Referendum
- Thread starter SeaEagleRock8
- Start date
Certainly prominent, as to 'respected' I'll take your word for it.
But OK, looking at his quote - his top point is the Voice will be divisive. What the? Are we not already divided?? Isn't the Voice supposed to be a way of addressing that? The No case says there already ‘hundreds of Indigenous representative bodies’ ... so how is it suddenly divisive to acknowledge one in the Constitution?
Surely it's not enough to just say "X is divisive" or "Y is divisive", some sort of reason should be advanced.
Anyway this is not aimed at you to answer, anyone can, or no-one...Everyone's vote will count whether or not they have good reasons! I'm just curious about why people make the 'divisive' claim (for example).
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
I'm always happy to play devil's advocate...so how about this;
We have plenty of other disadvantaged people in our society and many representitive bodies to represent and advocate for them. E.g. Disability, migrants, regional communities. Aren't these people equally deserving of having their voices heard? Does this mean that they should also have a voice?
Doesn't that then divide the nation by who is deemed to be the most "deserving" of extra support or even privileges compared to others?
No-ones said anything like that. I'm sure the vast majority, both Yes and No, would not consider themselves racist.
Someone in the earlier thread said something like, 'No, because the Voice would divide us by race'. Leaving aside the question of whether race is even a valid concept here (could be wrong but I think for many First Nations they identify more with family and cultural ties and historical connection to the Lands, not on the basis of race?) I can't see how the Voice divides us at all. It acknowledges a historical fact, namely there were people living for 1000s of years before they were driven off their Lands, chased away, killed etc .
Just my take anyway.
Others may see it differently but I don't see it having anything to do with disadvantage or being a minority, it's simply to do with people's right to self determination. First Nations folks have indicated via the Uluaru Statement they want a Voice, that being the case I support it. (not that I would have suggested it to them myself, mainly because I don't see parliament as delivering justice to everybody really)
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
Why don't first nations people have self determination? At least more than any other section of society that you could break off?Again, I'd point to people with a disability as having a greater issue as well as say migrants who are disadvantaged with language issues and racism.
Would you support anyone who wants a voice? How many voices could we end up with then and what would that do to our idea of democracy? Where politicians decisions are based by advisory/lobby groups rather than the constituents who voted for them.
What? Not sure what you are getting at, beyond my answer above?
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
Fair enough, I'll walk it back a bit...
Don't first nations people, as citizens of a free country, have already have self determination? At least as much as any of us do
Slightly off topic, but what do you think about the referendum needing a majority of people AND states to pass?
I don't like that it needs 4 of 6 states to get pushed through. At the end of the day, 50.1% is a majority, but if they lifted it to say 60% or 66% (two thirds) then I could understand that. But the states majority is a bit unfair in my view.
I don't like that it needs 4 of 6 states to get pushed through. At the end of the day, 50.1% is a majority, but if they lifted it to say 60% or 66% (two thirds) then I could understand that. But the states majority is a bit unfair in my view.
Yep, another great dad joke from the founding fathers, and another reason its so hard to ever amend. And why are people who live in territories not even counted in the majority state thing
Their Lands were forcibly taken when British colonised the joint, they've never ceded the land or their sovereignty.
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
Their Lands? I'm sorry but that was a very long time ago. I can't control and am not responsible what happened in the past. It's not like I chose to be part of one group over another at birth, the facts of history are forced upon everyone. Hell, I have plenty of Welsh and Scottish ancestry - their lands were forcibly taken and then many were sent to the Australian colony to work as forced labour. And please don't say I benefited from this...I was born into a family with zero land to their name.
I feel like you're trying to say that anyone with indigenous ancestry gets to claim a legitimate version of sovereign citizen status based historical wrongdoings. I don't get to do that, even when those past injustices exist. So isn't that divisive?
Sorry if I'm being unclear. The principle of self determination is enshrined in the UN Charter (to which Australia is a signatory) and is considered one of the fundamental principles of international law. The point being, it has become accepted that imperialist powers simply taking other people's lands by force was, er, not fair.
As to how the various First Nations people of Australia would choose to exercise their right of self determination, my guess is that this is what would come under the heading of 'treaty'. But at this stage it looks like they want to be here and are just seeking recognition and a Voice. I am trying to understand reasons why people don't think they should get that.
