With a two-letter word, Australians struck down the first attempt at constitutional change in 24 years, a move experts say will inflict lasting damage on First Nations people and suspend any hopes of modernizing the nation’s founding document.
This is a very deceptive headline a majority of australians support the idea of a reccomandary body for indiginouse peoples (the voice what was proposed). However, the reason i beleive it failed is because it would have direcrly made a devision of race within our constitution. I would define any devision of race regardless of purpose as textbook racism but i seem to get a lot of pushback from such an idea. I think the thing that ultumatly caused it to fail was not the concept but the unesaasary implementation within the constitution.
Solving systemic racial injustice is an inherently one sided thing, and that isn’t racist or divisive.
What is racist and divisive is allowing the traditional owners of the land to be trapped in perpetual poverty, with significantly shorter lives and with next to no hope of help. Setting up something to address an imbalance like this, to bring actual equality, is not racist.
There’s a fairly well known saying “when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” Things aren’t getting worse for you, we’re just trying to pull other people out of a hole so they can stand beside you.
There is a lot of places in Australia where they are crying out for work and a load of backpackers have to go to a town to fill the jobs. The government even promote it because they need for jobs is so high.
Then you get there and heaps of Aboriginals are unemployed or they are working part time do they can claim full benefits.
They already get a load of help but at some point some of them need to realise they need to get a job or do something that isn’t ice.
Great so make the body and dont put it in the constitution. Simple that way we can have the same body with the same “lack” of powers and dont need to divide race within the constitution.
There are two good reasons for putting it in the constitution. One, it stops it being repealed by the opposition who have a history of that sort of thing, thus it won’t be limited to the term of a specific government.
Secondly, Australia’s history is 100% built on disenfranchisement of our first people. Slavery, being defined as fauna, voting rights younger than a lifetime etc. Our national identity built this problem, our constitution should recognise who this country belongs to, it should recognise who this country has murdered, abducted and generally hated for it’s entire history. This definitely belongs in our constitution, colonialism stole Australia and it’s only fair to recognise that.
An advisory body for a particular race is by definition a division based on race. Say hypotheticaly there was a body in the constitution called the “nazi advisory body” where u had to be a true arian to join, would you agree that is blatantly racist? If so what does it matter what race it is or what its called its still a devision of race by definition.
For you first point see the timeline of all bodies i have posted in this thread may shed some light on ur over generalisation.
Second putting the voice in the constitution doesnt address that whatsoever if you want to put recognition of histories ateocities in the constitution put recognition of histories actrocities in the constitution. What does an advisary body in the constitution have to do with recognition of historical actrocities in the constitution.
I understand your point, however I think it misses a key element. This land was owned and occupied by our first nations peoples for 65k years.
The British decided to take it over a few hundred years ago, a pretty rough decision for first nations peoples. In fact they were only recognised as real people with a right to vote in 1967.
We can’t reverse that bad decision now, each of us are now Australian. Yet no other group of peoples were the victim of our new country formation. Having recognition in the constitution, and a protected voice for national decisions that affect them seems reasonable.
No other group, culture, or religion has this relationship with our government. A voice for any other group wouldn’t make sense. It’s not a cultural voice - it’s a political one for the nations we forced from power.
I understand that i just dont beleive i can moraly accept making any devision based on race whatsoever regardless of purpose or reason. I guess thats where we differ.
There have been a dozen or so advisory bodies since the 60s and most of the time they’re been disassembled when the following party gains controll of parliament. The only thing that would have changed would be to protect the body from being dissolved without another referendum, that’s it… All these people that have a problem with the voice probably have nfi these bodies already exist and have never been concerned with any recommendations they’ve made.
Yeah, I was reading about this in another thread and as I understand it this “advisory council” would have no actual authority, it would just hold meetings and make suggestions to lawmakers who could then take it or leave it. Left me with no idea why something like that needs to be in the constitution of a country. Just pass a law establishing it.
Because laws can be repealed ? The purpose was to make it binding so there was always a indigenous body, unlike all of the previous bodies that cease to exist with change in government. Granted none were legislated I don’t believe
I’m not saying this body would be a bad thing, I’m just unable to see why it needs to be in the constitution itself. The failure of the referendum doesn’t seem like it really impacts anything.
ok so heres the timeline for all representative bodies:
1973: The National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC) was established by the Whitlam Government (Labor Party) as the first national body elected by Aboriginal people. Its main role was advisory only.
