Not all 'no' voters are racist, but some certainly are

It doesn’t make sense to say “Voice is a diversion for [Labor’s] inability to manage first nations affairs competently”. This referendum was asked for by the Indigenous leaders who supported the Uluru Statement. Despite the current discord, every attempt was made to unsure most communities were represented.

The Closing the Gap Strategy was tabled by the Aboriginal Social Commissioner, “Uncle” Professor Tome Calma in 2006 (John Howard’s era) . It was introduced as a Govt strategy in 2009 (Kevin Rudd’s). When I look at the Govt targets, they lack alignment with the 50 aboriginal NGOs and peaks that make up the grass roots campaign, and the Coalition of Peaks. When you say “fund that, strategically and COLLABORATIVELY, WITH all stakeholders” – this is what is being asked for. Do all stakeholders mean the majority of white people living in Australia?

ATSI people say they are not being listened to, and successful programs are being shut down without warning. They are asking for locally designed programs, culturally safe healthcare and resolving issues such as poor housing and lack of employment in remote communities.

RM, the indigenous policy sector has been dominated for decades by the “progressive left”. The mounting failures, including the ones you mention, should be laid at their feet. They of course, blame their failures on miasmic “racism”; they never challenge their own dogma. Any executive challenge to their supremacy is short-lived. Any public criticism is discredited with more charges of racism, misinformation, and a whole swag of political slurs.

As to the Voice: I suppose you have been involved in policy consultations in marginal communities? If you haven’t, it’s surprising the degree of control the consultation team has. It’s common knowledge among (the more sceptical) practitioners: consultation is a top-down process. The practitioner is trusted as broadly sharing the ideology of the lead agency (“you don’t hold an inquiry if you’re not sure of the answer”). As you go into a community to “consult”, you set the agenda – subtly of course, by choice of wording, what is explained, what is not explained etc — there’s hundreds of ways, most of it is unconscious bias in favour of the agency’s dominant ideological “wisdom”. If you hear something beyond the pale you say “we’ll take that on board”. If it really doesn’t fit the agenda, it’s not even noted. In the end, surprise surprise, the consultation team comes back with just the right mix of “challenges from the community” where the agency “needs to do better”, but the overall framing is not challenged.

Thus the Voice. All led by the same cadre from the left-progressive campus mindset as the dominant sector leaders in the bureaucracy. There’s differences, but the basic agreement is there should be a centralised elite to act as power broker. This would be The Voice. Lots of fine dining at the best Canberra restaurants. The unsaid alternative would be local and regional participatory approaches. This could possibly work with a national body, but that was never fleshed out how. It wasn’t really part of the agenda. We were just meant to vote for an elitist body that would work within in the same 40 year old monopolistic failed paradigm.

RM, my middle para about consultation was in reference to the Voice’s consultation process, which happened some years ago. I am saying Megan Davis et al more or less got the results they wanted. I would have added this clarification to my post, but there’s no edit function here.

I’d say most are to be honest……

It is First Nations people who lose, not Labor.

New Zealand is having their election today. That means that their first nations and Labor both lose.

Possibly they’ll win actually: the Voice was a monster designed to entrench a fat elite to simply perpetrate the same 40 years of progressive left monopoly on policy, that has led to the widening gap. When their bad ideas fail they disingenuously deflect and scream “racism”. But now, as a result of this monumental loss, there’s a chance, a slim chance, these horrible progressive elitists will lose their monopolistic grip on the sector, and far better ideas from the grassroots can flourish under the leadership of Jacinta Price. Crack down on the violence and the standover men that the progressives protect, and let the grassroots women speak out without fear.

Lazy, grievance industry. Turn off the $ tap and see what happens then.

They looked after this country so much better than we have. They didn’t trash it as later migrants have.

Instead they lived sustainably, but have had the opportunity to do this taken from them as their land was taken, mined, polluted and cleared of vegetation, as well as trampled by cattle, with native animals (ie food) eaten by rabbits and foxes. The whole ecosystem has been destroyed, with riches stripped, as was done in so many colonised lands leaving native populations poorer whilst those who exploited them were enriched.

They have lost what they had as well as being demeaned and disregarded, causing many mental health problems. We owe them the support they need to thrive again, not just to survive and live poverty stricken sad lives with few chances to improve their lot.

Those migrants who came from other countries came to cities, whilst many of our First Nations people have homes in places where there are few opportunities, little infrastructure and not easy access to city jobs or lives. If they all moved to the city, who would this help, or harm???

Megafauna and non-eucalypt forests may not entirely agree. Just sayin.

But you’re right — the progressive left monopoly on indigenous policy over the last 40 years has resulted in bad outcomes becoming ever worse. Sadly, they can’t see how botched their policies have been, preferring to chorus their grand deflection: “it’s racism wot diddit”.