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
But that's not happening now. And, because we are free nation, all people/s have the right the to:
"freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development" - as per article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
*I get the legal argument...but it's not really one that I'm equipped to respond to, I also don't think it's a convincing one for the majority of the population. I think it's more about fairness, and the idea that certain people/s should be gifted something (either more representation or compensation) for things that happened in the past and that I personally had nothing to do with. There's a lot of people out there who feel disadvantaged but don't have historical wrongs to point to - only hard work to lift themselves up. And, from that perspective", other groups claiming they should get "something for nothing (that they worked for)" feels unjust. Like they just cut in line after you spent your entire life working for it.
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
Me having a legal argument with you be like....
Brookie Bob
"I come back to you now at the turn of the tide"
I predict that the above will be part of the reason that the Voice will not get up.
Via an expensive referendum, it's also being touted as the most important priority Australia has at present.
This is not borne out by recent polls:
"RedBridge’s latest Voice referendum poll of 1500 voters, conducted from September 13 to 21, suggests 62 per cent intend to vote No and 38 per cent intend to vote Yes.
The poll’s margin of error was 2.6 per cent.
No had a clear lead in every demographic except two — young people, and people who speak a language other than English at home.
Among those aged 18 to 34, 54 per cent said they intend to vote Yes.
The Yes vote fell to 39 per cent in the 35 to 49 age bracket, 30 per cent in 50 to 64, and 28 per cent in 65 and over.
By gender, 40 per cent of women were voting Yes compared to 36 per cent of men.
Education-wise, the Yes vote was highest among university degree holders at 50 per cent, falling to 39 per cent for Year 12 or equivalent, 35 per cent for TAFE, trade or vocational and 22 per cent among those with less than Year 12.
A clear majority in every income bracket indicated they were voting No.
The Yes vote was highest in the $50,000 to $79,999 bracket at 41 per cent, and 39 per cent in every other bracket. Those earning $120,00 to $200,000 had the highest proportion of strong Yes voters at 27 per cent, while the hard No voters were most pronounced among those earning more than $200,000 at 48 per cent.
Those who spoke only English at home were largely against the Voice with just 37 per cent voting Yes, compared with 59 per cent of those who spoke other languages.
Asked which issues the Albanese government should prioritise, the Voice was near the bottom.
Cost of living was by far the most pressing concern for voters, with 49 per cent naming it their top issue and 92 per cent putting it in their top five.
Just 2 per cent said the Voice was their top priority, and only 15 per cent put it in their top five.
After cost of living, voters ranked housing affordability, climate change, the economy and jobs, health funding, wages, national security and transitioning to renewable energy as the most pressing issues."
‘Don’t care’: Uncomfortable truth Yes camp must accept
"Mr Samaras said the fact that the Voice ranked second to last in voter priorities highlighted the challenge for Yes.
“People really don’t care about the issue,” he said.
“They might have strong views personally about recognising Aboriginal people in our constitution, but they don’t share the same passion as those who are hard No and hard Yes voters. This is an issue that is not animating people.”
In other words, Yes needs to embrace the reality that most voters don’t care that much about the Voice — but some could be convinced to vote for it anyway.
“There is a stronger likelihood that young people will turn up initially planning to vote No and vote Yes,” he said. “That’s far less likely for older people.”
Brookie Bob
"I come back to you now at the turn of the tide"
"Imperialist powers" - sounds like very narrow, defined and targeted rhetoric to me.
How about anyone taking anybody else's lands by force? And is there a statute of limitations on it? There shouldn't be if you really want to be 'fair'. It's never been acceptable to be invaded and conquered - at least by the invaded and conquered. This is not a recent (past 200 to 300 years) invention!
Every civilization in both recorded and unrecorded history has conquered, and in turn been conquered, by another - not a statement of justification, just fact. Even Lydia Thorpe's mother's tribe went out and massacred another indigenous tribe in the Gippsland region. Australia was not a conflict-free place before 1788; and the modern invention of written record keeping shows it also was not afterwards.
I would imagine that the reason that a 'treaty' with Australia's indigenous people has historically not been at the forefront previously is:
- They were conquered as completely as a people can be after 1788 (and not alone in that, globally-speaking); the concept of 'sovereignty never ceded' flies in the face of what's in front of you. A bit like the black knight in Monty Python's the Holy Grail going 'it's only a scratch - come on, I'll fight you' springs to mind. A conquering power usually doesn't need a treaty with those it has conquered.
- After the late 1960's referendum, all indigenous Australians were entitled to be citizens. A treaty today would then be between a 3% minority of Australian citizens and the other 97% of Australian citizens.For 'recognition'? What does 'recognition' entail? What is in the fine print?