1977: The NACC was abolished by the Fraser Government (Liberal-National Coalition) after a review found it ineffective. It was replaced by the National Aboriginal Conference (NAC), which was supposed to be a representative body for Indigenous people to advise the government on policy matters and to promote self-determination.
1985: The NAC was dissolved by the Hawke Government (Labor Party), which established the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) in 1989 as a new representative body2. ATSIC had both representative and administrative functions, and was composed of elected regional councils and a national board of commissioners.
2005: ATSIC was abolished by the Howard Government (Liberal-National Coalition) after allegations of corruption, mismanagement, and lack of accountability. It was replaced by a network of government-appointed advisory bodies, such as the National Indigenous Council and the Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs.
2010: The National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples (NCAFP) was established as an independent and representative body for Indigenous people, with funding support from the Rudd Government (Labor Party). The NCAFP aimed to be a national voice for Indigenous rights, interests, and aspirations.
2019: The NCAFP ceased operations due to lack of funding from the Morrison Government (Liberal-National Coalition). The government instead supported the development of a new representative body, called the Indigenous Voice, which would provide advice to parliament and government on matters affecting Indigenous people.
2023: A referendum on whether to enshrine the Indigenous Voice in the constitution was held on October 14, 2023. This referendum was rejected but does not necessarily mean it cannot still be enshrined in legislation (which I and I think many other people are in full support of).
From this it does not seem that they where dissolved due to right wingers being racist but a multitude of other reasons in addition to potentially racist fuckwits and not all where dissolved by right wing parties either.
The answer to that lies within the question: why put anything in a constitution? Why have a constitution?
Anything could be made using laws or rules. And anyone can then undo and rewrite them.
It’s because countries generally need a foundational document outlining how government will operate, and how laws will be made, and what the country stands for. And have the stability and security of knowing that those operating principles can’t be easily changed.
So the idea was, by incorporating the Voice within the constitution, you recognise indigenous Australians in your foundational document as having the right to have a recognised voice on what concerns them, and having unique aspects of history, and historical treatment, that make that appropriate.
Not a right to dismiss laws, or change them. Not a right to create laws. Not a right to ignore laws, or amend proposals. Just to have a recognised voice on issues affecting them, and ask the “lawmakers” to do any of the above.
This is important, because yes, you don’t want to enshrine anything that gives a small proportion of the population the ability to sidestep the legislative and political process.
But as a country, we do want to enshrine a means by which indigenous Australians, - a historically extremely disadvantaged group of people, who form less than 4% of the population, and don’t have the financial or organisational means to engage expensive political lobby firms like large corporations and mining companies- can participate more directly with the political process of laws affecting them, and therefore feel symbolically “seen”.
An analogy: If a public company wanted to create a Disability and Equity officer position, and wanted that position enshrined in the company charter to show the public that: the company was really serious about that position; provide good PR; signal to the public the company’s values; and protect it from being included in future job cuts, or made redundant in future for economic or ideological reasons under a different CEO, they would present shareholders with the question and put it to a vote.
The company would not include within that question, details about how much that position would be paid. Or what room of what building they would work in. Or how they would communicate. Or what restrictions would be put on the position. Or how candidates would be interviewed, assessed, and hired.
Shareholders would just see something like: “The company resolves to include the position of Disability and Equity Officer in the company charter, as an indication of the company’s desire that it become a more inclusive workplace, and to signal those values to the general public.”
Because while you want people to know the position is permanent, you also want to leave the nitty gritty details to being guided by other processes, so that they can be changed more flexibly then once a year or more at a General Meeting of all shareholders
Unfortunately those words are largely wasted IMO. If you read the text of the constitutional amendment itself you’ll note that the constitution itself would have only established the existence of the council. Every other detail of it is left up to legislation:
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.”
So again, why is this in the constitution? The Parliament could neuter it on a whim by passing a law at any point that established its composition is one guy and its sole function is to publish a pamphlet for sale in the Parliament gift shop. It wouldn’t make much difference if they could simply abolish it.
