Indigenous Voice to Parliament

[pietillidie]

^You and I have always had much the same view; the two questions were ridiculously combined.

But I also think the separate constiutional question would just have likely lost because the same reactionaries would've turned even that into a culture war. Their arguments simply would've shifted because, as is very clear, psychiatrically it's all about 'the win' and who said what, not the actual topic at hand.

Think about it: if they could get bipartisan support just for the constitutional tweak then a referendum is kind of beside the point as that's what parliament and high courts are for.

You just won't get a bipartisan, sensible referendum on anything. As I said, it could be CCs versus Doritos and people would froth at the mouth taking sides, inventing imaginary fears and hysterical arguments, ultimately choosing on the basis that someone they hate likes CCs or Doritos.

Referenda are a brain-dead process in the current brain-dead social media environment, probably for even the most mundane, technical, non-emotive subject.

[think positive]

taking sides.

says it all,

this has had the complete opposite result than intended.

[think positive]

^

Nice rant.

The First Nations Peoples who wrote the Uluru Statement asked for regognition and a voice to be put in the constitution. That requires a referendum.

Proposing to Hold the referendum wasn't the problem, it was everything else.

If for example it was 2 separate questions, one about recognition and one about the voice, there was a far better chance of getting Bi-partisan support, which ultimately was necessary. No referendum has succeeded without it.

If they had provided much more detail up front of exactly what the Voice was, how it would work, what it could do and more importantly what it couldn't, they could have headed off the misinformation campaign before it grew legs.

Once it was clear the direction is was going, rather than blunder ahead they should have taken the opportunity to do more consultation and communication and delayed holding the referendum until it had a clear chance of success and if that meant changing some things, then change them.

Geezuz you really could write a thesis on how they just stubbornly bumbled from one **** to the next.

exactly this

[pietillidie]

If even corrections to outright illegality can't be made without popular assent - in this case not acknowledging a treaty partner contrary British law, as already ruled by the High Court in Mabo - the constitution becomes a millstone around everyone's neck, as it is in America.

Australia can't correct an original sin, and the US can't stop putting weapons of death in the hands of nutcases.

Therein lies the advantage of the British system, which vests more authority in parliament, the courts and various other parliamentary mechanisms. There's no way knowing the Australian system could, say, devolve powers as was done here. Under Australia-like constitution, England would've simply scuppered the rest of the union's ambitions just to be wankers, lording it over Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Conversely, by dumbly using a referendum for Brexit when one wasn't neded, the damned thing can't easily be undone, although mercifully still more easily than would be the case in Australia, hence Sunak's Windsor Framework.

Very little in the absurdly fast-paced world in which we live can wait 30-50 years to be revisited. That's a fundamentalist trap if ever there was one, especially when the most complex things in life can only be grappled with through a process of trial and error.

[stui magpie]

Yeah, the people who wrote the constitution wanted it to be difficult to change it, but not impossible.

Albanese knew he'd be pushing shit uphill with a divided parliament, if you can't get the majority of politicians to agree on something you've got no chance of getting the majority of Australians on board.

I disagree that we can't get a sensible bi-partisan referendum on anything. I get the example about CC's and Doritios and agree that you will always get people choosing sides and frothing, but you don't need to get everyone to agree, just the majority of people and states.

With sensible negotiation skills up front to get a bi-partisan approach from Parliament, even if it provides for a consience vote rather than tying people to the party line and good marketing and change management approaches it's very achieveable.

[slangman]

[pietillidie]

Yeah, the people who wrote the constitution wanted it to be difficult to change it, but not impossible.

Therein lies the problem. Who cares what they wanted or thought? They're long dead and were clueless and outright wrong about all kinds of things.

Good judgement by definition requires the best contemporary knowledge finely tuned to context. It also requires an acceptance of the need to constantly reassess. Imagine if science, business, finance, medicine or engineering arbitrarily constrained their scope of judgement that way. We'd be extinct already.

One can of course understand why generations past got so many things so badly wrong. But why a society would legally and psychologically nail itself to their mast is beyond me.

Of course I'm being rhetorical because I know exactly why: to maintain privilege and reduce competition.

[Magpietothemax]

Who is saying it’s not significant??

I?