- In Australia, treaties are legally administered by DFAT (Australia’s treaty-making process). There is no precedence thus far for a domestic treaty.
I wanted to just look on during this debate coz it can be fraught and I don't want to be seen as trying to "sell" my YES vote to anyone but felt compelled to just comment on the view about colonisation being so long ago. And I'm not having a go at you, it's something I've heard a lot of people say. Usually followed by - it's time they just got over it. Again, I'm not saying you've said this.
Anyway, my view of this "Voice" can be summed up as being one last (in my mind) opportunity to provide indigenous Australians direct input into rectifying past injustices resulting from colonisation. And I'm not one that says all non indigenous people should feel guilty or feel responsible for colonisation.
But to your point - the dispossession of land and subsequent disadvantage, didn't just stop 250 years ago. (sorry, change of tack for a sec) I cringe when I hear some NO supporters (and I'm not talking about you) say that a YES vote will make Australia more racist coz it will be favouring one race over another (and I don't think everyone voting NO is racist). However, the country was founded on racism. The indigenous population weren't considered equals by the Brits, they were considered inferior savages and in need of refining and/or elimination.
And like most, if not all indigenous populations around the planet, the Australian indigenous population would go onto face the same fate. Be it dispossession of their homeland, death through disease like small pox (so many in the Sydney area died in the first year), death from fights with settlers or simply outright murder. The country is covered with sites where massacres took place.
These killings (and fights over land dispossession) were not a long time ago. They were ongoing coz it took some time to settle the whole country.
We have an ongoing history of indigenous discrimination be it the proclamation by Bourke of Australia being Terra Nullius or the White Australia Policy or forced labour with no pay (think Vincent Lingari) or segregation (think reserves and missions indigenous people were forced onto, pubs they weren't allowed to drink in, shops they were discouraged from walking into) or children being removed etc. Even country that was used for nuclear blasting (think Maralinga). Not to mention it was only 1967 that the country got around to even considering them officially part of the population.
So this has been a long and systemic process that has resulted (in my mind) in a different level ?? of disadvantage.
And to your point about Welsh and Scottish ancestry - there's no doubt that those that were brought out as convicts (I guess more Irish and Poms) did it tough (if they survived). But a lot of those convicts were in fact given land once they had served their time. And even if they weren't, they were still considered in a different "class" to the indigenous population. But the difference is just that, they were brought here or came by choice and they were given more opportunities to "make it" coz it was important to the Brits for the colony to survive and thrive. And the subsequent "modern day" migrants were also encouraged out here, given support when they arrived, usually govt housing in an urban area and access to employment.
Indigenous Australians on the other hand, had 65,000 years of their own culture and laws and boundaries taken away and/or actively discouraged. 250 years is a relative drop in the ocean.
The end result of that is the current (and long standing) situation with poor health, education, incarceration levels, suicide and other chronic problems relative to non indigenous Australians. And yes, there has been millions of dollars spent over decades to try and "fix" the problems as well as organisations like ATSIC. And the No campaigners point out that there are many other organisations doing work so why do we need another group under the guise of a "Voice".
Well clearly not much has changed or we wouldn't still be in this situation.
To acknowledge the indigenous population as the first peoples of this country in the Constitution is, for me, a given. To enshrine the Voice in the Constitution is a somewhat bolder step. However, in a conversation with a friend recently, he noted to me that he doesn't trust politicians full stop but in the same breath insisted that indigenous people should just be satisfied with a legislative "Voice" and not something that couldn't be changed. When I pointed out that politicians could just simply vote the legislation out of existence if they were ideologically against it and that he was asking indigenous people to do something he wasn't willing to do (trust politicians) he simply changed the topic.
Finally, I would just ask people voting NO - if No gets up, how will that change your life? And how will that change the situation for indigenous people?
And importantly - if YES was to get up, how would THAT change your life? I'm thinking not very much, if at all. For the first peoples of this country, it could be very life changing indeed.
Do I think the Voice is the solution? I have no idea. But do I think a proposed advisory committee that is formed from grass roots indigenous people with articulate indigenous people that can advocate on their behalf, directly to all sides of politics in the Parliament is worth a shot? YES I do.
Sorry, I did go on a bit but that's probably why I was reluctant to write anything.
