The truth telling process should have come first.
Maybe it didn’t have to if we had a government ready for the fight phrases like “History Wars” and “Great Australian Silence” should have made bleedingly obvious was coming, but that’s not the government we have.
As it stands the emboldened and networked hard and far right off the back of a no vote may be a more urgent reason to vote yes than the institution at the heart of the matter. They will likely now pose a threat to the rights of far more Australians, well more than 50%.
As it stands the emboldened and networked hard and far right off the back of a no vote may be a more urgent reason to vote yes than the institution at the heart of the matter.
This is absolutely, 100%, my position.
The following is my take which is sure to be deeply unpopular but I'm not here to win friends.
I don't care about the voice. It's not part of my day to day. I don't regularly interact with a great number of first nations people. Of course I'll vote yes because it seems like a no brainer but I'm pissed that this has become such a distraction from the real actual problems that I would prefer our government address.
Australia has been on a trajectory towards the right since Keating left office in 1996. Our centre left party has had precious little opportunity to rebalance us in the last 30 years, we finally get a chance and… we squander it on this shit show.
If the outcome of the referendum is a "no" vote, Labor will have a sucking chest wound heading in to the next election.
I’m pissed that this has become such a distraction from the real actual problems that I would prefer our government address.
Has it though? It has certainly dominated the media, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has distracted from issues such as the cost of living at a government policy level. The rent and housing debate between the ALP and The Greens was arguably an even bigger story earlier this year.
First they came . . .
Yes is it hyperbole to mention that? I Don’t think so. You gotta have a real good look at who’s supporting No…
Pauline Hanson? Fatty McFuck Face? Cookers and conspiracy nuts? Literal fucking Nazies?
Maybe, just maybe if thinking about going to vote the same way as these dropkicks you should reevaluate. Have a look at the actual proposition. Despite the scare campaign its actually pretty simple.
It recognises our first people.
Parliament retains full legislative control. It’s an advisory board consisting of Indigenous Australians selected by the regions and communities to advise on legislation and matters that concern them.
It’s not an additional layer of bureaucracy. It’s a leadership body intended to short circuit the bureaucracy and get the information from the regions to the decision makers in government.
Every one voting now is making a conscious decision to take a step forward and try to heal.
Yes I see you. Yes I hear you and want to listen
Or
No I don’t see you No I don’t hear you and I don’t want to listen.
If it is not an additional layer of bureaucracy, where I can find information that explains which minister or government body that the Voice will make representations towards? Will it direct representation to the existing NIAA or will it replace this government agency?
When explaining the concept to my parents and grandparents, it has been challenging to convince them that this is not just ATSIC 2.0. Their concerns are that the corruption that occurred within that former organisation will be harder to control as the organisation would now have a constitutional shield to protect against criticism or accountability.
When explaining the concept to my parents and grandparents, it has been challenging to convince them that this is not just ATSIC 2.0. Their concerns are that the corruption that occurred within that former organisation will be harder to control as the organisation would now have a constitutional shield to protect against criticism or accountability.
The difference here is that the Voice doesn't have a budget, run programs or deliver services. It can only make recommendations. I'm not sure what your relatives think corruption would look like in this case.
Regardless, their concerns that the Voice would have a "constitutional shield" are completely unfounded, because there is nothing in the amendment to prevent the government from completely restructuring it in the future. And if such a thing were to occur, since Australians are only voting on the concept of the Voice, and not the exact design of the Voice, no one can use the defence that the government is "ignoring the will of the people".
It’s a good question.
From the Voice principles about how it will be set up:
The Voice will not have a program delivery function The Voice would be able to make representations about improving programs and services, but it would not manage money or deliver services.
https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles
It will not be a body that administers funding and programs that is what the bureaucracy is supposed to do.
The Voice will be able to look at what the various bureaucrats are doing and advise them and the Minister better ways and more efficient ways of delivering the services they are delivering.
If the Minister for Aboriginal affairs has a brain wave about some program the Voice will be ideally positioned to say this will work, that won’t work throw that bit out it’s ridiculous.
So it’s not a bureaucracy it’s a leadership group elected from the regions and indigenous communities that is there to advise in the best way to fix the many problems our indigenous brothers and sisters are facing. Problems that every one recognises they are facing and need fixing. It gives ownership of the solutions to the people facing them. Ownership to the people best places to find workable and effective solutions.
It really is not much to ask. The only power it has is to advise but that advice will be hard to ignore without the people of Australia saying to their elected representatives- why are you not listening?
