Here's the article in question. page 3 Albany Advertiser 4th of August 2022.
The article headlines as a comment from Liberal MP for O'Connor Rick Wilson. To be fair the paper also sought comment from Albany Indigenous identity Lester Coyne. I thought that was more than appropriate considering you want as many sides as possible given space.
First up disclaimer, I have met Lester Coyne twice but I can't say I know him. I only have spoken to him twice and both times it was at polling booths during an election polling day. It was very cordial but far too brief, as I like to get indiginous knowledge & history whenever I can. I'm from much further north so the Menang people are well outside the sphere where I grew up. In any case, don't think I'm wrong in saying Lester is a thoroughly likeable bloke, seems a genuinely good bloke despite our differing political leanings. I'm from the conservative side & he's a Greens Party man (or was when we spoke) and I'd have to say he's probably the most reasonable Greens person you might come across. He talks his view & won't bulldust you. You cannot ask for anything better than that.
Lester being a good bloke is great, but like minded or differing we all need to challenge our own thinking.
Lester being a good bloke is great, but like minded or differing we all need to challenge our own thinking.
So on his comments in the article I do think he's messed it up a little.
First he wants more details, "What sort of voice, whose voice?"
The article then claimed Lester said he's worried people "will get too caught up in details as a way of delaying it".
I'll make a prediction, the referendum as it's currently framed will fail. I'm not even sure if it's being deliberately framed for failure or whether its purely incompetence by the Albanese Government. With the political lens applied with strong focus, there's an argument for saying the Labor Government could gain political capital if its passed or if it fails. Failing it can claim some are racist, uncaring & any other negative guilt terms & phrases. But their political win or loss aside, in the end Indigenous Australians will have been given the hope of a promised something & it will fail them. To an extent I think that will be the result if the currently framed referendum push actually passes. But as to whose voice & what sort of voice well that is actually known.
Lester wants detail then says he's worried detail might be used to delay it, whatever it actually is.
Then suggests we read the Final Report of the Referendum Council (*link below) which it sort of looks like he hasn't read it or he's forgotten what it says. Well I had read it. It says whose voice it is. Aboriginal & Torress Strait Islanders. It also says what sort of voice.
It appears to be non binding (at this stage) upon the Parliament. It will not interfere with "parliamentary supremacy" & would "enable the First Peoples of Australia to speak to Parliament and the nation about laws that concern them" We don't know what "concern them" actually means, whether its anything that interests a significant number of them, all of them, how they arrive at that point of concensus or if it's only matters that specifically impact Indigenous Communities. Its a little open ended. There's also the thought that if legislation if being formed at what point do the "People of the Voice" get involved. Once its drafted, once its tabled as a motion? If the people of the voice only get involved once it's tabled does it have to be shelved until they've had time to go through whatever consultation process they need to enact amongst First Peoples of Australia? I can see the time table of processing some Bills into an passed Act is going to blow out. Or is there an elite group of indigenous leaders elected by & acting on behalf of all Indigenous Peoples? I think this detail is very important & stunned it's missing. It might end up being a First Nations Parliament that influences what the actual Parliament passes. Or...? The scary part which I think will be a nail in the coffin is that the Voice, will have its structure & its functions determined by the Parliament through legislation...by the ruling party & subsequently it can be altered by the Parliament. That is THE most important detail of all details. The majority political party in Government will set the structure & function and any ruling Government afterwards could add, delete or alter it if they have the numbers. A CONSTITUTIONALLY ENSHRINED BODY REPRSENTING ONE RACE GROUP WILL HAVE ALL IT'S STRUCTURE & FUNCTION DETERMINED AFTER THE REFERNDUM AND A RULING PARTY CAN ALTER IN THE PARLIAMENT AS THEY SEE FIT. You hopefully see this. A Constitutional Side Step. An enshrined constitutional mechanism will need absolutely no referendum of all Australians to be changed. It will be a referendum on side stepping the constitution on constitutional amendments. Big no vote for me.
I'll make a prediction, the referendum as it's currently framed will fail. I'm not even sure if it's being deliberately framed for failure or whether its purely incompetence by the Albanese Government. With the political lens applied with strong focus, there's an argument for saying the Labor Government could gain political capital if its passed or if it fails. Failing it can claim some are racist, uncaring & any other negative guilt terms & phrases. But their political win or loss aside, in the end Indigenous Australians will have been given the hope of a promised something & it will fail them. To an extent I think that will be the result if the currently framed referendum push actually passes. But as to whose voice & what sort of voice well that is actually known.
Lester wants detail then says he's worried detail might be used to delay it, whatever it actually is.
