophistication and nuance you call for is there, though going in a different direction. I’d argue that this is both a narrower, but ultimately wider, more inclusive direction. Your curate’s egg phrase was interesting, and a bit funny. Though, again, curates do have a legitimate place in our multicultural, and multi-religious mix. And part of the Indigenous voice includes at least touching on their sense of the land. There’s another article on ‘Crickey’ right now that does touch on this, ‘A First Nations model of education in a single image.’
Great hard hitting analysis, BK. Yes I wonder about the future for the nation as well as the Aboriginal people. for sure a generation or more lost, with the risk of increasing overt racism as you say. All so Dutton and News can claim a “victory” against Albanese.
Well I despair at how the no campaign has got a foot hold. What should have been an even and logical debate has been hijacked. There is a lot more media on the no campaign courtesy of the free to air media. It also doesn’t help that the opposition decided to support the no campaign just to put one up the government. I think the voice is doomed unless the yes campaign can mobilise and do something spectacular.
well said Bernard.
the regressive No voters, if B en F ordham’s obsessions are anything to go by, are freaking out about three major things, and they are ALL the same things that i remember people banging on about in the 1970s, for god’s sake.
point 1. Aborigines want money. We stole their land, they want money as reparations, we don’t want to give them any money. They’ll want TOO MUCH MONEY! They will destroy the economy, and render us whites powerless!
which leads us to
point 2. Aborigines want POWER! If they get all the power, they might do to us what we did to them!
point 3. We don’t want to be the bad guys – even though, at the same time, we know we did all the stuff.
And this third point is where the massive inner conflict lies in the psyches of the regressive Nos.
No one wants to feel bad about themselves. Even the biggest villains in history told themselves a story about how they were actually the good guys, or at least, were justified, or it wasn’t their fault in the first place.
This issue needs to be confronted for the sake of the referendum. If people want a villain in the story of white australia, the ones who knocked over the first domino, it was the Brit govt. of the 1870s, when they decided to colonise the place. The convicts were the means to take the land, hold the land, and expand. it was done to snooker the French, and to exploit whatever stuff was here that could be turned into profit. It got rid of convicts. The indigenous folk were just collateral damage in the grand chess game of the european powers.
So Regressive No voters, fear not, you weren’t there and you didn’t do any of it.
Doesn’t help the indigenous folk though, who continue to suffer while white australia continues to benefit from the set-up. “White battlers” might not feel like they are privileged, but privilege is not just about what you GET… it’s about what you DON’T HAVE TO PUT UP WITH. Which is much harder to imagine because it never ever happens to you.
Other groups face racism and cultural prejudice, but for the indigenous, there is a cruel punishment of unique design, because unlike all the other groups – the crime of the native is that their very presence is an eternal reminder of the bad thing that happened, that cannot be faced.
Therefore, they must be forever divested of power, so they never have a voice loud enough to be heard.
Money, power, and who’s the bad guy. It’s ironic that the regressive Nos project these things as obsessions of the indigenous, when it’s totally what they’re hung up about themselves.
As for the Progressive Nos, there is a time, after delivering all the long-deserved truth bombs, and letting whitey have it, that the wave of anger subsides (for the time being at least) and you find that…
you are still here… and nothing has changed!
Scratch that, things would have changed.
they would have gotten worse.
Choosing No is going to be an almighty Pyrrhic victory that can be regretted at leisure – and there will be a loooong time to do that.
1770s not 1870s of course!
i don’t know how many times i checked for typos!
DOH!
GL, your statement that “privilege is not just about what you GET… it’s about what you DON’T HAVE TO PUT UP WITH. Which is much harder to imagine because it never ever happens to you.” is so on point, you should have written the YES campaigns pamphlet! If One Nation supporters were the most incarcerated and oppressed people in the country I wonder what they would ask for!
It would be an interesting time if government threaten to remove the children of One nation families
The Govt removes children from non-Aboriginal families too – for their own protection.
“for their own protection”
Yeah… sure. That’s always the excuse, even when it isn’t.
Uncle Jack Charles could have told you all about that “protection” when he was sexually abused in the orphanage he was sent to after being stolen.
Plenty of non-Aboriginal children are removed from their families “for their own protection” too.
But not purely on the basis that they are “half breeds,” which was the rationale behind the stolen generation, with stated objective of breeding the black out of them.
there was a classic Sam Newman line in the Adam Goodes doco, where he’s giving the camera that demented stare and snarling –
“there’s a day for the gays, there’s a day for the indigenous…well, i’m a white straight male, when do i get MY day???”
“Sam, every day of your freakin’ life is your day!!” i was yelling at the tv.
But there is no way on god’s earth he thinks that is true. the lack of self-reflection is profound. it’s staggering. and so deeply ingrained, shifting that mindset is a huge task.
the insidious nature of the status quo, for the beneficiaries, is that it becomes so pervasive, so everyday, so normal, it becomes invisible. They sincerely can’t see anything that needs fixing. Anyone wanting to change anything is a ratbag, a whinger, a professional victim, or someone going for a power grab.
Stan Newman is and always has been the evil clown of Victorian footy boof-headedness. He sometimes had mildly relevant things to say on footy, but anything beyond that was too big a stretch for his tiny, bigoted, misogynistic ‘mind’.
Malcolm Turnbull thinks it’s about power too:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2022/aug/15/i-will-be-voting-yes-to-establish-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Indigenous against The Voice include Michael Mansell, Geoff Clark, Warren Mundine. These paragons do not support Yes due to The Voice having NO power.
So how does that attitude square with your assertions that it will have too much power ?
?????? I have never asserted that Voice will have too much power. Perhaps you meant to ask Muleskinner. In which case don’t bother, doubt they are interested in truth.
You might want to ask how much money is going into the No campaign, and where it is coming from.
Agree, ‘No’ is being used as another negative ‘wedge’ while Trump is a symptom not a cause of the corrupt Anglo nativist fossil fueled authoritarian right, to manipulate ageing electorates, see Brexit. First economic arguments then nativist anti-immigrant/EU narratives got it over the line (to be followed by regret), with allegations of Russian money & influence.
On the latter many fossil fuel oligarchs Anglo &/or Russian and their ‘owned’ influencers in politics, media etc. have shared antipathy towards the EU on regulatory constraints, climate science, transition to renewables, employees rights, financial transparency, open society, liberal democracy and empowered citizens.
There is a taxonomy in US academia now, i.e. fossil fueled and now shared Koch and Tanton networks; former ‘libertarian’, ‘freedom & liberty’, ‘free markets’ etc. while the latter nativist but masquerading as environmental i.e. border security, immigration restrictions and population control, sounds like autarky and eugenics of 1930-40s Germany or 18-19thC?
By (no) coincidence much of the influence behind Brexit (in US Trump) are to be found around Tufton St. London in Koch think tanks fossil fuel/free market think tanks and nativist Tanton migration NGO; metaphor and reality?