The key is the advise is coming from one central place that represents the regions and indigenous people and carry’s with it the moral authority of the Voice.
Hope this helps!
Is there a decent write up somewhere about what the voice actually is? I've heard a lot of debate about it, I'd like to read an impartial write up about it.
I mean this is what it actually is:
Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”
Referendum question and constitutional amendment (voice.gov.au)
There's not really a lot to it which is why you won't see many impartial write-ups. It's just an advisory body that may make representations (give recommendations, express their position on something, i.e. not a seat in parliament). The composition and function is determined by parliament so it can be adapted for the times.
Removed by mod
If something thats getting added to the constitution requires a bracket explanation, its a poorly worded addition.
Using “make representation” and the advisory body’s involvement in the executive government are two hard red lines. The lack of effort and thoughts in this referendum is screaming out from its text.
It doesn't, it's fairly common language. You quoted it wrong as well, "make representation" is different to "make representations". Why don't you want parliament to consult First Nations Peoples so they don't waste money on plans that won't work? It sounds like you're against it because you think that it will be race-based. Read it again and tell me where it says that the members actually need to be Indigenous or Torres Strait Islander peoples
Feel free to keep hurling racism accusations again randoms that didn’t even mention any identity group. i’m sure that’ll help with your cause.
Mean while, congratulations on securing a no vote.
I never said you were racist. I just said your concerns about the wording were overblown. I apologise if that's how you read it
Apologise accepted.
Now, back onto the topic:
We can agree that “make representations” usually means an advisory role, the issue is it introduces ambiguity. The referendum specifically used the word “representations”, which is the same word used to assign seats in parliament. If “make representations” means make recommendations, then why don’t just say “make recommendations” instead? The less ambiguous the wording is more support it will get, i see no reason to use a word that foreseeably stirs up so much controversy.
Also keep in mind that despite what the legal experts says, their interpretations are not legally binding, but words in the constitutions are. If me (and many others) can interpret “make representations” as potential extra seats in parliament, there’s always the risk of this phrase getting reinterpreted later for political reasons to actually give extra seats.
As for the executive branch, the Voice is too vague at its current stage to have it involved. Now, this wouldn’t an issue if we actually reach the treaty stage of the Uluru statement and we have a well-thought out treaty that designates the executive rights of aboriginals. It would be cool if we do that. But with how overarching the executive government is, the Voice should either be more specific (i.e. ditch the “we’ll figure it out once it passed” mentality), or leave it for the next stage of negotiation with aboriginals.
A well-thought out referendum needs to address concerns for everyone across the political aisle before getting pushed forward, especially if a major concern is just the wording. The two issues above should be easily identified at the drafting stage and both have relatively simple fix (i.e. no fundamental disagreement on the underlying purpose), but here we are. I feel bad for the aboriginals, fingers crossed this doesn’t make too much trouble for future referendums.
I decided to do a bit of research on the wording and came across this AAP articel which lead me to the explanatory memorandum for the constitutional amendment bill which uses the term "make representations" extensively.
- A representation is a statement from the Voice to the Parliament or to the Executive Government, or both. A representation would communicate the Voice’s view on a matter relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Parliament or the Executive Government may decide what action, if any, to take in response to a representation by the Voice. The Parliament may provide for the procedures to be followed by the Voice in making a representation
- Under s 129(ii), the Voice ‘may’ make representations. It is not obliged to do so in relation to any particular matter. While the Voice would be able to make representations on a broad range of matters, it would be both impractical and unrealistic to require or expect the Voice to make representations about all matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
- Subsection 129(ii) would not require the Parliament or the Executive Government to wait for the Voice to make a representation on a matter before taking action. Nor would s 129(ii) require the Parliament or the Executive Government to seek or invite representations from the Voice or consult it before enacting any law, taking any action or making any decision. Subsection 129(ii) would also not require the Parliament or the Executive Government to furnish the Voice with information about a decision, policy, or law (either proposed or in force) at any time.
With respect to your concerns:
If me (and many others) can interpret “make representations” as potential extra seats in parliament, there’s always the risk of this phrase getting reinterpreted later for political reasons to actually give extra seats.
That is certainly possible but I assume it would require someone else (likely the opposition) to not challenge it in the High Court. To get past that the judges who would have extensive knowledge of the constitution and legal language to approve whatever the parliament tries to do
It will be a government body to advise the government on aboriginal laws. The government will need to listen to them but does not need to follow their advice. The problem, many Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people say, is that there are programs and funds to help but they are often misdirected and end up wasted or they target things the communities don't need. The idea is to ensure their voice is heard when the government legislates about them.