Then suggests we read the Final Report of the Referendum Council (*link below) which it sort of looks like he hasn't read it or he's forgotten what it says. Well I had read it. It says whose voice it is. Aboriginal & Torress Strait Islanders. It also says what sort of voice.
It appears to be non binding (at this stage) upon the Parliament. It will not interfere with "parliamentary supremacy" & would "enable the First Peoples of Australia to speak to Parliament and the nation about laws that concern them" We don't know what "concern them" actually means, whether its anything that interests a significant number of them, all of them, how they arrive at that point of concensus or if it's only matters that specifically impact Indigenous Communities. Its a little open ended. There's also the thought that if legislation if being formed at what point do the "People of the Voice" get involved. Once its drafted, once its tabled as a motion? If the people of the voice only get involved once it's tabled does it have to be shelved until they've had time to go through whatever consultation process they need to enact amongst First Peoples of Australia? I can see the time table of processing some Bills into an passed Act is going to blow out. Or is there an elite group of indigenous leaders elected by & acting on behalf of all Indigenous Peoples? I think this detail is very important & stunned it's missing. It might end up being a First Nations Parliament that influences what the actual Parliament passes. Or...? The scary part which I think will be a nail in the coffin is that the Voice, will have its structure & its functions determined by the Parliament through legislation...by the ruling party & subsequently it can be altered by the Parliament. That is THE most important detail of all details. The majority political party in Government will set the structure & function and any ruling Government afterwards could add, delete or alter it if they have the numbers. A CONSTITUTIONALLY ENSHRINED BODY REPRSENTING ONE RACE GROUP WILL HAVE ALL IT'S STRUCTURE & FUNCTION DETERMINED AFTER THE REFERNDUM AND A RULING PARTY CAN ALTER IN THE PARLIAMENT AS THEY SEE FIT. You hopefully see this. A Constitutional Side Step. An enshrined constitutional mechanism will need absolutely no referendum of all Australians to be changed. It will be a referendum on side stepping the constitution on constitutional amendments. Big no vote for me.
Now add into this...the Uluru Statement website (** Link below) stated this...
So for some at least, maybe the Government maybe not, we don't know...the aim is 2 seperate sovereignties but one has its membership based purely on race, the other is based on Australian citizenship regardless of race, creed, colour, religion, location within Australia etc. This is another big No Vote for me. It shamefully suggests values & identities are seperate & non compatible, both are protected & a Voice is given in policies and laws made by one sovereignty (Australian parliament). As well meaning as this may have been by some, I think it's aims are out of control & out of the realm of bringing unity & will could potentially slow down the passage of laws dramatically. Once a Voice on a Bill has been given, what then if it's ignored or deemed not of value to the greater good of the greater number of Australians? Or will the lesser group by virtue of their race have a binding veto type say? All this lack of detail is counter productive & I think it will lead the referendum to an assured failure. Maybe then there will be detail. Referendums are extremely difficult to get passed. To quote the Parliamentary Education Office "Since 1901 there have been 19 referendums, proposing 44 changes to the Constitution; only 8 changes have been agreed to"
44 changes, 8 approved by the Austrlian people. That 18% success rate is unlikely to improve with this detail barren plebiscite. Those that have passed were to approve the changes that would Parliament enact...all detailed in advance. It was not a blank chequed signed off.
Put it this way, when you apply for job would you be fine with all the terms & conditions not being outlined in the Job Advertisement nor at the interview? Would you be fine with agreeing to any & all employment details like salary, duties, hours worked per week ALL being sorted out AFTER you signed on as an employee?
If this referendum passes it'll be an absolute surprise to right thinking people. To some its as if its been wilfully designed to fail, or its one of the biggest ill concieved dumpster fires in recent living memory.
As for whose Voice, it is going to raise the question who is a first nations person now & in the decades abd centuries to come. That is going to upset people greatly but there's already wide division just amongst Indigenous people over the suggested non Indigenous person Mr Pascoe & his claims regarding his own tribal membership (I'm told its changed several times). Plus questions about the accuracy of his version of Indigenous History.
This is the real problem, when power, control & influence is based on race, amongst only one race it's then claimed their ruling elite benefit greatly & the monetary or decision making trickle down is barely a trickle.
I think even if passed in whatever form, its not going to bring any benefits to people in remote communities or other semi remote regions.
I think it's going to go down as "The Big Fat Lie" that let all of Australia down.
With all that, we haven't touched the Bureacracy that The Voice will need, infrastructure, communications with all Indigneous people, staffing, voting & financial auditing...
* https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/final-report.html#toc-anchor-conclusion
** https://ulurustatement.org/
No comments:
Post a Comment