Because even with that additional wording was in the constitution, any law or changes that prevented the Voice from existing, and being able to make representations to Parliament, would be unconstitutional.
Not pointless at at all, and I’m not sure why you believe that.
Do you think mining companies and large corporations spend the 100s of millions of dollars they do on political lobbyists, to approach parliament and put forward the companies’ views on their behalf, if it was pointless?
No. Lobbyists achieve results, and at a minimum, make the companies feel like they’re part of the political process, and that their concerns and needs are being voiced, and a much healthier chance of having proposed legislation amended due to that lobbying. It’s political participation.
Lobbyist don’t get to change laws either. They don’t get to amend or dismiss laws, or sidestep the political process. They communicate and voice their concerns to those that do have that ability. I don’t see anyone saying lobbyists are useless pamphlet sellers.
The Voice was essentially a proposal to enable the creation of a constitutionally recognised lobbying entity that would work on Indigenous Australians’ behalf, since Indigenous Australians don’t have the financial or organisational capacity to create such an entity themselves, and
Exactly we already have many bodies which function in that way and none of them are enshrined within the constitution. And even tho the voice has been rejected as part of the constitution it can still be implemented through legislation.
Solicit feedback, definitely - but soliciting that feedback in the moment that people are voting on the constitutional amendment that would implement that feedback is a little late, no?
That was the concerning part. Defining, very permanently, a group of people from all the others based on race. That’s literally anti-equality.
It was a very disheartening thing to happen and I couldn’t participate. Both options supporting going backward.
I think most people that spoke proudly of their choice didn’t fundamentally understand what was going on, how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and their nations work, nor the history of support to this point. Australians should be pissed off that it even happened and that was the choices. They shouldn’t be pissed off at the outcome or people’s choices. If they can point that energy toward the governments, we’d be progressing. Though, I’m sure it’ll all go back to business as usual and people will be on something else, doing nothing to educate themselves and be proactive.
Think of an outcome metric by which indigenous Australians aren’t materially worse off. As you struggle, I’d like you to tell me if you think that gap a product of inferior genetics or institutional racism?
If it’s institutional racism, why would you call solutions targeted at closing that gap and reaching something resembling racial equality racist?
I think you’re fundamentally missing the point and trying to set up targets to attack. You don’t even know my background, point of view, or stance.
For starters, I have not mentioned racism as a topic on any side. Though you say I have and that’s all you’re talking about? Why? Where did that come from? Refer to my third paragraph. You have underscored it for me.
I’d appreciate it—certainly others would too—if you took the time and energy spent on me toward improving the situation by directing it where it will make a difference. Division of allies is not what any ethnicity in any nation needs and I’d urge you to not participate in it.
I have not mentioned racism as a topic on any side.
In that case, what do you mean when you say:
That was the concerning part. Defining, very permanently, a group of people from all the others based on race. That’s literally anti-equality.
If you think the gap is genetic, you’re a racist motivated by racism, and the solutions are irrelevant. If the issue is systemic racism, what’s anti-equality about targeting the affected group to bring their outcomes to a more equal level?
I have not mentioned racism as a topic on any side. Though you say I have and that’s all you’re talking about? Why?
Beyond the points above, the specific options presented seem irrelevant. There’s no pleasing the racists that see indigenous people as genetically inferior, it seems you’d label any targeted solution as racial anti-equality (racism by another name), and we’re not taking a transition to a socialist utopia to a referendum any time soon.
The solution taken to the referendum was a product of the Uluru statement from the heart and associated activity, developed in partnership with the indigenous community, and supported by ~80% of the indigenous population. I figure they understand “how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and their nations work, (and) the history of support to this point.” better than anyone.
The solution presented was inadequate in my opinion, but a start. What solution would effectively deliver something resembling racial equality without being targeted “racial anti-equality”?
I don’t think you quite understand what racism fundamentally is. And I still don’t understand how anything you’re saying has anything to do with what I’ve said. You’re simply looking for a fight, but there is none there.
Any effective solution to racial equality does not allow people to have things that others don’t based on race; whether intended for good or bad, no exception. We are all equal.