It's pretty uncontroversial when you strip it back.
The government will need to listen to them but does not need to follow their advice
I'm almost certain I'm misunderstanding something, but this sounds like an aboriginal filibuster. If the government is 'required' to listen, and no time limit is spelled out in the amendment, could the voice be used to filibuster?
Parliament is able to legislate, like with literally everything in the constitution. Parliament could legislate that all pollies need to be holding a special duck blessed by the king's chief bum wiper to speak in the house if it wanted to.
Provided the constitutional requirements are fulfilled (there's a voice, they can make representations on indigenous issues) the precise nature of those representations, the composition of the voice etc are all a matter of legislation.
It's the same as every other constitutional requirement. The constitution provides minimum standards to meet and curtails certain powers, Parliament passes acts to fulfill those.
I doubt it. The whole "representation" part seems over-hyped. It's being promoted almost as if it will be a dedicated seat in parliament. The more likely outcome that it will just end up being a committee that reports into the existing NIAA structure and we don't end up seeing anything more impactful than what the NIAA is currently delivering.
If the Voice goes ahead, we can look forward to it running into the usual government bureaucracy, leading to disappointment once it becomes clear that government legislation doesn't solve issues that are occurring at the local, community level.Calling it "representation" probably reading it wrong. To "make representations" means to complain officially to a person or organization
I don't think it means a complaint. It's just to speak officially for. You linked an idiom rather than the definition.
Thanks for the clarification, still a far cry from a seat in parliament
Removed by mod
I’m not Australian but I watched a video
Probably best to stay out of this then
Removed by mod
These are the design principles from the working group: https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles
The 272-page final report from the co-design working group has all of the minute detail about how they engaged with the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) to design the Voice proposal, including recommendations on how it should operate: https://voice.gov.au/sites/default/files/resource/download/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report_1.pdf
Sorry but you're not going to find a good impartial write up. Anyone who's impartial on this issue is ignorant of the facts. The issue is far too emotionally charged and important for anybody to possibly have no opinion if they understand the issue at hadn.
Here's my partial one:
- White people did some horrible shit when we settled in Australia.
- In some pockets of society those atrocities are still happening now.
- Not enough is being done about it.
Indigenous people (and any white person who's aware of the issues and has a shred of compassion) want more to be done to deal with the issue.
A joint effort by both the Liberal and Labor parties spent years asking the affected people what should be done, and considering the issue, and the number one thing those people asked for was a "Voice" or rather a dedicated group of people who's entire job is to recommend ways the government can improve things for indigenous Australians. The joint Liberal/Labor effort also produced a report recommending exactly the same thing. And that's what will happen if we vote Yes.
Indigenous Australians feel like nobody in the government listens when they talk. They want a Voice, and we should give them one.
It will cost almost nothing. There's no requirement for the government to act on the advice, the elected government of the day can make that decision on a case by case basis after seeing the recommendations. There is zero downside to voting Yes… other than acknowledging that atrocities have and are being committed which many Australians are unwilling to do.
How much it will help… well that's something we can debate. But mostly it will depend what government is in power when the recommendations are made The Voice. If Pauline Hanson is Prime Minister then, yeah, The Voice would be a waste of time. But she's not Prime Minister and touch wood she never will be. The worst possible outcome is a "Yes" vote won't achieve the sated goals, and then we'll just continue life as we are.
Voting No, on the other hand, will absolutely make things worse. That will significantly divide and anger indigenous people. There's going to be years of civil unrest and burned bridges all over the place if we vote No.
So:
- Voting Yes - costs nothing and won't do any harm and it might do some good.
- Voting No - will be a fucking disaster.
Which one of those would you prefer?
Voting Yes - costs nothing and won’t do any harm and it might do some good.
Theoretically it could actually save a lot of money long-term. That's why many conservatives also support the Voice, because it is ultimately a fiscally conservative proposal. The claim some Australians have made that the Voice is a "waste of taxpayer money during a cost of living crisis" is the complete opposite of reality. If people actually care about the economy, and aren't just using it as a smokescreen to hide their more controversial oppositions to the Voice, they should be voting Yes in this referendum to help government create more efficient and less financially wasteful Indigenous affairs policies.
