Voices beyond Yes and No

Celeste
you have gone to some trouble to promote a point of view. Sadly the proposed amendment to the constitution is poorly constructed and most inappropriate to include in our document. Section 51 (26) already gives Parliament powers to make whatever laws are necessary to remedy any past wrongs.

Thank you, Celeste, for a most sensible and noninflammatory article on what has become an incredibly bitter and contentious issue. Sadly, I think there is a real chance we may stuff it up well and truly, which will set us all collectively back. As a non-First Nations person who has worked with ATSI people in four different states, I know the dreadful disadvantages suffered by many of them. I think many commentators - often nonindigenous ones of the overintellectualizing variety - draw obscure parallels and tend to moralize. This is neither the time nor the place for either. I find Frank Brennan one of the sanest and most insightful commentators on the subject. I hope, by the time to vote comes, things are a little clearer.

Wise words, Celeste, that move thinking and discussion beyond the unhelpful sterotypes of "progressive" and "conservative" that all too often also stymie social political and theological discussion.

Good to hear again from Celeste. The phrase: ‘don’t throw out the good for the perfect’ or something like that, kept coming to mind as I read the article. It is a political decision in the end.

Thank you Celeste for your thoughtful article about the referendum on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
You have certainly identified some of the reasons why Australians – indigenous and non-indigenous – are divided on this issue.
It is correct that the Voice will not solve all the problems facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people because governments will not have to adopt the advice of the Voice if they disagree with the recommendations it puts forward. This will be especially true when governments allow fossil fuel miners and frackers move into the land of indigenous communities.
As a non-indigenous Australian who is trying to support the rights of indigenous people, I have decided after reading and listening to the thoughts of both sides of the public debate that will vote YES.
On 1 May this year, I attended the Adelaide May Day Dinner and was honoured to hear Thomas Mayor speak. Thomas is a Torres Strait Islander man born on Larrakia country in Darwin who is the assistant secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) in the NT.
Thomas was involved in the move to formulate the Uluru Statement of the Heart and was given the task of taking the Statement along with the art work that was produced at its inception to speak with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities around Australia.
Thomas has also written a book about his experiences: "Finding the Heart of the Nation -The journey of the Uluru Statement from the Heart continues" It has to be said that he is a powerful and a persuasive speaker and writer. And I would recommend to anybody who is in any doubt about the Indigenous Voice to Parliament to read his book.
It is not surprising to me that Tony Abbott is opposed to the Voice. He was very close to John Howard politically and Howard abolished the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Council (ATSIC) which existed between 1990 - 2005 and acted like something of a voice during those years. John Howard was also opposed to truth telling in relation to the genocide that occurred during the early years of British occupation of this country. He referred to it as the "Black Armband of History" which was a refusal to acknowledge this shameful history. Could it be referred to as the "White Muzzle of History" or as Professor Henty Reynolds has said “the White Blindfold of History”?
New Zealand has the Treaty of Waitangi which was signed by representatives of the British Crown and the Maori chiefs in 1840 and it is acknowledged in its Constitution
This country has had 65,000 years of Aboriginal occupation and British settlement has only been here for 235 years. Surely it is time for the Indigenous Voice, a Treaty & Truth telling. New Zealanders do not see their Treaty as divisive or driving a wedge between people. Neither should we.
Overall, I think it should be a step forward in improving the rights of indigenous people, but environmentalists and those working in solidarity with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will need to stand up and be counted when governments do not listen to the Voice in the future on environmental and cultural issues.

Great work Celeste! Getting people thinking about what the Referendum is about. I'm looking at the arguments from both sides. Definitely leaning toward yes.
I prefer the ask from Uluru Statement. Not something imposed upon the mob. Adding additional voices who consider themselves custodians of the country compared to 1500 lobbyists running around Canberra might bring some common sense.
If the discussion can bring people together, to walk together on our journey forward then Australia has a bright future.

I watched Living Black. I am concerned about Thorpe's anger and rejection of a Yes vote because it does not give indigenous power. How will a No vote give first-nations peoples power?

She is right to be angry but how do you move forward. Calls for sovereignty will be heard as a call for power over non-aboriginal people. Do you really think that will fly?

We all want our voices to be heard. I accept first nations people were invaded and robed of their land and lifestyle, that was illegal and immoral. I think people are ready to hear the truth and pain of that. Every group wants their pain to be recognized. I can't see the language of power leading anywhere but a return to violence.
But dignity, recognition yes: these can be demanded and since we all want them, support will be widespread.

I don't think whites can give dignity to blacks but we can listen and accept that they will no longer will accept being victims in their own land. We can't do much with complaints we can't fix, we can't undo what's been done but we want to hear what you want for yourself now.

