Indigenous Voice to Parliament

[Skids]

Where does the money go you ask...

When it's Aboriginal mining royalty distribution time in Tennant Creek, Joebessgo Mayers has an even more difficult job trying to get kids to school.

He leads the federal government-funded anti-truancy team which goes around the Aboriginal town camps on the edge of the Northern Territory town every morning.

At least 40 per cent of kids in Tennant Creek don't attend regularly.

"When they get their royalties, families are more active with alcohol," he said.

"They buy cars and electronics and whatever's left over goes straight into alcohol and gambling at a certain house where people play for big money."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-13/ ... /100440358

I saw the exact same thing in Meekatharra. Sandfire resources paid quarterly royalties to the local mob. Straight after there were 8 brand new SS Commodores flying around town. That was 2015.

[Tannin]

My view of that so-called "cultural elite" is that they believe so clearly in what they believe that they can't understand how anyone intelligent could possibly disagree with them.

The 2 main side effects of that is the snide insults toward people they consider too stupid to understand and the complete inability to articulate a clear and compelling case for their views.

As you said above and as I've said many times before, you'll never change someones mind by insulting them. More likely you'll just quiet their voice but harden their resolve.

Just so. THe lock-step condescending arrogance we see on this issue in places like the Saturday Paper and the Guardian is extraordinary.

That said, the NO campaign seems to be composed entirely of scumbags, liars, and fascist rednecks. I cringe at the thought of voting alongside those lying bastards. But I will if I have to.

In 1969, 90% of Australia voted to remove race from the constitution. (It was more complicated than that, but that was the essential point.) I'm damned if I'm going to vote to put race back in again. Constitutions should have nothing whatever to say about race (or sex, or religion) other than that all are to be equal under the law.

[think positive]

My view of that so-called "cultural elite" is that they believe so clearly in what they believe that they can't understand how anyone intelligent could possibly disagree with them.

The 2 main side effects of that is the snide insults toward people they consider too stupid to understand and the complete inability to articulate a clear and compelling case for their views.

As you said above and as I've said many times before, you'll never change someones mind by insulting them. More likely you'll just quiet their voice but harden their resolve.

Just so. THe lock-step condescending arrogance we see on this issue in places like the Saturday Paper and the Guardian is extraordinary.

That said, the NO campaign seems to be composed entirely of scumbags, liars, and fascist rednecks. I cringe at the thought of voting alongside those lying bastards. But I will if I have to.

In 1969, 90% of Australia voted to remove race from the constitution. (It was more complicated than that, but that was the essential point.) I'm damned if I'm going to vote to put race back in again. Constitutions should have nothing whatever to say about race (or sex, or religion) other than that all are to be equal under the law.

cheers and applauds

[LaurieHolden]

^ interesting take re the '69 vote Tannin, I hadn't looked at it that way. Certainly something I'll mull over.

[David]

[pietillidie]

^Indeed.

In 1969, 90% of Australia voted to remove race from the Constitution. (It was more complicated than that, but that was the essential point.) I'm damned if I'm going to vote to put race back in again. Constitutions should have nothing whatever to say about race (or sex, or religion) other than that all are to be equal under the law.

The Voice might confound the picture, but your view confuses what is the very standard acknowledgement of founding parties in law as required by law with a different issue, the emphasis and consideration of race in law. This is not about putting race back in (and it's still in there, BTW, as per the below); it's about putting a founding party back in as legally required alongside the other founding parties.

I'd be happy simply to add the original inhabitants as a rightful founding party alongside the Crown, the Lords, the people, god Almighty, etc. without The Voice. But it's hardly controversial to make special mention of a party that was excluded, and mark an amendment for what it is, an amendment. People seem to forget that the Voice only exists as a remedy to the Missing And Illegally Excluded Voice.

Any new emphasis only carries connotations of race because of the original legal error was caused by racism.