If you can’t understand that, it’s a worry. Constantly dropping the racism card is just mind-blowing levels of misunderstanding and showing an “us” and “them” mindset, even if your intentions are good. This is the kind of behaviour that damages progress and puts a bad taste in people’s mouth; it is division where there should be unity. Societies cannot move forward and build on foundations that have a divide. That has and never will fundamentally work in the long-term; we know this.
Perhaps instead of being so upset, trying to start arguments, and dropping the racism card completely out of context, you start doing something proactive. Everyone else already is, especially Elders of both sides of the vote. Why did this not work? Do Australians care that much? How do we unify and move together as a people? This is the main objective and where your energy is best placed.
Any effective solution to racial equality does not allow people to have things that others don’t based on race; whether intended for good or bad, no exception. We are all equal.
Except by just about any metric you choose to look at, indigenous Australians are materially worse off. We’re factually not equal, and defence of the status quo that led to that perpetuates that inequality, again begs the question of whether the inequality is genetic (absurd, and racist, but if taken at face value could possibly be used to defend the status quo), or systemic - demonstrating that the system is currently racist and needs to be fixed.
How do we unify and move together as a people?
We start with a clear idea of the problem (which it seems you’ve failed to do if you’re not recognising the current inequality or it’s cause), and work on solutions from there (the process that was followed with the statement from the heart) rather than tossing out any targeted solutions immediately and without assessment because you think they’re racist anti racial equality.
Again, you’re in full attack mode. It won’t work on a person that recognises the wild division and refuses to participate in any form of division.
Seeming as you know nothing about me—who I am, what I have done, what I do, and what I’m involved in—please, I’d love to hear what makes you say something like this…
We start with a clear idea of the problem (which it seems you’ve failed to do if you’re not recognising the current inequality or it’s cause)
I’m clearly not participating and am refusing to get into the box you’re trying to put me in. I hope you don’t try to do this to other people as it is of no help. It’s a good thing I’m aware and know what I advocate for—the irony is phenomenal right now—but if this were another person, you could be damaging the cause. It’s feeding that division we don’t need right now and perhaps it has swallowed you up too. Move on with that energy, get better at using it proactively and effectively. I don’t know how many times I have to say that, but if anything gets through, it’s clearly that.
Where exactly have I attacked you or told you what you believe?
Asking people to pick their box is a pretty quick and effective way of shaking out peoples positions, and either understand why my framing is wrong, or shake out peoples’ positions quickly.
In response to you saying indigenous represesentation in the constitution is racist, I pointed out the existing racial inequality, and pointed to the 2 possible root causes. I assume you don’t think the gap is genetic, so how do we address the gap, and racism baked into the system without mention of race (or whatever you belive crosses the line into racism) - this is straight to the point, and you ran from it.
So far, you’ve told me I don’t understand your positions as you’ve dodged just about every question I’ve asked about them, and made assertions like I don’t understand the definition of racism while failing to point out where my definition is wrong or provide an alternative. This is bad-faith behaviour, and the kind of nonsense I see from the likes of closet Nazis who will turn up, ‘just ask questions’, and sow seeds of doubt while trying to hide their beliefs because they know it’ll scare away any sane person, but will drop straight to the JQ when you ask a couple of questions. I don’t think you’re a Nazi, but I do wonder why you’re sticking around to use so many words to say so little.
I’m perfectly happy being hostile toward racists, and want division between myself and Nazis - they didn’t reason themselves into the racism, so I’m not going to be able to reason them out of it, so chasing them off and ridiculing then seems reasonable enough. If you’re carrying on like a bad-faith actor, dodging my questions about what you believe while making unsubstantiated claims about me, where does that leave us?
My opinion is that the issue is societal, not political. It is our responsibility, not a government’s. The government is to be in service of aiding us in fixing society, but in this case, has historically proven to be ineffective and unaccountable due to lack of society caring enough. To me, the option provided continued to reflect this and was a poorly wasted opportunity. If a legistave pathway carries the same lack of care, it won’t be effective either and that is on society. This is why I continue to say, it’s important to continue momentum on the topic, considering the referendum as a start of a hopeful snowball, but I fear Australians in general don’t care enough, therefore neither will the governments. This is historically how it has been time and again.