Despite the author lambasting the ignorance behind the "don't know, vote no" messaging (rightly so), there's no actual explanation of what a "vote yes" accomplishes. I would love to vote yes but I haven't been able to find any resource on what it meaningfully accomplishes.
Voting Yes accomplishes the recognition of Indigenous Australians in the constitution, which is symbolically important as they are our first Australians and their culture is an important part of our history as a nation.
Voting Yes also accomplishes the implementation of a policy advisory committee, that may or may not lead to better designed and more efficient Indigenous policy making, potentially saving taxpayers a lot of money and leading to better health/education/employment/etc outcomes for Indigenous Australians. Because the constitutional amendment we are voting on does not include specific details about the formation and targets of the advisory committee, it could theoretically be as flexible as is needed at any given time. For example, in a perfect world where all Indigenous disadvantage has been eliminated, the advisory body could instead become an important figurehead for the celebration of Indigenous culture within Australia.
Voting Yes in this referendum also ensures that there will finally be an Indigenous advisory committee that is immune to the total disbandment we have seen from previous hostile governments throughout Australia's history. This is something that has happened on multiple occasions and it's a key reason why Australia has struggled to make progress with regards to the many social issues stemming from colonisation. If you keep tearing up the plan completely every few years, it is very difficult to achieve anything long-term.
Ultimately, voting Yes guarantees important symbolic recognition. Voting No does not. That is the fundamental difference in the immediate outcome of this referendum, based on what we are voting for.
Thank you for replying so thoughtfully. This has explained it better to me than anyone else has (from both sides).
I think part of the communication problem is how wishy-washy the vote is. Without the historical context the importance of the vote gets completely missed. I've heard so many people wave their hands and say "representation", "constitution", etc., but no one is able to define anything. Your comment makes it clear to me that it's not so much about the affirmative action, but explicitly avoiding the failures of the past.
Side note: it's crazy to think we don't even have a constitutional freedom of speech
You're welcome. I have been reflecting on the campaign recently and I believe the point about consitutional recognition probably hasn't been made as clearly as it should have been. The debate has become really bogged down in theoretical outcomes of the Voice advisory body, giving rise to a lot of fearmongering and misinformation, but regardless of how that turns out there is still the symbolic recognition component which is something that has decades of widespread support from Indigenous Australians and both sides of politics. Like you, I was also sceptical of what a Yes vote would achieve early on, but the more I have learned about the history of this entire process the more convinced I have become that it is the only rational choice I can make at this referendum.
Couldn't agree more. In general, I think left leaning people make the mistake of overly debating the points that right leaning people make and this creates a lot of confusion and muddies the waters to the detriment of the left leaning. I'll explain why. These are generalities and cut both ways too.
-
A lot of arguments aren't made in good faith. Trying to rationally and logically explain/debate something when the other side isn't making decisions rationally or logically usually doesn't work. (explaining why fear mongering isn't valid)
-
Debating a bad idea directs too much focus towards that idea and makes it harder for good ideas to be heard. This leads people to missing the point or not seeing the bigger picture. (arguing that there are already indigenous people in parliament)
-
Recognising that some ideas are based on emotional opinions can lead to trying to directly counter that in an emotionally adversarial way. (if you don't support me you're racist!)
I think making these mistakes can too easily turn discussions into identity clashes and further entrenches pre held ideas. Obviously you should respond to concerns and as long as the discussion stays civilised there's no problem. Unfortunately not many people are able to discuss different ideas without taking it personally.
I'm grateful to everyone here that has done their best to express their opinions without resorting to personal comments.
In terms of general discourse I'd say that's certainly true. The official Yes campaign has actually done a really good job avoiding those pitfalls, though. Everyone involved has showed an insane level of restraint (perhaps too much at times) given the absolute barrage of lies and blatantly bad faith misdirection they have been exposed to for months.
And I will add that I don't see this as left versus right in the way that other social policy debates are. Constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians has historically had conservative support and in this referendum you can find many examples of right leaning people who support the Yes campaign. Chris Kenny on Sky News has been using his program to campaign for a Yes vote for months, as an example. Part of the reason it has taken so long to get a referendum on this is because great efforts were taken to establish a model that would receive bipartisan support.
In the modern era, I think politics is often less about left versus right and more about education versus misinformation. And that has certainly been the story of this referendum.
-
Freedom of speech the way our American friends go on about it is implied in our constitution as general freedom. We don't explicitly have a clause that says you have a right to walk along the beach in PJs or jeans (or even both!). Yet, this activity is perfectly legal.