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
A symptom of and a massive problem in our world really....I wonder if I blurt out another 2 or 3 arguments (taking me 5 mins or so) will you be as willing to so eloquently and comprehensively dispute them? And, more importantly, will others be more interested in those responses or will they simply be satisfied with the confirmation that someone else already thinks the same way they do?I wanted to just look on during this debate coz it can be fraught and I don't want to be seen as trying to "sell" my YES vote to anyone but felt compelled to just comment on the view about colonisation being so long ago. And I'm not having a go at you, it's something I've heard a lot of people say. Usually followed by - it's time they just got over it. Again, I'm not saying you've said this.
Anyway, my view of this "Voice" can be summed up as being one last (in my mind) opportunity to provide indigenous Australians direct input into rectifying past injustices resulting from colonisation. And I'm not one that says all non indigenous people should feel guilty or feel responsible for colonisation.
But to your point - the dispossession of land and subsequent disadvantage, didn't just stop 250 years ago. (sorry, change of tack for a sec) I cringe when I hear some NO supporters (and I'm not talking about you) say that a YES vote will make Australia more racist coz it will be favouring one race over another (and I don't think everyone voting NO is racist). However, the country was founded on racism. The indigenous population weren't considered equals by the Brits, they were considered inferior savages and in need of refining and/or elimination.
And like most, if not all indigenous populations around the planet, the Australian indigenous population would go onto face the same fate. Be it dispossession of their homeland, death through disease like small pox (so many in the Sydney area died in the first year), death from fights with settlers or simply outright murder. The country is covered with sites where massacres took place.
These killings (and fights over land dispossession) were not a long time ago. They were ongoing coz it took some time to settle the whole country.
We have an ongoing history of indigenous discrimination be it the proclamation by Bourke of Australia being Terra Nullius or the White Australia Policy or forced labour with no pay (think Vincent Lingari) or segregation (think reserves and missions indigenous people were forced onto, pubs they weren't allowed to drink in, shops they were discouraged from walking into) or children being removed etc. Even country that was used for nuclear blasting (think Maralinga). Not to mention it was only 1967 that the country got around to even considering them officially part of the population.
So this has been a long and systemic process that has resulted (in my mind) in a different level ?? of disadvantage.
And to your point about Welsh and Scottish ancestry - there's no doubt that those that were brought out as convicts (I guess more Irish and Poms) did it tough (if they survived). But a lot of those convicts were in fact given land once they had served their time. And even if they weren't, they were still considered in a different "class" to the indigenous population. But the difference is just that, they were brought here or came by choice and they were given more opportunities to "make it" coz it was important to the Brits for the colony to survive and thrive. And the subsequent "modern day" migrants were also encouraged out here, given support when they arrived, usually govt housing in an urban area and access to employment.
Indigenous Australians on the other hand, had 65,000 years of their own culture and laws and boundaries taken away and/or actively discouraged. 250 years is a relative drop in the ocean.
The end result of that is the current (and long standing) situation with poor health, education, incarceration levels, suicide and other chronic problems relative to non indigenous Australians. And yes, there has been millions of dollars spent over decades to try and "fix" the problems as well as organisations like ATSIC. And the No campaigners point out that there are many other organisations doing work so why do we need another group under the guise of a "Voice".
Well clearly not much has changed or we wouldn't still be in this situation.
To acknowledge the indigenous population as the first peoples of this country in the Constitution is, for me, a given. To enshrine the Voice in the Constitution is a somewhat bolder step. However, in a conversation with a friend recently, he noted to me that he doesn't trust politicians full stop but in the same breath insisted that indigenous people should just be satisfied with a legislative "Voice" and not something that couldn't be changed. When I pointed out that politicians could just simply vote the legislation out of existence if they were ideologically against it and that he was asking indigenous people to do something he wasn't willing to do (trust politicians) he simply changed the topic.
Finally, I would just ask people voting NO - if No gets up, how will that change your life? And how will that change the situation for indigenous people?
And importantly - if YES was to get up, how would THAT change your life? I'm thinking not very much, if at all. For the first peoples of this country, it could be very life changing indeed.
Do I think the Voice is the solution? I have no idea. But do I think a proposed advisory committee that is formed from grass roots indigenous people with articulate indigenous people that can advocate on their behalf, directly to all sides of politics in the Parliament is worth a shot? YES I do.
Sorry, I did go on a bit but that's probably why I was reluctant to write anything.
Also, if I can add to the rebuttal, there's also the matter of the stolen generation. Which many alive (and voting) today were unwilling participants to and the ongoing trauma that this must have caused to individuals and communities is something that I doubt I will ever be able to understand (thankfully)
Users who are viewing this thread
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