This is a very deceptive headline a majority of australians support the idea of a reccomandary body for indiginouse peoples (the voice what was proposed). However, the reason i beleive it failed is because it would have direcrly made a devision of race within our constitution. I would define any devision of race regardless of purpose as textbook racism but i seem to get a lot of pushback from such an idea. I think the thing that ultumatly caused it to fail was not the concept but the unesaasary implementation within the constitution.
Solving systemic racial injustice is an inherently one sided thing, and that isn’t racist or divisive.
What is racist and divisive is allowing the traditional owners of the land to be trapped in perpetual poverty, with significantly shorter lives and with next to no hope of help. Setting up something to address an imbalance like this, to bring actual equality, is not racist.
There’s a fairly well known saying “when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” Things aren’t getting worse for you, we’re just trying to pull other people out of a hole so they can stand beside you.
There is a lot of places in Australia where they are crying out for work and a load of backpackers have to go to a town to fill the jobs. The government even promote it because they need for jobs is so high.
Then you get there and heaps of Aboriginals are unemployed or they are working part time do they can claim full benefits.
They already get a load of help but at some point some of them need to realise they need to get a job or do something that isn’t ice.
Great so make the body and dont put it in the constitution. Simple that way we can have the same body with the same “lack” of powers and dont need to divide race within the constitution.
Again, it’s not dividing race at all.
There are two good reasons for putting it in the constitution. One, it stops it being repealed by the opposition who have a history of that sort of thing, thus it won’t be limited to the term of a specific government.
Secondly, Australia’s history is 100% built on disenfranchisement of our first people. Slavery, being defined as fauna, voting rights younger than a lifetime etc. Our national identity built this problem, our constitution should recognise who this country belongs to, it should recognise who this country has murdered, abducted and generally hated for it’s entire history. This definitely belongs in our constitution, colonialism stole Australia and it’s only fair to recognise that.
An advisory body for a particular race is by definition a division based on race. Say hypotheticaly there was a body in the constitution called the “nazi advisory body” where u had to be a true arian to join, would you agree that is blatantly racist? If so what does it matter what race it is or what its called its still a devision of race by definition.
For you first point see the timeline of all bodies i have posted in this thread may shed some light on ur over generalisation.
Second putting the voice in the constitution doesnt address that whatsoever if you want to put recognition of histories ateocities in the constitution put recognition of histories actrocities in the constitution. What does an advisary body in the constitution have to do with recognition of historical actrocities in the constitution.
I understand your point, however I think it misses a key element. This land was owned and occupied by our first nations peoples for 65k years.
The British decided to take it over a few hundred years ago, a pretty rough decision for first nations peoples. In fact they were only recognised as real people with a right to vote in 1967.
We can’t reverse that bad decision now, each of us are now Australian. Yet no other group of peoples were the victim of our new country formation. Having recognition in the constitution, and a protected voice for national decisions that affect them seems reasonable.
No other group, culture, or religion has this relationship with our government. A voice for any other group wouldn’t make sense. It’s not a cultural voice - it’s a political one for the nations we forced from power.
I understand that i just dont beleive i can moraly accept making any devision based on race whatsoever regardless of purpose or reason. I guess thats where we differ.
Sounds like you could use a little nuance in your life, pal.
So what im hearing is ur willing to make devisions on race sounds kinda racist to me.
There have been a dozen or so advisory bodies since the 60s and most of the time they’re been disassembled when the following party gains controll of parliament. The only thing that would have changed would be to protect the body from being dissolved without another referendum, that’s it… All these people that have a problem with the voice probably have nfi these bodies already exist and have never been concerned with any recommendations they’ve made.
https://lemmy.world/comment/4547041
Yeah, I was reading about this in another thread and as I understand it this “advisory council” would have no actual authority, it would just hold meetings and make suggestions to lawmakers who could then take it or leave it. Left me with no idea why something like that needs to be in the constitution of a country. Just pass a law establishing it.
Because laws can be repealed ? The purpose was to make it binding so there was always a indigenous body, unlike all of the previous bodies that cease to exist with change in government. Granted none were legislated I don’t believe
According to the text of the amendment laws would have to be passed to set the body’s “composition, functions, powers and procedures” anyway.
