Like this:
And this:
Update: Noel Pearson being ponderous and self important and unhelpful to his own cause -
Noel Pearson says he will walk away from advocating for a “middle path” of compromise if the voice to parliament referendum fails, claiming reconciliation would not be viable in the event of a no vote.
The longtime Indigenous activist and respected community leader says he would instead allow a new generation of Indigenous leaders to chart a different path forward.Pearson said he fears “for the future of my people” if the referendum is defeated on Saturday, making a late plea for voters to vote yes in recognition of Australia’s history and avoid a failure he says would be “ugly as sin”.
“We’re reduced to being told by the no campaign ‘leave it to the politicians’,” Pearson told Guardian Australia. “My pitch to the Australian people, is, ‘Guys, you know that will not work. You know that relying on politicians will not work. It hasn’t worked in the past and won’t work in the future.’”
17 comments:
Ray Martin made a great point. if you don't know then why in the hell have you not tried to find out what you do not know.
I agree if No wins it is a victory for ignorance
So, Homer, you can answer the questions I posed last week, can you?
Is it going to be a 24 member organisation? How much support staff will they have? How much will members be paid? How much travel will it do?
Is it really a good idea to have an organisation that the government could deal with by reducing its membership to 1, or 3, with support staff of 6, as a way of kneecapping it?
The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me for the government to have legislated it, with two referenda to follow (at the next two elections):
a. constitutional recognition of aboriginal as the original occupants; and
b. that the Voice, which has already been established (and running smoothly) be enshrined in the state it is then in.
all irrelevant until the vote mate.
you do not introduce legislation until the vote is in and any future Government can change it.
I am in the unusual position of disagreeing with probably 70% of the No campaign's reasons, and agreeing that the worst people (including, but limited to, outright racists and political grifters) are on that side.
But I still think that there is a pragmatic and reasonable position that can put you in the "No" column.
Both sides have engaged in disingenuous arguments - and if you want "Yes" to get up, leaving uncertainties is a very risky proposition.
BTW, I am very surprised to learn of the cost of the referendum itself. The ABC New site says this:
How much would the Voice cost to operate?
As details of how the Voice would operate have not been legislated, it is unclear how much the Voice itself would cost.
How much is the campaign costing taxpayers?
The AEC has estimated the cost of the referendum will be about $450 million, where the federal government had supplied $364 million in the most recent budget to deliver the referendum.
As for the ongoing costs of a Voice, that will be determined by the final shape of the body and its requirements if the referendum is passed.
democracy costs who knew.
I disagree with introducing any legislation before a referendum. All that would occur is that no people would then besiege people with alleged problems of the detail.
I never thought the referendum would get up even with bi-partisan support.
The three extracts are thinly concealed denunciations of anyone who votes No. I expected better from Yes advocates, that perhaps instead of doing a hissy fit they would contemplate the mistakes made in the Yes campaign and instead of going full contempt mode on the country proffer alternative approaches to addressing indigenous disadvantage. At no point in the campaign have the Yes advocates articulated how the Voice will help address these problems. The Voice was always a political idea but never had any practical strategies behind it.
I didn't realise that Michael Mansell, Warren Mundine, and Jacinta Price are hard-right racist ratbags. I suppose now they will be referred to as coconuts.
How about a Voice for the disabled?
......................... veterans?
......................... The homeless?
Why do indigenous people specifically need this recognition?
"I didn't realise that Michael Mansell, Warren Mundine, and Jacinta Price are hard-right racist ratbags. I suppose now they will be referred to as coconuts. "
I found a post from three or four years ago with Mundine being referred to as an Uncle Tom. This stuff is out there, has been out there for a long time - it's that strain of progressive leftist racism that is not often acknowledged.
I agree that there is a lot of hyperventilation and hyperbole going around. I suspect it is best for those on the sensible No side to counteract it now, because in the event of a big 'Yes' loss, the pain and the temptation to find excuses will be too great.
the disabled, veterans or homeless do not live in outback towns. The are not overrepresented in deaths, lack of schooling or in gaols for example.
I cannot believe I even have to say this.
The disabled have higher suicide rates and autists in particular face special education challenges. The homeless have much higher rates of mental illness. As one expert said, if you weren't mentally ill before becoming homeless you soon will after becoming homeess. The homeless are much worse off than those in remote communities because at least in a remote community there is familial and government support. The veterans and unemployed have much higher suicide and mental illness rates than the general population. All of them have much poorer access to services in regional towns and even in cities do not receive the necessary support. I cannot believe you don't know this.
Poeple with learning difficulties are over representeed in the prison population.
Learning disabilities are prevalent among prisoners. The statistics show that:
Up to 7% of adult prisoners have an IQ under 70, and another 25% have an IQ under 80.
60% of prisoners have problems with communication1.