You are saying it is insignificant, because in one breath you claim that the Aboriginal people have not been persecuted, and in the other you accept that their children have been stolen/ What kind of insanity is that?
As for the third world conditions imposed on the Aboriginal people in remote communitieshtml

1. “You are saying it is insignificant”….at NO STAGE did I ever say it was insignificant.
Stop denying your deliberate false claim.

2. It is common knowledge that there are aboriginal people who live in poor conditions but to say that is IMPOSED on them is ludicrous. Do you actually think that Australians (including the government) want aboriginal people to live in such terrible conditions?
Just another hysterical claim by you.

3. Shrapnel compensation? How did you come to this conclusion and what do you mean by compensation? Is it only about money?

ANSWERS to THE POINTS ABOVE
1) You were saying this by implication. On the one hand you said that it was true that the children of many Aboriginal people were stolen by the Australian government, but on the other hand you deny that the Aboriginal population was persecuted by the Australian government. The only way this can be interpreted is that you think that stealing the children of a population does not amount to persecution. Such a position is both absurd and indefensible.

2) Extreme poverty has been imposed on the Aboriginal population historically. It started when the British arrived in Australia, and over the ensuing years massacred, killed by disease and drove off the land the Aboriginal population to make way for private ownership of land (which did not exist in Aboriginal society). Ever since then, under all Australian governments since Federation, the Aboriginal people have been persecuted, and used as slave labour by passtoralist interests and no doubt mining interests as well. Their children were born into immense poverty. Was that their fault, or was it imposed as a result of government policies? What chance do Aboriginal children born into squalor, inflicted with third World diseases, life expectancy far lower than the rest of the population, have to "climb to the top of hte heap".

3) It is obvious to anyone that the miserable compensation payments that have been made by the Australian government for the past historic injustices are nothing but token shrapnel.

[slangman]

^

With all due respect, I think that we are just going around in circles here and continuing will just add another 10 pages to this topic.
I believe that we both want to see better outcomes for aboriginal people but we obviously disagree on the path that we should take to help achieve that goal..
I will continue advocating for better outcomes for everyone in Australia in the manner that I see as the best way to achieving this goal as I’m sure that you also will in your way.

[Magpietothemax]

^Sure, I agree with your sentiments and do not want to clutter up the thread either.
However, I believe that improvements in outcomes for all sections of the working class will never be achieved without a clear understanding of reality.
So I will always challenge positions or ideas which I believe are standing in the way of such a clear understanding. It is only through discussion, and challenging the propaganda pumped out on a daily basis by the corporate media, that we have a chance to make the world better.
Naturally, not everyone will agree with me, and this leads to further discussion, etc.

[Culprit]

I worked in a booth for the AEC for the referendum. Pretty clear to me that in my multicultural area, it would be a majority "NO". It ended up around 58% No. My perception during the day. Most didn't understand and simply didn't give a shit. I had around 5% of voters who actually didn't know there was a referendum and actually why they were voting. I was doing declaration votes and amazingly the amount of people who live in the area that are not on the role was flabbergasting. We had many voters ask if is it true that if they leave the form blank is it a yes vote cause that's what they read on Facebook. The only person I dealt with was an honest young man who said I don't understand and I don't want to vote either way. I explained that he had been marked off the role and he could do what he wanted and he just handed me back the blank form which went into the declaration vote envelope. We also had a few families where one person (the Father) directed all which way to vote.

The NO argument was simplistic and the Yes argument, well I still don't know what it actually was. It was drowned out. In the end, it was political and I suggest there will never be another referendum. Now those who pushed the NO and want a treaty with repatriations have no chance as those opposed will point to the failed referendum.

[David]

[Jezza]

^ Keep posting the Rundle articles, David.

Always enjoy reading his pieces.

[Culprit]

David, my perception is a lack of education on what the "Yes" vote was all about. Australians as a whole have no idea what our constitution is all about hence we have many quoting US BS. Throw in the MSM pushing the likes of Conservatives Nyunggai Warren Mundine and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price as First Nations people voting "NO" so that means it must be wrong.

I will add that my view is Mundine and Price are looking for a payday (Reparations). They are going to be totally disappointed as they have given the conservatives a gift on a platter. They may have won the battle but they will lose the war. They have helped put back the First Nations movement for 50 years.

[David]