I’m not saying this body would be a bad thing, I’m just unable to see why it needs to be in the constitution itself. The failure of the referendum doesn’t seem like it really impacts anything.
Your suggestion has been tried repeatedly and the moment the right-wing have the power needed to tear it down, that’s what they do.
ok so heres the timeline for all representative bodies:
1973: The National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC) was established by the Whitlam Government (Labor Party) as the first national body elected by Aboriginal people. Its main role was advisory only.
1977: The NACC was abolished by the Fraser Government (Liberal-National Coalition) after a review found it ineffective. It was replaced by the National Aboriginal Conference (NAC), which was supposed to be a representative body for Indigenous people to advise the government on policy matters and to promote self-determination.
1985: The NAC was dissolved by the Hawke Government (Labor Party), which established the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) in 1989 as a new representative body2. ATSIC had both representative and administrative functions, and was composed of elected regional councils and a national board of commissioners.
2005: ATSIC was abolished by the Howard Government (Liberal-National Coalition) after allegations of corruption, mismanagement, and lack of accountability. It was replaced by a network of government-appointed advisory bodies, such as the National Indigenous Council and the Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs.
2010: The National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples (NCAFP) was established as an independent and representative body for Indigenous people, with funding support from the Rudd Government (Labor Party). The NCAFP aimed to be a national voice for Indigenous rights, interests, and aspirations.
2019: The NCAFP ceased operations due to lack of funding from the Morrison Government (Liberal-National Coalition). The government instead supported the development of a new representative body, called the Indigenous Voice, which would provide advice to parliament and government on matters affecting Indigenous people.
2023: A referendum on whether to enshrine the Indigenous Voice in the constitution was held on October 14, 2023. This referendum was rejected but does not necessarily mean it cannot still be enshrined in legislation (which I and I think many other people are in full support of).
From this it does not seem that they where dissolved due to right wingers being racist but a multitude of other reasons in addition to potentially racist fuckwits and not all where dissolved by right wing parties either.
Interesting, thanks. Could you please add the source?
The answer to that lies within the question: why put anything in a constitution? Why have a constitution?
Anything could be made using laws or rules. And anyone can then undo and rewrite them.
It’s because countries generally need a foundational document outlining how government will operate, and how laws will be made, and what the country stands for. And have the stability and security of knowing that those operating principles can’t be easily changed.
So the idea was, by incorporating the Voice within the constitution, you recognise indigenous Australians in your foundational document as having the right to have a recognised voice on what concerns them, and having unique aspects of history, and historical treatment, that make that appropriate.
Not a right to dismiss laws, or change them. Not a right to create laws. Not a right to ignore laws, or amend proposals. Just to have a recognised voice on issues affecting them, and ask the “lawmakers” to do any of the above.
This is important, because yes, you don’t want to enshrine anything that gives a small proportion of the population the ability to sidestep the legislative and political process.
But as a country, we do want to enshrine a means by which indigenous Australians, - a historically extremely disadvantaged group of people, who form less than 4% of the population, and don’t have the financial or organisational means to engage expensive political lobby firms like large corporations and mining companies- can participate more directly with the political process of laws affecting them, and therefore feel symbolically “seen”.
An analogy: If a public company wanted to create a Disability and Equity officer position, and wanted that position enshrined in the company charter to show the public that: the company was really serious about that position; provide good PR; signal to the public the company’s values; and protect it from being included in future job cuts, or made redundant in future for economic or ideological reasons under a different CEO, they would present shareholders with the question and put it to a vote.
The company would not include within that question, details about how much that position would be paid. Or what room of what building they would work in. Or how they would communicate. Or what restrictions would be put on the position. Or how candidates would be interviewed, assessed, and hired.
Shareholders would just see something like: “The company resolves to include the position of Disability and Equity Officer in the company charter, as an indication of the company’s desire that it become a more inclusive workplace, and to signal those values to the general public.”
Because while you want people to know the position is permanent, you also want to leave the nitty gritty details to being guided by other processes, so that they can be changed more flexibly then once a year or more at a General Meeting of all shareholders
Unfortunately those words are largely wasted IMO. If you read the text of the constitutional amendment itself you’ll note that the constitution itself would have only established the existence of the council. Every other detail of it is left up to legislation:
So again, why is this in the constitution? The Parliament could neuter it on a whim by passing a law at any point that established its composition is one guy and its sole function is to publish a pamphlet for sale in the Parliament gift shop. It wouldn’t make much difference if they could simply abolish it.