20% of the prison population have some form of learning disability2.
Half of the prison population have literacy difficulties2.
I go so far as to agree with the Yes case that there should be recognition of Indigenous people in the constitution. If I recall correctly, Howard's proposed preamble to the constitution - though using embarrassing language about mate ship, etc - would have done this in a way that is ultimately less controversial. Unfortunately, the proposed Voice proposes to do this in a way that is confusing and dysfunctional.
Tim: I agree that if the question of indigenous recognition had been on a referendum run at an election, it would romp in. No one is really opposed to that. The only issue would be if it was a separate referendum, people would question the cost.
deaths not suicides. That is something completely different. It is only aboriginals that live in towns in the outback. You cannot ask people to advise on policies when they live all over the place. The recent royal commision thought of an inclusive community so they would be treated if needed with everyone else.
The disabled , former veterans etc have as much or less support as anyone else
I think you might find autistic people are over represented in higher IQ scales not that it means much.
The Voice would be a paper tiger. It has nothing to offer. Remote communities are a dumb idea.
I know you agree with Steve on that. The connection of Aboriginal people to land is admirable - 20,000 years, or 40,000 years, or 60,000 years, whatever their tenure is - that's pretty amazing. I can see why they want to keep it going.
But remote communities, and the Aboriginal corporations that were set up under Keating that form part of these remote communities, do make for a wicked problem. Eager to maintain their hold over the land, they often work to keep strangers out - bar welfare. Because there wasn't really anything like modern capitalism in the traditional tribal way of life, there is no real recognition of individual enterprise or individual land ownership, so the corporations effectively control that as well. With only meagre welfare coming in, and few jobs going round, the corporations must often fall back on giving jobs to their buddies, or nepotism.
Warren Mundine has a very good point when he says 'economic participation' is the way forward for Aboriginal tribes, not bureaucracy. Insofar as the Voice represents an entrenchment of the Aboriginal corporations in government, it ought to be utterly rejected. It's certainly hard to see how it could do anything positive about these problems.
I know you agree with Steve on that. The connection of Aboriginal people to land is admirable - 20,000 years, or 40,000 years, or 60,000 years, whatever their tenure is - that's pretty amazing. I can see why they want to keep it going.
There is an interesting genetic study which addresses that connection. It found that after settling through most of Australia a genetic isolation occurred so that various tribes had a specific genetic signature which points to very long occupation in the same region. It was an mtDNA study, mitochondria DNA is only transmitted through females. I found it puzzling because in various cultures women are exchanged between groups. So it appears that in Australia that was very limited.
I appreciate that the loss of the remote communities results in loss of ongoing occupation and hence the legal right to the land claim. I don't see a problem because the land rights could be granted in perpetuity through a change of legislation.
BTW most genetic studies point to ~50,000 years but for myself it is a moot point. Despite what some argue, there has been a very long occupation by the original migration group.
People can change, can move beyond their traditions and adopt a new way of life. A great many indigenous people have already done that. Most activists, while demanding the preservation of the traditional way of life, live as most Aussies do. It is a strange paradox for them to insist on that preservation while not living up to that ideal.
On remote communities: I was just looking around at information on the high aboriginal suicide rate, particularly for the young. (There was a story about it in the Kimberley yesterday, on the ABC.) It barely takes a few minutes to Google up material that shows just what you would expect - all over Australia, the suicide rates are much higher in remote areas.
Manly aboriginal activists complain that this is a failure of the provision of mental health services.
No one, it seems, is brave enough to say that, you know, maybe kids get depressed because they are being raised in a remote area? And that mental health services are just a band aid for that inherent problem?
I mean, this isn't unique to indigenous peoples, either. There's been plenty of talk of the much higher suicide rate in rural America compared to the cities.
I'm sure there would be examples of indigenous remote communities around the world which do have good mental health and suicide figures. But I wouldn't mind betting that it would be ones where they have an environment where they can largely be self sufficient and have purpose and structure in their lives towards that, as well as a strong culture.
The continual reference to suicide rates is another example where I insist without investigating possible causal mechanisms the statistic is of little value. Regional communities are socially more isolated. When people become depressed they tend to isolate which exacerbates that issue. Access to mental health services is very limited, another factor driving suicide rates.
I don't know why the indigenous suicide rate is so high. I would appreciate that the next time someone in the media raises this issue there was more discrete analysis based on research not political motivations.
BTW there are now 2 studies arguing that exercise is a better remedy for depression than drugs. I can track that down to a specific growth factor that is strongly implicated in depression and is increased in exercise and some antidepressants. The most recent study though has a confounder because the depressed patients engaged in group running, so I'm wondering how much the socialisation component had a benefit.
Psychotherapists might think about instead of sitting down for a chat with their client they should leave the office, don some running gear, and do that instead.
Post a Comment