A very insightful article, Celeste. I do, however, believe that a successful Yes vote would result from an outpouring of support by a majority of Australians for our First Nations people. A failed referendum would be demoralising and a setback to reconciliation, truth-telling and treaty.

Normally, being a centre-left, progressive person I would expect to be on the Yes side of this issue, but after a lot of reading, I find I'm not.

The Yes argument is that Aboriginal people haven't been heard, that white people haven't been listening. I know this is false because for a generation at least governments have bent over backwards to consult Aboriginal people, and have funded many avenues for Aboriginal voices to be heard. You can Google up some of these existing organisations such as the National Indigenous Australians Agency, and The Council of Peaks.

I suppose what Aboriginals mean, when they say they haven't been heard, is that they didn't get what they want. That's a different thing and won't be changed by a new version of The Voice. I have concluded that The Voice proposal is not so much about the mechanism of a voice, but to get into the Constitution the principle that Aboriginal people are different to everybody else, and that entitles them to different treatment. I can understand Aborigines wanting that, but I see it as not a way forward for a multicultural country - too divisive.

When the Uluru statement came out I read it carefully and had questions, so I sought out more info and read some long articles by Megan Davis and others. I disagree with most of their arguments. My idea of sovereignty is that you only have it for as long as you can defend it. Ask the Ukranians, the Palestinians and Kurds, the Rohingga etc. etc. - it's the story of history and every group has gained and lost it. I don't see a future of separateness for Aborigines. Whenever Albanese announces something on this issue he is surrounded by a very successful people who all identify as Aborigines - all of them are mixed race - and that suggests to me that the best future for Aboriginal people will be integration with the wider community, bringing, hopefully, the best of Aboriginal culture with them.

It seems that no matter what we do in this country we always cause conflict and confusion. Time to abolish the confrontational combative nature of government and replace it with cooperative government, perhaps

In general I relate positively to what Russel Hamilton offers. I ponder his comment, “I suppose what Aboriginals (sic) mean, when they say they haven't been heard, is that they didn't get what they want.” We all do well to give thought to the difference between what history has delivered to us and where we go from here. I believe the best we can achieve in our ever diversifying cultural experiences will flow from small groups which seek mutual understanding and which from there will espouse democratic processes that will help us keep our balance as our bumpy ecological journey continues.

You don’t sound like a leftie to me Russell, and I’ve know plenty. But, be that as it may I wish to correct some core incorrectness in your thinking. Your “you only have what you can defend” and its cousin “might is right”, “power comes down the barrel of a gun”, “just war”, “the armed struggle” are contextual. They are tragedies which apply in tragic circumstances where humanity descends into a primal abyss. Like the examples you give. That’s not where Australia is at, and hopefully never will be.

Over the last four decades the Women’s, Gay Rights and Environment movements have used the democratic processes to bring about change by peaceful means. And they have. First Nations People have done likewise.

With voting I streamed line. I’m doing what Pat Dobson has told us to do. Although I’m a bit younger, we are both male and both catholic. That means we have a lot in common. But our history is different. Pat has been here 60,000 longer. Shouldn’t the Constitution acknowledging that? Just for the sake of respect?

Have you considered how, increasingly, plutocratic interests that capture media, educational and legal systems come to pose real threats to society's "democratic processes", Fosco?

It's important to look at the bigger picture. We need to understand why the constitution was written to exclude Indigenous peoples in the first place. Is the answer really our inclusion or to come to the table as equals to negotiate a treaty that could ensure a better way forward?

Apologies for submitting so late. Two quick points:
1. I have just returned from East Timor where I was reminded that the 1999 referendum offered the Timorese yes or no on their future. 78% voted yes. Apart from sketchy ideas on how the future would look, they focussed on the principle and left the detail till later. As their twelfth national elections on 21 May showed, that has worked.
2. I would hope that, besides pressing social justice issues, the Voice will also serve to enlighten ordinary white Aussies like me on core Indigenous beliefs such as First Peoples' unique connection to nature. As the Uluru Statement says: sovereignty is 'a spiritual notion' born of the land (in all its parts). Surely this is an essential, if not existentially, important teaching; a corrective to outright exploitation that will benefit all of us.

Thankyou Celeste for expressing your views on the upcoming referendum. As a balanda older woman, who lived in Darwin for 18 years, I too was troubled & undecided, until it appeared (to me) that voting no would be even worse. I wrote to a locally well known (indigenous) woman also from the Alice Springs area seeking the information that you have provided. For you as an Indigenous Australian that does have an individual voice, I empathise with your "exhaustion". Thankyou for your views.