Rubbish.

What a load of rot

When an immigrant comes to Australia, they need a certain amount of money, a desirable degree or skill, and they generally live in the cities. They must pass an English language test. Unless they are refugees, when Australia offers much more support.

The issues with colonisation are complex. Are you talking about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who have a city life? Or working to improve the health outcomes living in remote communities?

Actually people living in cities receive $800 per person per year MORE in healthcare than any person Indigenous or non-Indigenous living in regional and remote Australia. That’s the reality of such a large and sparsely populated country.

The Germans in Britain are the poms – the Irish, Scottish and Cornish aren’t their fans. The Welsh are reclaiming their language. The Vikings were eventually kicked out or assimilated, and our British culture is largely formed out of the Normans need to dominate the populations they conquered.

In previous decades Australia didn’t have enough labourers to build roads, houses, power stations and all the infrastructure a growing country needed, many migrants came without much or with nothing.

During that time of growth, Indigenous Australians were denied the right to vote, many were not paid fair wages or offered equal education opportunities, and were treated with so much distain, that if they could, they simply hid their aboriginality. Remember Australia also had White Australia policy from 1901 – untill it started to be relaxed in the 50’s and 60’s and only eventually abolished in 1973

Now migrants come from wealthy families with very expensive degrees, especially in IT and medicine.

There is nothing to say they didnt come in multiple waves. With mixes of indian herritage and the dingo coming from southeast asia recently.

@Psycho they didn’t look after the environment so much as just slash and burn it over and over until it now responds well after fire. However the tropical rainforrest and animals that once lived here are now long gone.

What was the life expectancy prior to white settlement? surely it has increased.
Last i checked it wasn’t easy to fast forward 10,000 years of social and technological advancement. Very few still want to go back to their old lifestyle. The ones pushing that aren’t aboriginal and live in the inner cities.

Hi Greg, you appear to be asking questions that have already been answered and then claiming that they haven’t, for example “How will an advisory body help ‘our Indigenous brethren’ ” Answer: by listening to an on-the-ground representative group of ‘our Indigenous brethren’ Pretty simple eh. Regarding questions like “Where will they meet?” Honestly, are you suggesting that if they met in Cowra rather than Rockhampton that would somehow change your vote? So here’s a question for you – How could the Government start planning out meeting places for the Voice without endorsement from the Australian people in the Referendum. Surely that would be pre-empting our decision which, of course, would be a big no-no wouldn’t it. Ditto your question on the specific composition. I’m sure you wouldn’t be insisting on such specifics without first going through the democratic processes that we are currently undertaking.

“How could the Government start planning out meeting places for the Voice without endorsement from the Australian people in the Referendum.”

Hi Astro,
You seem to be asking questions that have already been answered. Repeatedly.

The answer being that the government could have used their existing powers to enact the Voice by legislation, exactly as Indigenuous Activists asked for as part of the Uluru process. Alternatively they could have released it in draft form.

No referendum was ever required for that to occur.

They could have then run a referendum at a later date if the Voice proved successful. This would have stopped the significant level of misinformation and speculation raised by ignorant yes supporters claiming the Voice would work despite no evidence showing that to be the case.

There’s plenty of information on this on the internet that explains how this process would have worked and why the lack of detail has led to the referendum support slumping from around 70% to 40% in just a few months.

Hope this helps you understand why the referendum is failing, if you need more information, google can help you out.

Cheers champ.

Ignoring your condescending tone and spelling my name wrong, here’s my answers to your reply.
You didn’t completely answer the first question. What will the Voice guarantee will happen that we have failed to do in our 123 year history as a Country? What will it do as an advisory body that we haven’t done in the past with various government departments and advisory bodies?
Actually, yes, these type of questions about where they would meet should have been thought about and presented to the public. Its HQ should not be here in Canberra or anywhere in the Southeast Australia to be honest.
I want change. Proper, positive equality humanity driven change. Especially in rural and remote communities. A token gesture like this won’t do that. And that’s what this is. And the way that the Government has fail to drive the narrative for this is a travesty.
And yes, they are my brethren. So are you. And so is Lidia Thorpe, the biggest ratbag this country has at present but she helped me realise that this could end up being the biggest toothless tiger this country has ever seen.
And yes, as a voter of almost 40 years, I insist on specifics before saying yes.

The Uluru architects considered the issue of just legislating without having the Voice in the Constitution and this was decided against as legislation could be too easily mucked around with by politicians and did not have the consistency of a Voice to Parliament in the Constitution. You’re partially right in the statement that a referendum would not have occurred with a ‘legislation-only’ model however for the reasons given above this model was not finally chosen. Additionally, it still would not have solved the issue of recognition in the Constitution which would still require a referendum. You could possibly make a claim that a “recognition-only” model could have had more chance of success in a referendum however there isn’t really any evidence to say that it would and it could also have been accused of tokenism.