Because even with that additional wording was in the constitution, any law or changes that prevented the Voice from existing, and being able to make representations to Parliament, would be unconstitutional.
Alright, its sole function is to present that pamphlet to Parliament itself. Still pointless.
Not pointless at at all, and I’m not sure why you believe that.
Do you think mining companies and large corporations spend the 100s of millions of dollars they do on political lobbyists, to approach parliament and put forward the companies’ views on their behalf, if it was pointless?
No. Lobbyists achieve results, and at a minimum, make the companies feel like they’re part of the political process, and that their concerns and needs are being voiced, and a much healthier chance of having proposed legislation amended due to that lobbying. It’s political participation.
Lobbyist don’t get to change laws either. They don’t get to amend or dismiss laws, or sidestep the political process. They communicate and voice their concerns to those that do have that ability. I don’t see anyone saying lobbyists are useless pamphlet sellers.
The Voice was essentially a proposal to enable the creation of a constitutionally recognised lobbying entity that would work on Indigenous Australians’ behalf, since Indigenous Australians don’t have the financial or organisational capacity to create such an entity themselves, and
Exactly we already have many bodies which function in that way and none of them are enshrined within the constitution. And even tho the voice has been rejected as part of the constitution it can still be implemented through legislation.
This is why they should have a explain in your own words why you are voting this way on referendums
Because it gives a lot more feedback than the binary yes or no option
Solicit feedback, definitely - but soliciting that feedback in the moment that people are voting on the constitutional amendment that would implement that feedback is a little late, no?
Nope. It failed cause of racists. Case closed.
That was the concerning part. Defining, very permanently, a group of people from all the others based on race. That’s literally anti-equality.
It was a very disheartening thing to happen and I couldn’t participate. Both options supporting going backward.
I think most people that spoke proudly of their choice didn’t fundamentally understand what was going on, how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and their nations work, nor the history of support to this point. Australians should be pissed off that it even happened and that was the choices. They shouldn’t be pissed off at the outcome or people’s choices. If they can point that energy toward the governments, we’d be progressing. Though, I’m sure it’ll all go back to business as usual and people will be on something else, doing nothing to educate themselves and be proactive.
Think of an outcome metric by which indigenous Australians aren’t materially worse off. As you struggle, I’d like you to tell me if you think that gap a product of inferior genetics or institutional racism?
If it’s institutional racism, why would you call solutions targeted at closing that gap and reaching something resembling racial equality racist?
I think you’re fundamentally missing the point and trying to set up targets to attack. You don’t even know my background, point of view, or stance.
For starters, I have not mentioned racism as a topic on any side. Though you say I have and that’s all you’re talking about? Why? Where did that come from? Refer to my third paragraph. You have underscored it for me.
I’d appreciate it—certainly others would too—if you took the time and energy spent on me toward improving the situation by directing it where it will make a difference. Division of allies is not what any ethnicity in any nation needs and I’d urge you to not participate in it.
In that case, what do you mean when you say:
If you think the gap is genetic, you’re a racist motivated by racism, and the solutions are irrelevant. If the issue is systemic racism, what’s anti-equality about targeting the affected group to bring their outcomes to a more equal level?
Beyond the points above, the specific options presented seem irrelevant. There’s no pleasing the racists that see indigenous people as genetically inferior, it seems you’d label any targeted solution as racial anti-equality (racism by another name), and we’re not taking a transition to a socialist utopia to a referendum any time soon.
The solution taken to the referendum was a product of the Uluru statement from the heart and associated activity, developed in partnership with the indigenous community, and supported by ~80% of the indigenous population. I figure they understand “how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and their nations work, (and) the history of support to this point.” better than anyone.
The solution presented was inadequate in my opinion, but a start. What solution would effectively deliver something resembling racial equality without being targeted “racial anti-equality”?
I don’t think you quite understand what racism fundamentally is. And I still don’t understand how anything you’re saying has anything to do with what I’ve said. You’re simply looking for a fight, but there is none there.