A correction of racism is not racism, while we can't slip a missing party back into the text as if it were there all along. That would be a pretty cowardly historical revisionism, contradicting a spirit of progress which encompasses major correctives such as Mabo and The Apology, among other things. Moreover, Constitutions are foundational and continuing, so the correction has no choice but to encompass the present and present parties in the correction of the past error, even if I may prefer different wording.

Don't forget, race is most certainly still mentioned in the Constitution, with the repeal of Section 25 failing in 1967:

25. Provisions as to races disqualified from voting

For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted.

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power12 to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

(xxvi) the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws...

The 1967 referendum was only necessary because a founding party had been illegally excluded from the Constitution and founding legal framework, contrary to British law and practice. The Mabo decision made this abundantly clear by overturning the erroneous notion of terra nullius, a concept that wasn't legally plausible even according to the British law of the day.

The Brits signed hundreds of treaties recognising original ownership and prior inhabitance in accordance with their legal norms, but bizarrely did not do so in Australia.

Every party from the Crown to God Almighty and his dog is acknowledged in the Constitution, except the original inhabitants, and the enumeration of those parties has nothing explicitly to do with race, which is what would've happened in this instance if not for racism.

Importantly, 1967 clearly shows that the original inhabitants weren't even 'of the people', so acknowledgement as a foundational party is not even coyly tacit:

In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted.

If you're not counted, you're not represented, legally and metaphorically. And if you're both not recognised by treaty and not counted, you're illegally and forcefully excluded.

Just to drive home that fact, the grotesque WA Natives (Citizenship Rights) Act 1944 (No 23 of 1944), known as the 'dog collar act', vividly illustrates the exclusion wasn't just social, it was also very much a matter of law:

(2) Such application shall be in the prescribed form supported by a statutory declaration signed by the applicant to the effect that he wishes to become a citizen of the State, that for the two years prior to the date of the application lie has dissolved tribal and native association except with respect to lineal descendants or native relations of the first degree, and (a) that he has served in the Naval, Military or Air Force of the Commonwealth and has received or is entitled to receive an honourable discharge; or (b) that he is otherwise a fit and proper person to obtain a Certificate of Citizenship.

(3) Every application shall be accompanied by two recent written references from reputable citizens certifying as to the good character and industrious habits of the applicant.

...

(1) Any adult person who is a native within the meaning of the Native Administration Act, 1905-1941, may make application for a Certificate of Citizenship to a resident or stipendiary magistrate or Government Resident in the magisterial district in which he resides.

...

5. (1) Before granting any application brought under the provisions of the preceding section, the magistrate shall be satisfied that (a) for the two years immediately prior the applicant has adopted the manner and habits of
civilised life; (b) the full rights of citizenship are desirable for and likely to be conducive to the welfare. of the applicant; (c) the applicant is able to speak and understand the English language; (d) the applicant is not suffering from active leprosy, syphilis, granuloma or yaws; (e) the applicant is of industrious habits and is of good behaviour and reputation; Adult natives may make application to a magistrate for a Certificate of Citizenship. Evidence to be adduced in support of an application under this Act.

No. 23.] Natives (Citizenship Rights). [1944.
(f) the applicant is reasonably capable of managing his own affairs.

The decision of a magistrate upon any such application shall be final.

...


6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Native Administration Act, 1905-1941, or any other Act the holder of a Certificate of Citizenship shall be deemed to be no longer a native or aborigine and shall have all the rights, privileges and immunities and shall be subject to the duties and liabilities of a natural born or naturalised subject of His Majesty.

https://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/vie ... 3o1944352/

So, this is a legal correction. An error that was clearly driven by racism carries connotations of race all by its own doing, not at the hand of its correction. You can't correct an error without implying error any more than you can correct racism without implying race.