For some reason, they've gone and made a constitutional amendment specifically for this freedom. I'm sure they had a good reason for that. That doesn't mean we don't also have this freedom.
It is a lot different actually having it explicitly in the constitution for all the same reasons you would argue for a yes vote in the upcoming referendum. You only have to look back a couple of years to find a time where your example wasn't legal due to lockdowns.
I don't live in a part of Australia that had those restrictions on movement. We never had lockdowns in Western Australia like they experienced in the Eastern States.
But even then, the restrictions those places had were temporary in response to a state of emergency and not a change in our wider freedoms.
I'm not arguing the validity of temporary lockdown restrictions due to public health emergencies. I largely agree with the measures. I'm just pointing out your example of "well our constitution doesn't explicitly protect this, yet we can all still do it" is really not the same thing as having explicit protections of a freedom.
It's more applicable with freedom of speech. Australia does not have explicit constitutionally protected freedom of speech. Which is never important until all of a sudden it is!
Look at what happened to the ABC a few years back when the AFP raided them after reporting on the activities of some members of our military.
Military activities are a completely different thing. Just ask Julian Assange what the US military thinks about exercising freedom of speech in the context of military actions.
what do you want to know? it hasn't happened yet so we don't know what the precise outcome will be.
constitutionally what is accomplishes is enshrining in the constitution a body called the voice which has the right to address Parliament on matters relating to aboriginal and Torres straight islander people.
what this stops governments doing is disbanding advisory councils etc which they have done repeatedly.
The statement from the heart (https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement/view-the-statement/) specifically requests it. you can read about what they hope it to accomplish here: https://ulurustatement.org/the-voice/what-is-the-voice/
What have you googled and found unsatisfactory?
we don’t know what the precise outcome will be.
Partially true but, as I have said in my reply to this comment, the proposed constitutional amendment contains this line
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia
which is clear symbolic recognition of the importance of Indigenous peoples and their culture to the history of Australia. Regardless of what the advisory body looks like or achieves, constitutional recognition would be a clear positive outcome in the result of a Yes vote. It is important to many Indigenous Australians, but it should also be seen as important to all Australians as we continue to mature as a nation and move forward from our bloody colonial past.
That website us exactly what I'm talking about. It lists all these great things but if you actually look at the wording of the actual referendum it doesn't include the majority of these points.
I'm looking over your replies and I'm feeling very confused. Something I wonder is if you are expecting constitutional changes to be more specific than they are.
I'm sure like most sane Australians you haven't actually read the constitution. It's not exactly particularly relevant to most if us. Let's have a look at it now though to get an idea of how it's worded. For example, lets look at provisions on electing senators, that seems important!
- Method of election of senators
The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators, but so that the method shall be uniform for all the States. Subject to any such law, the Parliament of each State may make laws prescribing the method of choosing the senators for that State.
Huh… that seems vague? now there's a little more there interspersed between a few sections laying out the 6 year term and elections as an entire state but that's pretty much it.
Crucially this isn't about laying out exactly how it should be carried out because things change, it's about laying out what the government can and can't do in broad strokes.
Now imagine we didn't have that section "shall be uniform for all the States" and we're holding a referendum over it. The text of the referendum would just be like "should blah section be ammended to add 'shall be uniform for all the States' yes or no?"
The yes side would be making grand proclaimations about equality, fairer society, less vulnerability to governments dominated by party members from one state with rivals in another etc. There are no concrete details yet about how elections will change etc, just that they'll have to be fairer.
That's kinda what we're looking at with the voice. The broad strokes are vague because times change and needs change, but what doesn't change is that people need to be heard if they're going to be respected and helped. We haven't been hearing the indigenous people very well, sometimes deliberately maliciously as when bodies are abolished, sometimes because people were just massively wrong about who knew best.
The yes campaign is saying "look at all this good stuff that'll happen" because it'll mean there's a requirement for there to be a body which can't be completely ignored or abolished, and that'll force a record of what was said even if it's totally ignored which can help make people accountable.
I think that's a bit disingenuous because if you look at the page you link there's a lot more detail than just the excerpt you provided, including at the very top that they are voted upon by the people of the states. It has provisions for different cases as well.
The voice proposed change has none of this detail.