Any effective solution to racial equality does not allow people to have things that others don’t based on race; whether intended for good or bad, no exception. We are all equal.
If you can’t understand that, it’s a worry. Constantly dropping the racism card is just mind-blowing levels of misunderstanding and showing an “us” and “them” mindset, even if your intentions are good. This is the kind of behaviour that damages progress and puts a bad taste in people’s mouth; it is division where there should be unity. Societies cannot move forward and build on foundations that have a divide. That has and never will fundamentally work in the long-term; we know this.
Perhaps instead of being so upset, trying to start arguments, and dropping the racism card completely out of context, you start doing something proactive. Everyone else already is, especially Elders of both sides of the vote. Why did this not work? Do Australians care that much? How do we unify and move together as a people? This is the main objective and where your energy is best placed.
Except by just about any metric you choose to look at, indigenous Australians are materially worse off. We’re factually not equal, and defence of the status quo that led to that perpetuates that inequality, again begs the question of whether the inequality is genetic (absurd, and racist, but if taken at face value could possibly be used to defend the status quo), or systemic - demonstrating that the system is currently racist and needs to be fixed.
We start with a clear idea of the problem (which it seems you’ve failed to do if you’re not recognising the current inequality or it’s cause), and work on solutions from there (the process that was followed with the statement from the heart) rather than tossing out any targeted solutions immediately and without assessment because you think they’re
racistanti racial equality.Again, you’re in full attack mode. It won’t work on a person that recognises the wild division and refuses to participate in any form of division.
Seeming as you know nothing about me—who I am, what I have done, what I do, and what I’m involved in—please, I’d love to hear what makes you say something like this…
I’m clearly not participating and am refusing to get into the box you’re trying to put me in. I hope you don’t try to do this to other people as it is of no help. It’s a good thing I’m aware and know what I advocate for—the irony is phenomenal right now—but if this were another person, you could be damaging the cause. It’s feeding that division we don’t need right now and perhaps it has swallowed you up too. Move on with that energy, get better at using it proactively and effectively. I don’t know how many times I have to say that, but if anything gets through, it’s clearly that.
Where exactly have I attacked you or told you what you believe?
Asking people to pick their box is a pretty quick and effective way of shaking out peoples positions, and either understand why my framing is wrong, or shake out peoples’ positions quickly.
In response to you saying indigenous represesentation in the constitution is racist, I pointed out the existing racial inequality, and pointed to the 2 possible root causes. I assume you don’t think the gap is genetic, so how do we address the gap, and racism baked into the system without mention of race (or whatever you belive crosses the line into racism) - this is straight to the point, and you ran from it.
So far, you’ve told me I don’t understand your positions as you’ve dodged just about every question I’ve asked about them, and made assertions like I don’t understand the definition of racism while failing to point out where my definition is wrong or provide an alternative. This is bad-faith behaviour, and the kind of nonsense I see from the likes of closet Nazis who will turn up, ‘just ask questions’, and sow seeds of doubt while trying to hide their beliefs because they know it’ll scare away any sane person, but will drop straight to the JQ when you ask a couple of questions. I don’t think you’re a Nazi, but I do wonder why you’re sticking around to use so many words to say so little.
I’m perfectly happy being hostile toward racists, and want division between myself and Nazis - they didn’t reason themselves into the racism, so I’m not going to be able to reason them out of it, so chasing them off and ridiculing then seems reasonable enough. If you’re carrying on like a bad-faith actor, dodging my questions about what you believe while making unsubstantiated claims about me, where does that leave us?
Whats you opinion about implementing it through legislation without putting it in the constitution?
My opinion is that the issue is societal, not political. It is our responsibility, not a government’s. The government is to be in service of aiding us in fixing society, but in this case, has historically proven to be ineffective and unaccountable due to lack of society caring enough. To me, the option provided continued to reflect this and was a poorly wasted opportunity. If a legistave pathway carries the same lack of care, it won’t be effective either and that is on society. This is why I continue to say, it’s important to continue momentum on the topic, considering the referendum as a start of a hopeful snowball, but I fear Australians in general don’t care enough, therefore neither will the governments. This is historically how it has been time and again.