So, you don’t plan for anything huh? And yes, I am insisting on specifics. So, it seems, are most rational people.
And if you’re going to reply to my comment, learn to spell my name correctly please. Unless it was deliberate. And then that’s just disrespectful.

How would releasing a draft of the legislation for the voice possible help ? Are you suggesting that people who can’t understand some basic principles regarding what is being proposed in the referendum, are suddenly going to read and understand draft legislation ? Have you ever read draft legislation ? In addition, Dutton and the rest of the right wing no brigade would instantly dismiss the legislation with the same rubbish and lies they have already used to further confuse people. What would that achieve ? This ridiculous argument that the referendum will fail because of mistakes by the Yes campaign is a convenient excuse for people so they don’t have to acknowledge that they are unwilling to help the most disadvantaged group in Australia meet the objectives of Closing the Gap – in the way that have asked in the Uluru statement, to enshrine the Voice in the Constitution.

“How would releasing a draft of the legislation for the voice possible help ?”

It would have allowed a far more honest campaign to be run by both sides in an informed manner.

“Are you suggesting that people who can’t understand some basic principles regarding what is being proposed in the referendum, are suddenly going to read and understand draft legislation ?”

No, can’t see where I’ve said anything like this. But that’s what we have public servants, experts and the media for, who are supposed to be able to translate the information into more readily accessible information for the public. Supposed to anyway.

“Have you ever read draft legislation ?”

Of course, how else to ne truly informed on whether legislation is reasonable.

“In addition, Dutton and the rest of the right wing no brigade would instantly dismiss the legislation with the same rubbish and lies they have already used to further confuse people”

The equal applies to the Yes side and the numerous lies that have been given in support of the proposal due to the lack of detail. And of course the legislation would be analysed by everyone, that’s the point. A more informed debate

You’ve even engaged in some of those lies in your own comment claiming that people don’t want to help the disadvantaged in our society which is completely false. The overwhelming majority of people want to support all people who need help. A lot just don’t agree to a race based, constitutional body to attempt achieving it

Albanese chose the low detail path as a strategic move hoping to get the proposal passed on emotion and the Vibe. It was freely admitted, in comparison with the republic referendum, where more detail led to its downfall. He owns the result wholly.

Chewy, I’m writing this with 10 minutes to go ’til tools down. There’s no ‘likes’ here so I’ll just say I’ve really appreciated how you’ve doggedly confronted the arrogance, condescion, name-calling and lack of straight responses that pretty much sum up your detractors. You’ve scored some great points. Well done, let’s see what happens.

I agree. However, I don’t understand how the voice is meant to achieve this – unless we build primary schools, high schools, universities, tafe’s and hospitals in every small rural community there is simply no way for the gap to be closed. Even if we did that, there’s bugger all jobs in these communities so where do these new-grads go? To the city? Isn’t that just a new Stolen Generation by forcing the communities to leave their land? There are some things the government can do to reduce the gap (i.e. free laptops and satellite internet and teaching students over Zoom while they remain in the community, free mobile health clinics to rural communities, free scholarships, free travel to and from the nearest city for education, and subsidised costs to set up rural businesses such as no corporate tax, or subsidised wages) but there’s a reason the government hasn’t already committed to this 100%, it costs to much money and they would rather have a non-binding Voice for symbolism that they actually care but without having to invest the money that is really needed for substantial change.

What is the worst it brought out on the no side?
Is asking questions and being open bad now?
Or is the No side simply bad for oposing the ‘Voice’

Oh Lordy. Been reading up on Ibram X Kendi and Robin DiAngelo have we? If you agree you’re racist, proves you’re racist. If you disagree you’re racist, proves you’re racist. Kafka trap wins every time. Thankfully most people intuitively understand there’s more to how the world turns than the pious student union obsession with race.

No just over hearing the whinging and I want I want , in fact I think it is the yes side that are the racist’s

No, Bruce… calling people names is childish but I guess you had a poor primary education and did not get that message. I proudly voted NO because the whole thing was nonsense. One of the reasons given by YES was that a future government could revoke things if not in the Constitution or some twaddle. No, in Australia we elect our governments and they get the right to amend, revise and change as they see fit. As someone said once, elections have consequences.

A typical defence, anyone who dares to think outside of Labor ideals is branded sexist, misogynistic, racist, transphobic etc.. It’s ok to have differing views and these should be respected. Many that voted NO did so simply as there were not enough details on what they were being asked to support.
Are the vast number of Aboriginal people that voted NO also racist?