the phantom menace
Coach
- Messages
- 11,811
*LNP
I believe Labor had a higher first preference vote than Liberals (without Nationals)?
Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
*LNP
So... in skimming that it seems quite supportive of the Voice?
OPINION: What is the real question at the heart of the Voice referendum?
These national opinion polls inspire nerves and anxiety because it forces the country take an honest look at itself, writes Ian Hamm.www.sbs.com.au
There's differing positions in our community, and across the country, on what the Voice referendum is truly about.
To get a better idea, let's first discuss what it's not about.
It's not about sovereignty (or ceding it). Nor is it about Bla(c)k advocacy.
It's not about extra chambers of parliament, who MPs represent or endless High Court litigation.
It's not about costs, the finer points of the constitution and it's definitely not about endless rice pudding.
It relates to some of these matters, but none of them are what the referendum is truly about.
Who are we?
I'll speak simply, because I'm a simple bloke. I think most Australians are, even though we like to project that we are a sophisticated and worldly bunch. We like things simply put; it clears the BS.
Firstly, what is a referendum?
There's plenty of technical details that I’ll let the experts and constitutional lawyers explain. But in the Australian context, a referendum is a rare and uncomfortable moment.
Why? Because it’s a moment that makes us ask 'Who are we really? What do we really stand for?'
It makes us nervous because, deep down, we know these real underlying questions of referenda are not something we can hide or run away from.
Nowhere to hide
Case in point – the 1967 referendum. An obvious example, but it’s probably the best example of a us being posed a real underlying question about who we are.
On the surface, two questions were posed: whether Aborigines should be counted in the reckoning of the population (the census); and whether the Commonwealth should be able to make laws in relation to Aborigines.
But these weren’t the real questions that Australia had to confront.
Given the well-known and appalling history of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal relations, Australia had to ask itself the real questions: Do Aboriginal people belong in this country? Do they have a place in the future of this nation?
No qualifiers, no detail, no ‘what if’ implications of what might occur. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.
Only Yes or No.
And Australia said Yes.
The real question
What does this mean for the referendum of 2023?
It means looking beyond all the noise, the leaders, the lawyers, the experts and the commentators and getting to what the ordinary punter wants to know: what is this really about? What is the real underlying question?
Again, we know the surface questions being asked: whether there should be an Aboriginal voice that will advise parliament and government, the details of which parliament will work out.
But the real questions are these: should Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be able to speak about the things that affect them? Or should we maintain the silence of the blacks?
Tough, uncomfortable, confronting stuff: nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.
Australia, our nation, our country, and each of us as voters, stand naked in front of the mirror of truth, forced to look at our reflection. Some are trying hide under the deceptive cloak of ‘more detail’, or fog it up with the hot breath of litigation, or blind its gaze by throwing a blanket of ‘treaty or nothing’ over it.
But in the end there's just a single question burning in our national and individual souls.
Should Indigenous people be able to speak: yes or no?
Why a Voice at all?
Most Australians know of the appalling life measures for Aboriginal people: shorter lives, poorer health, greater poverty, inequality before the law.
But many Australians don't understand why it is so.
One of the main reasons is that parliaments, governments, ministers and bureaucracies can sometimes make really rubbish decisions, and they do so without taking the time to talk with us. They make decisions about us, without bothering to talk to us.
Would any other part of Australian society tolerate this? Probably (and hopefully) not. They would be outraged and demand the right to be heard.
And yet, this situation has continually occurred when it's Aboriginal people.
Imagine if they did talk with and listen to us though – we may find that government makes better decisions that contribute to improvements in our lives.
Giving voice to Aboriginal dreams
Our peak Aboriginal bodies (NACCHO, SNAICC, NAILS) are fantastic, but they don’t pick up issues or concerns beyond their remit – and nor should they. They have enough to do without also having to be representatives of broadly everything.
This is what the Voice is for: a mechanism to articulate the things that ordinary Aboriginal people want to talk about, beyond gaps and deficits.
It will allow us to talk about everything beautiful about being Aboriginal; what our hopes, dreams, and aspirations are; what we can contribute to the nation and most importantly, what parliament and government can do to support us make all these things a reality.
Who is she mate ? You're suggesting that she writes policy for WHO ?
Maine Physician Suspended for COVID Misinformation
Licensing agency says Meryl Nass must undergo neuropsych exam for her claims about COVID vaccinewww.medpagetoday.com
Group connected to RFK Jr. is bankrolling Maine doctor’s fight to get her license back
Meryl Nass is welcoming the publicity and even claims victory over turning her disciplinary hearings into a "spectacle."www.bangordailynews.com
Yes, I probably should have written Coalition, which encompasses them all.
Eventually....
So basically, this person was a speaker at an antivaxer conference? Am I wrong ? TBH there is a whole lot of open mouth gasping and not a whole lot of context of who she is and in what forum it was delivered.
The Nationals came out against the Voice before they even knew what the referendum question was