I would like to see some accountability included in the proposed change and I think that's why a lot of people are skeptical. The way it is now still leaves a lot of room for political sabotage at any future point as long as there is a "body called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice" that exists. There is nothing in the amendment that even specifies who makes up this body, how many people, how they get chosen, term lengths, etc. These details are at least considered in our current constitution for senators.
It's not that any of this would make me vote no. I do support this type of cause and I'm glad that steps are being made. It's just that, as far as I can tell, there's no constitutional protection that would stop, say, PwC from being assigned the role of "the Voice".
Sorry, I was trying to focus specifically on the means by which they are elected. Not trying to mislead, I think there's parallel because like the voice just says it has to be a body and not how it's made up and senate elections more or less just say "you have to have them, figure out how".
So there's a lot of leeway in the constitution in general, like to my knowledge there's nothing stopping senate electing laws being like a 2 hour window in the state capital except that if a government tried to do that presumably they'd be challenged on either going against the intention of the constitution, established practiced, or worse case there would be revolts. There's a few risks to making something too specific, what if things change and you need to like have another referendum to say hire a new person?
It certainly is vulnerable to say appointing the board of PwC as the voice, except of course that's the status quo now (inasmuch as advisory bodies on indigenous affairs go) although nobody could argue that the government was going against the spirit of the constitution doing so. So this can really only be thought of as massively strengthening the situation we have now.
If we look at how divisive even this change is, you can imagine the sort of polemic criticism a more prescriptive change might apply. If the voice fails to be satisfactory and vulnerable to being hijacked then we can always go to referendum again, we wouldn't be worse off than we are now. Legislation is a lot more flexible, which is a weakness and a strength but in general keeping systems flexible helps us fix things and keep them relevant as times and goals change. If the people want this, then the people have an interest in it working correctly after all.
Excellent points. Thank you for putting in the time to discuss this with me. You, and others here have been invaluable to me. It's too hard to find quality information like these replies through searching. I'm the kind of person that likes to understand things in an extra level of detail so when I discuss things with people I can know what I'm talking about. Knowing only the bullet points makes it hard to back up opinions when talking to people of differing opinions.
You are welcome.
Hey, just a little nudge, if you’re keen to chat about the Voice to Parliament, we’ve got this corker of a megathread where we can all have a good chinwag in one spot. But if you’re not up for that, no worries, it’s business as usual. Gotta keep things fair dinkum!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
But a plaudit for David Marr's new book, Killing for Country, which documents his family's history as professional killers of Aborigines in NSW and Queensland in the mid-1800s, is that it is one you have to keep putting down.
The immediate horror of the story clashes horrendously with our image of ourselves, and with the lofty ambitions of those who oversaw federation, and the writing of our Constitution, as the former chief justice of the High Court, Robert French, observed in a speech to the National Press Club this week.
He quoted the then premier of Queensland, Samuel Griffith, observing that "there is no doubt that here, as everywhere, there will be timid men who are afraid of launching into something new; but when was ever a great thing achieved without risking something".
The willingness of some sections of the media to perpetuate misinformation, and of other sections of the media to get lost in attempts at false balance, has made nigh on impossible a reasonably rational debate about what a permanent advisory body to the parliament and executive, whose actual remit would be defined and controlled by the parliament, might mean both symbolically and practically to Indigenous Australians.
No campaigners regularly now rage about some mysterious bureaucracy which allegedly worthlessly chews up billions of dollars in wasted funding to Indigenous people.
The inaugural, government-appointed chair of the council — which sounds like it had a job pretty much identical to that proposed for the Voice — was another prominent No campaigner, Warren Mundine.
The original article contains 1,159 words, the summary contains 254 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
The immediate horror of the story clashes horrendously with our image of ourselves, and with the lofty ambitions of those who oversaw federation, and the writing of our Constitution, as the former chief justice of the High Court, Robert French, observed in a speech to the National Press Club this week.
Jfc has the man read nothing whatsoever on Australian history?
It clashes with the white armband view of history pushed by Howard and the like. I think he is speaking for the audience a bit not so much just himself.
Once they had to acknowledge that terra nullis was fiction ( and didn’t they fight against that - they are coming for your backyard - sound familiar?) it then transitioned to: A bit of push me shove you in the frontier, shit happens then they all died of diseases.
It’s uncomfortable to acknowledge than women and children were murdered while they were in their camps. You know, it’s not sporting or chipper. Tally Ho at least they have running water now you know?
The Voice is a small step in the right direction everyone voting has the chance to be on the forward looking positive path or just saying it’s all to hard let’s keep doing what’s failed in the past.