(As an aside, those who are claiming that states like WA and Queensland see things differently because the rest of us conveniently live at a distance from the worst social problems, are themselves conveniently leaving out half of the story. The dog collar act is illustrative of the fact that the exclusion was at its ugliest, most illegal and most sustained in those states. So, proximity to social problems and the blowback from violent mistreatment and illegal exclusion are inseperable; people don't get to claim one without the other.)

[David]

[stui magpie]

Unfortunately Ptiddy, I think I'm in agreement with you again.

It's an interesting persepctive from Tannin that the 67 Referendum was about removing Race from the constitution. I'd never thought of it that way before. In once instance it's correct, but at the time it was about removing specific parts of clauses that actively discriminated against First Nations People.

David, it wasn't about removing the capacity for Indigenous people to be subject to special laws, prior to the referendum they were "managed" by the states and the Federal Government couldn't make laws for them.

I do see the Voice as a continuation of that work. 67 was the first real acknowledgment that they were people of Australia too. Recognising them in the Constituion and proving The Voice is just taking it to the next step.

Plenty of other countries have their Indigenous populations formally recognised in their constitution apart from NZ, we're talking the USA, Canada, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Sth Africa (the San and Khoe, not the Blacks), The Congo (Pygmys).

https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-a ... 5e0r4.html

[stui magpie]

@David, I think that Keane bloke is talking through his arse trying to blame the electorate for not educating themselves.

He's right in one part, it's not an election, it's a vote to make a change to the Constitution and there's a reason why most Referendum fail, people are generaly wary and skeptical of change and are more likely to vote for the status quo they know to remain than vote for a change they don't understand.

As I've said several times, change management is a well researched and well documented process. It's like Albo and the Yes campaign looked up how to ensure a change process fails and followed the steps to the letter.

Most people started off with general good will, but with a vacuum of clear communication from the Yes side, the No campaign were easily able to raise questions and doubts which have us where we are today.

The onus is always on the people wanting the change to lead it and bring people along with them.

[David]

[stui magpie]

For mine, the most telling point about the general nature of Australians is where the polls showed the Voice was at where it started, and where it's finished up now.

Initially it was very high, which shows to me that most people were open to itand were happy to recognise the First Nations Peoples at zero cost to them.

Then the misinformation campaign started, raising doubts, overstating the potential Power of the Voice and the train slowly ran off the rails in a slow motion car crash.

People can be good natured and alturistic to those less fortunate and at the same time retain a level of cynicism and suspiscion of government. A whole lot of people didn't suddenly become mean spirited overnight, in their minds the equation has changed, due to the misinformation and the lack of clear communication from the Yes campaign.

You don't win arguments with logic, you win them with emotion. Add to that the WIIFM effect. You can shout facts untill your face goes crimson but once someone starts to Feel doubt, threatened, conned etc, it's game over.

The campaign to sink the Voice has instructed volunteers to use fear and doubt rather than facts to trump arguments used by the Yes camp.

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/fede ... 5e3fu.html

That's just the formal campaign, add in all the lies on Facebook and TikTok about people's homes being claimed under land rights.

[David]

[slangman]

For mine, the most telling point about the general nature of Australians is where the polls showed the Voice was at where it started, and where it's finished up now.

Initially it was very high, which shows to me that most people were open to itand were happy to recognise the First Nations Peoples at zero cost to them.

Then the misinformation campaign started, raising doubts, overstating the potential Power of the Voice and the train slowly ran off the rails in a slow motion car crash.

The issue with the Yes campaigners is they have attached the Voice to Parliament to Indigenous recognition in the constitution.
They are two separate items which unfortunately have been lumped together.
Why couldn’t the referendum just been about acknowledging indigenous people in the constitution??
Imho that would have been a guarantee to succeed.

The Voice on the other hand is what most people who I have spoken to who will be voting No don’t agree with.

[stui magpie]

https://www.managementstudyguide.com/ko ... change.htm

This is one of the oldest and still functional change models. Have a read and think about how many of these steps the Yes campaign got right.

[David]